The rule is pretty much the same as it was previously and the same as what Sydney were dealing with when a bid at 2 for Braeden Campbell would have meant Sydney didn’t get Logan MacDonald and might have been scouring for points for Gulden.
Depending what else we had done in trades if we didn’t trade 9, then “wiping us out” probably wouldn’t have cost us anything more anyway, we’d have got Kako and then had a pick somewhere in the 50 range.
What we did was good because we get to death ride Melbourne, not to avoid the possible bid that may or may not have come. It was risk management, which was good. And there is some percentage chance a bid would have come. As there was a percentage chance a bid wouldn’t have come.
The “yeah we would have bid” comments from rival list managers makes great copy, but they only had a chance to consider it over a month ago, and have spent no serious time planning it since then, so the comments mean nothing given they had no idea who was getting to their picks a month ago
I am with you that it was a good decision, but there was zero risk we had to burn pick 9. So many clubs would have offered us big deals for pick 9 the moment Kako got his on.
The risk was we didn’t get a deal as good as the Dee’s offer
North traded a possible ( likely) top 5 pick for two 2nd round picks and yet we’re the story for trading pick 9 for a likely pick 9 and a swag of 2nd/3rd rounds ??? Done entirely due to circumstances around academy bidding and the residue impact of last year’s trades!?
FFS. If nothing else, this club remains a cashcow for those addicted to clickbait revenue.
Yep, and everybody forgetting after pick 9 we had jack, so we would have taken 9, 13 and gone into deficit next year for our first.
Every year Dodoro was the media darling, smashed draft and trade period headlines in abundance, yet our list sucked and we were continually chasing our tail on draft capital since he was allowed to trade future picks and had a stupid philosophy that basically treated second rounders as throw away picks.
If the media are saying we blundered, on that alone you can be sure it’s massive win.
Maybe but when you get 8 first round picks including 4 in the top 5 or 6 across two drafts you will probably still be doing well if a couple of them don’t hit.
There was a Kako bid two picks after our original pick. Two. It’s not like the bid slid into the fcking 40’s, that would’ve been truly embarrassing. Even the day before the draft, Cal Twomeys mail was that St Kilda would bid with one of theirs. He very obviously was attracting interest around our pick level. So we killed the doubt by moving into 2025 , but still getting a handful of picks for this draft, which we didn’t previously have. You can argue the unknowables like "we should have waited until the night " - and maybe the offer would have been good - but keep in mind that under last night’s situation we’d have got a good kid at nine, but then had 31-ish and the Stringer pick to match a pick 13. If we’d live traded to find the points it would have come from future selections, so once again we’d kick a compromised draft hand down the road to be dealt with later. As we have played it, we’ve lost the kid at nine, but now have three decent picks in the 30’s-ish (which we didn’t have at all) , a very strategic hand in the 2025 first round and won’t enter next year’s trade period bereft of later picks. For a list that most think needs overhauling badly, that’s not in any way an incompatible result.
It’s fine to think we got it wrong. I understand the point. But it’s no more valid than to think we got it very right. Both are somewhat founded on guessing the future. Maybe next year has a very clear top 5 group and we have two picks from them? Maybe not. So much to play out.
I’m far far more interested in the three selections tonight than I am about Mick Abletts (or anyone elses) opinion. Reputedly a deep draft, and with a new recruitment regime. These picks will be the meaningful story imo. And it’s reasonably exciting to contemplate.
They’re all Victorians so that’s a good start. There’ll be no go home factor.
They will likely be getting more opportunities playing at the Tigers than if they were at any other club. And given their lack of senior players who would command big money at that point, they shouldn’t have any trouble compensating them well.
So as long as they foster a reasonable culture, which is certainly possible even if you’re not getting many wins if you get the group to buy into the fact they’re on a journey together and these guys become good mates coming through at the same time, then they will be fine.
Tbh after seeing who the dees selected in xavier lindsay with our previous pick (pick 9 which became 11), I’m actually happy we did the trade. He might be a good player for them who knows, but really they sold the farm to get him when you think about it.
Plus I think it was mentioned that some of them that were picked were already best mates with each other, which really matters when it comes to team building.