Why did Sinclair go Before Thomas?

[TradeDraft]

This was a Suprise when at 62 we did not take Thomas and took Sinclair and Risked losing Thomas.

I had 2 Reasons Why:

1: We rated Sinclair Higher then Thomas - Don't Know Why

2:We knew there where more Interest in Sinclair and Thomas would Fall to 75

Your Thoughts?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The two reasons you've stated are the only two possible reasons I could envisage. Which is correct; well that's a mystery.

 

[HFF]

It does not matter.

We still got JT.

Brisbane board not happy with us poaching the local talent, particularly TBD.

 

[knightwheelrqr]

As I have been quoted saying:

"Sinclair appears to have been our selection at 62 because he offers someone different to Ball, but he is someone who could very much compliment and work well with Ball which I believe to be the reason for this selection. He displays similar hardness at the ball and has great explosiveness. Although he will take some time to develop, he might well become a handy player. As to why he was taken before Thomas, personally I would have taken Thomas first, but because Thomas is another inside mid the club took the calculated risk of hoping he will fall to 75, and at 62 take someone who offers something different, but complimentary to Ball in the speedy mid Sinclair."

"The other clubs interested in Thomas included: Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Brisbane. North Melbourne after already having plenty of inside mids as well as Bastinac at 21 decided there was no need for another, with no picks between 62 and 75 they didn't matter anymore, Josh Thomas was safe from them. Hawthorn had what I would consider a very questionable draft, they did themselves no favours even when it was handed to them and really missed out on plenty of players who would have been able to contribute straight away, it was believed that Hawthorn would take Wanganeen late which might be why Collingwood didn't expect Hawthorn to pick him with their selection between 62 and 75. As from Brisbane it was also believed they would look to Sam Power with their selection before 75. Which is apparently why Hine decided to go with someone else who he wasn't certain would be available that he also liked (in Sinclair)."

 

[Heater39]

Fascinating thread.

 

[unplugged]

Because he's fast like he's zooming on a Yamaha. That's why.

 

[danielnajdek]

just a question when do these boys start training? Is it when the other boys come back from Arizona or do they train with the boys who didn't go over. I wonder what numbers they'll get.Thomas #18 and Sinclair #28? what do you guys think.

 

[alfiiee]

I'd rather Ball get 18 - these numbers seems to low for first year players.. They usually get higher numbers..

 

[danielnajdek]

true but sidebottom got #22,beams got #17 and blight got #27 last year.

 

[alfiiee]

Fair call - but i dare say that these kids are no Beams and Sidebottom's..

12 now needs to be used as well but we have had terrible history with that number so here's hoping Ball gets 18!

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

true but sidebottom got #22,beams got #17 and blight got #27 last year.

Yeah, but they're guns.

I reckon it was your second reason, must've just been confident that Thomas would fall that far.

 

[danielnajdek]

Fair call - but i dare say that these kids are no Beams and Sidebottom's..

12 now needs to be used as well but we have had terrible history with that number so here's hoping Ball gets 18!

yeah I know they aint no sidey or Beamer. Just pointing out that we're not scared in giving new draftees low numbers.maybe give rounds 12 and sinlair 37 then ball 18 and Thomas 28.

 

[danielnajdek]

Yeah, but they're guns.

I reckon it was your second reason, must've just been confident that Thomas would fall that far.

every new pies draftees are guns

 

[alfiiee]

That would probably work..
I was thinking about it, there are no current good players that really need to move to a lower number.. Barham i think has a connection with his fathers number, same with Trav even though david was 33.. Heater but i think they have already made those numbers their's. It would be stupid to change now.

Can somebody shed some light on Rounds.. Is he a mid? Tough? Quick? Skillful?

 

[donnie5]

i think we made the assumption that Thomas would still be there at #75 and Sinclair wouldnt be. I think that our preferred choice was Thomas but we also had an interest in Sinclair. We clearly made the right call in the end. Job well done Hine and co.

 

[donnie5]

12 now needs to be used as well but we have had terrible history with that number so here's hoping Ball gets 18!

I want Ball to get 14 and Corrie can go to 12 and when he gets delisted then give it to a youngster who is on the rise like maybe Rounds. I think Jolly should get 18. 23 should remain vacant until someone establishes themselves, fingers crossed its Dawes.

EDIT: BTW im getting Luke Balls number on my top next season, due to the fact that when i was younger he and a couple of other opposition players were my favorite players outside of Collingwood.

 

[The Average Tourist]

I want Ball to get 14 and Corrie can go to 12 and when he gets delisted then give it to a youngster who is on the rise like maybe Rounds. I think Jolly should get 18. 23 should remain vacant until someone establishes themselves, fingers crossed its Dawes.

EDIT: BTW im getting Luke Balls number on my top next season, due to the fact that when i was younger he and a couple of other opposition players were my favorite players outside of Collingwood.

Interesting with the vacant numbers 12 , 18, 23, 28 I cant rember Chis Bryan's number 40 something has to be given to the Yank

But the only real movers in numbers are probably Tooves and Dick but they might like 33 & 34.

I am a Dawes Fan but I prefer him to keep 31.

Maybe the big 23 can not be used this year.

As for Corrie wearing number 14 and swapping it to Ball give him 18 and Jolly 12 maybe move Rounds or Reid to 28

 

[shawthing09]

Yep the most obvious answer is that we wanted Sinclair more. I am not sure we knew Thomas would still be around.

You say "I don't know why?" we'd want Sinclair more but I think it's fair to assume that 1. They think there is more upside in Sinclair and / or 2. He is seen to be a better fit then Thomas.

 

[tranquilli lace]

Interesting with the vacant numbers 12 , 18, 23, 28 I cant rember Chis Bryan's number 40 something has to be given to the Yank

The big Yank wants to wear number 50 - because of the 50 states of America, heard him mention it on an interview on the website.

 

[WinOrLoseILoveEm]

This was a Suprise when at 62 we did not take Thomas and took Sinclair and Risked losing Thomas.

I had 2 Reasons Why:

1: We rated Sinclair Higher then Thomas - Don't Know Why

2:We knew there where more Interest in Sinclair and Thomas would Fall to 75

Your Thoughts?

Sinclair seems to have more of upside if the glowing bio is any indicator.
Couple of seasons and he may be challenging for a spot in the midfield depending on injuries.. Many a slip betwee the cup and the lip. He is small but he sounds a gutsy little bloke. Both sound impressive. The Qld connection will be good for Dayne ( their friends?)

Carlton says you can never get enough good midfielders. Our midfield has had varied success against the top sides. StKilda, Geelong and the Bulldogs seemed to have it over us for the most part in 2009.

I hope Ball has the impact we all hope for in the midfield this year.

Hope we see Josh Thomas for a stint in the seniors this year.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Carlton says you can never get enough good midfielders.

Since when is Carlton the template for anything regarding recruiting? If Wayne Hughes doesn't have pick #1 to work, with the guy chokes and goes with whatever he can find in Dave's mock drafts.

While it's true you can never get enough good midfielders, it's just as true for any other position on the ground, and by picking only mids you guarantee yourself deficiencies in other areas.

Where we've gone the "uzi" approach with mids recently, we're only in a position to do so because we have some very strong candidates for our spine and our ruck going forward already.

 

[King Woodie]

Since when is Carlton the template for anything regarding recruiting? If Wayne Hughes doesn't have pick #1 to work, with the guy chokes and goes with whatever he can find in Dave's mock drafts.

While it's true you can never get enough good midfielders, it's just as true for any other position on the ground, and by picking only mids you guarantee yourself deficiencies in other areas.

Where we've gone the "uzi" approach with mids recently, we're only in a position to do so because we have some very strong candidates for our spine and our ruck going forward already.

And let's not forget, we used two of our first round picks in the last three years on rucks, so we had better hope that they are sorted for the next 10 years, along with a legacy ruckman (Fraser), three project rucks (Keeffe, McNamara, and Witts), and a reasonable back-up (L Brown). If we even blink twice at a ruckman in future drafts / trading periods, I will cry.

 

[Quicky]

And let's not forget, we used two of our first round picks in the last three years on rucks, so we had better hope that they are sorted for the next 10 years, along with a legacy ruckman (Fraser), three project rucks (Keeffe, McNamara, and Witts), and a reasonable back-up (L Brown). If we even blink twice at a ruckman in future drafts / trading periods, I will cry.

Unless we think they have Tippett/Clark like potential for the forward line.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I've been hearing that we did have a bit of a read on what the other clubs were thinking, and judged that while Thomas would probably last until #75, Sinclair wouldn't. So it remains uncertain who the club actually rated higher. Not that that's terribly important now anyway.