Perhaps we just didn’t care enough/ value player enough to trade up with what was required
List managers/recruiters would have constant times where a player got picked off before your selection.
But there would be multiple options being looked at and probably not enough of a difference to worry about at the late picks and burning future picks to get it done
See my last post.
Port ended up trading something like pick 16, Ladhams and a future second for Sinn and chances are we werent going to pick Sinn anyway.
It was Pick 14 and a second rounder. So they traded a second rounder to make sure they got the player they wanted. I think that’s smart list management. Easy in hindsight to say that it was a mistake, but why risk it? They potentially rated him top 7-8, so from a points value perspective they were still ahead.
I never said never, I was talking about this year.
They originally traded Ladhams and 16 for Sydneys pick 12 and a 3rd round pick, then 12 was pushed back to 14 by bids and they traded 14 and a future second for 12. So in total it was ladhams, 16 (18 after bids) and future second for Sinn and a 3rd rounder.
Doesn’t matter what it was originally, because they obviously felt that is what Ladhams is worth.
The soft cap governs club footy department spend, so yep the VFL falls under it. It was greatly reduced during covid meaning it’s presumably extremely tight for all clubs, and includes things like postgame food for staff and voly’s at VFL level as a practical example to the detail level it governs down to. It spans the programs rather than being separate for AFL and VFL, so a big chunk of spend at VFL level has an impact on the AFL program and vice versa.
The salary cap at VFL level is also tight at only $110k for AFL aligned clubs, though that governs player payments rather than footy department spend.
I appreciate the explanation.
I’m not going to pretend to understand it on a practical level, but I really do appreciate the effort.
Think Howes is one we were disappointed to miss too
They got ripped off twice.
When you get to the back end of the draft it would be easier to identify which clubs might be interested. It would be as simple as chatting to the player & chatting to the managers as to which players had been interviewed & how many times.
That would give you the shortlist to potential clubs to likely steal your player. If none are above you in the order you would be less likely to pay more to move up the list. It’s sounds like we might have wanted both Jones & Draper, but unfortunately other clubs were too worried about their picks not being there to swap with us. Obviously clubs interested in either of those players would have been a hard no.
The best clubs for trading are those with different needs or often surprise with unknown players, Geelong & Sydney spring to mind as they are less likely to have their priority picks taken and would be more willing to move back in a draft.
Clubs with similar taste in players will be much harder to trade with.
The key point being if. Just because we wanted one of these players to reach us doesn’t mean we rated them worthy of two thirds.
I will again repeat for your benefit. I am responding to the post that suggested that we were seething. I agree that if we didn’t really care then so be it, but if we really really wanted Draper, then we should have been more proactive.
And I’m saying the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be seething and disappointed, and still think you made the right call not to trade up.
Why else would you be seething that you didn’t get a player at pick 46?
The old “privately seething” line. Usually complete horseshit
So… fark Carlton aren’t “privately seething”?
No they think they are in the window and will be top 4. Too delusional to be seething