#15 - Dyson Sharp

[donsrule]

Had to zoom in to see that, great spotting and agree!

[Clone_Hirdy]

Surely they could have gone somewhere quieter for the interview. I can’t hear a thing they are saying.

[Clone_Hirdy]

@Boris_Bomber

Wait a minute, so Fark Carlton just gave us Sharp?

My hatred of Fark Carlton has subsided recently with Fark Hawthorn possibly ahead of them in the Fark rankings.

[Ants]

@Aceman

@Heppelltitis

I wanted Sharp, but I do wonder what Adelaide offered. Surely they were offering up the 1st + future 1st, which would have been a very very good alternative imo.

They wanted our future second.

Their first next year could be 14-18 and our future second could be in the early 20’s

So in effect the wanted us to trade 13 and say 22 next year for pick 19 and next years pick 14

Horrible trade and we effectively ended up with the best player of the champs costing us a couple of picks in the 20’s

No wonder we told them to get stuffed. That’s a pitiful offer.

[JJohnson]

Agreed. It’s almost hard to believe they’d even offer. As you say, I wouldn’t have taken their first (a 6? pick downgrade) and their F1 (Pick ~ 16-20 after bids?) for Sharp. And that’s not even because I rate him.

[JJohnson]

Even the 2 x 1sts for him, given we were clearly infatuated by him too, is unders. They should have been moving heaven and earth if they really wanted him.

[No31]

Give him No.7

[frosty]

I like the framing of “2 firsts" when one of those was a downgrade from the first they wanted us to give them. It was a late first for us to give up a bunch of guys we were interested in. And then they wanted more back. Just a ludicrously weak offer.

[JJohnson]

Sorry, I was making a different point. I wrote a post above the one you’re replying to where I said that same thing as you - that the media is framing it was “two firsts” when it was “one first with a pick swap”, the same as the Shiel trade (and Merrett trades) get overstated.

The point I was making in the post you replied to that even if it was two firsts it was a pretty weak offer IMO (given it was coming from a top 4 team).

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

I reckon on balance that straight out offer would’ve been fair. Maybe not convincing - but fair.

A few clubs traded down this year for similar sorts of gains next year.

[JJohnson]

I actually agree - until you adjusted for how much we were clearly jonesing for Sharp. They had something we really wanted and needed. If it were Taylor or some other player we were auctioning off, sure, it’s a decent deal.

[HobbsYourUncle]

Shyson Darp

[Clone_Hirdy]

@JJohnson

Even the 2 x 1sts for him, given we were clearly infatuated by him too, is unders. They should have been moving heaven and earth if they really wanted him.

Were we? If we were so infatuated, why did we risk him getting through the Melbourne picks?

[Clone_Hirdy]

@Ants

That’s a pitiful offer.

Not if they have a crap year and it ends up being pick 6 or 7 in a stronger draft.

[Aceman]

I love this whole stronger draft thing.

The SA guys involved over here are worried about the strength next year

[Clone_Hirdy]

Fair enough, I have no idea. I’ve just heard that it would be stronger. Maybe it’s just deeper.

[whereswalla]

I’d guess on balance of probabilities our team thought Farrow was a chance of getting picked up by Melbourne if we chose Sharp first and that leaving Taylor on the board would have enticed them to pick him leaving Sharp for us.

[Odoyle]

@Clone_Hirdy

why did we risk him getting through the Melbourne picks?

Why didn’t Melbourne pick Sharp?

[Clone_Hirdy]

I assume because they picked Harvey Langford last year.

[Odoyle]

Id say we knew they were not picking him, so letting Sharp get past them wasn’t that big a risk.

Farrow, however, they wanted. I don’t think us playing that out that impacts the fact we wanted Sharp a lot.