This allocating points has just become a nightmare for logic.
Teams are not going to swap picks simply because the points add up. It’s only important to father/son and academy picks.
And I’m sorry to say, Ants, I know you can handle numbers and spreadsheets, but I’ve read more crap this month about points values than anything else.
GWS have at least 4 academy picks this year, and GC have 2. Given the discussions about pick 1 have centred on those two clubs, surely that makes points values somewhat relevant?
We’re taking picks #1, #20 and #29 into the draft, and maybe #41.
If we’d done the Brisbane deal we could have been taking #3, #16, #20, #29 instead. If we don’t plan to take four picks and use #41, then that #29 could have been Melbourne’s 2017 second rounder instead.
So could have gone with #3, #16, #20, Stewart and start 2017 with an extra 2nd round pick to help with trades.
Sorry, but this was a missed opportunity.
Absolutely. I don’t have a specific idea on what deal should’ve been done, but there is no reason we shouldn’t have been shouting from the rooftops that pick 1 was n the market. What’s to lose? If a deal didn’t suit us then we still have Pick 1 regardless. The odds are now massively stacked against Dodoro in picking the best player in the draft.
Useless waste of an advantageous position. Kinda like how we play football
we might of been, there just might not of been anything really good being offered for it
You mean apart from the deal that WAS DONE for pick #2, that should have been perfectly acceptable for us?
I reckon with the trade period so much of what happens is to do with relationships.
Relationships between key personnel at clubs and relationships between the clubs and the AFL.
You can be rest assured the AFL was loitering around trying to get the best deals via their new company men (Fagan and Noble) and used GC to do it. Brisbane start their regeneration with a good hand.
The relationship between Bolton and Clarkson may have played a part in facilitating those rush of trades towards the end involving JOM, Marchbank etc.
The relationship between Prestia and Caddy played a massive role in convincing Caddy he wanted to move when the Cats were happy to keep him etc etc etc.
Umm, how is not having the relationships not a failure on our part? And personally I don’t buy into this whole AFL running everything idea.
Seems strange that GC end up with 4 picks inside the top 10 (with a bid for Bowes likely to occur before their first pick), and that we didn't make a play for two of them.
Not really. I posted many pages ago on what the outcomes would be of the Suns with/without trading if Bowes was picked on at #1, #2 or #3. Invariably they either broke even or had a better position if they didn't do the trade. And that was trading #4 and a later pick. Trading #4 and #8 would have been a bad move for them.
How do we know that any of these trades were available to US? For all we know, anybody suggesting trades may have wanted pick 1 and pick 20 for 5 4th round picks.
Just because you flogs were dreaming up all these point swaps doesn’t mean they were available to us.
In this case, it was the fact that GWS pretty much did the trade with Brisbane for #2.
I was pretty adamant all along I’d trade #1 for a top 4 pick and another first rounder (with steak knives). Well Brisbane traded #2 for #3 and #16 (with steak knives going to GWS). So we know the trade was almost certainly possible, since its hard to see #1 not trumping #2. So in THIS CASE, it isn’t just speculation (or only a very little bit).
I was sort of suggesting this at the same time. Perhaps we don’t have the strength of inter-club bonds/relationships/or goodwill etc that other clubs have. Some of which would well be a result of just how we deal with things.
Of course it’s ■■■■■■■ guessing. If I think we could have done better but have no proof, I’m not somehow in a less defensible than someone who says we couldn’t have done better who has no proof. It’s just opinions and your positive one is no better backed by evidence than my negative one.
So no one actually knows what we were trying to do yet still they believe they could've done better.
Typical.
Dodoro was asked if Pick 1 was on the table and responded no offers had been made. I would’ve preferred he be out there shopping it aggressively.
Fire sale!!! Fire sale!!! Get your pick 1 here!!!
I think you’ll find he just really really wanted to keep it, and why not. Some kid is going to be the best kid in the draft. Yep, it is unlikely to be the kid we pick, because he is one kid against all the other kids that get drafted this year. But hey, if you’re a recruiter, why not back yourself in and get the kid you think is going to be the best.
Of course it’s ■■■■■■■ guessing. If I think we could have done better but have no proof, I’m not somehow in a less defensible than someone who says we couldn’t have done better who has no proof. It’s just opinions and your positive one is no better backed by evidence than my negative one.
It’s more the fact it’s been repeated over and over. If it was available it would’ve been good. It wasn’t so why dwell on it?
So no one actually knows what we were trying to do yet still they believe they could've done better.
Typical.
Dodoro was asked if Pick 1 was on the table and responded no offers had been made. I would’ve preferred he be out there shopping it aggressively.
Fire sale!!! Fire sale!!! Get your pick 1 here!!!
I think you’ll find he just really really wanted to keep it, and why not. Some kid is going to be the best kid in the draft. Yep, it is unlikely to be the kid we pick, because he is one kid against all the other kids that get drafted this year. But hey, if you’re a recruiter, why not back yourself in and get the kid you think is going to be the best.
… because you could back yourself in and get the two kids you think are going to be the best?
I hate to be all Debbie Downer, but I think this is a huge opportunity missed.
Of course it’s ■■■■■■■ guessing. If I think we could have done better but have no proof, I’m not somehow in a less defensible than someone who says we couldn’t have done better who has no proof. It’s just opinions and your positive one is no better backed by evidence than my negative one.
It’s more the fact it’s been repeated over and over. If it was available it would’ve been good. It wasn’t so why dwell on it?
You’re guessing that it wasn’t available is my point. Anyway, this thread will die its natural death over the next few days and we can all go fight about McGrath and McCluggage in the pick 1 thread, guessing about which one will be a better footballer.
Of course it’s ■■■■■■■ guessing. If I think we could have done better but have no proof, I’m not somehow in a less defensible than someone who says we couldn’t have done better who has no proof. It’s just opinions and your positive one is no better backed by evidence than my negative one.
It’s more the fact it’s been repeated over and over. If it was available it would’ve been good. It wasn’t so why dwell on it?
You’re guessing that it wasn’t available is my point. Anyway, this thread will die its natural death over the next few days and we can all go fight about McGrath and McCluggage in the pick 1 thread, guessing about which one will be a better footballer.
I’m just saying it’s hard to pass assessment when we dont know all the details! I haven’t said it was good or bad.
Wouldn’t underestimate the good news story that is EFC #1 pick when it all unfolds. Doesn’t mean ■■■■ to me but to the larger Essendon fraternity it’s a big deal and trading it away would have been something of a disappointment. The saga has legs still, and propaganda isn’t solely the domain of the haters.
If it was Pick 2 you'd all be on my side. The allure of Pick 1 obscures your judgement.
I think it’s more the logic of your assessment of pick 1 sits with every other club who factor in the risk of taking one pick vs two. It’s would have been us having to give a little to get the two and I don’t think we would have done that.
Just look at our list. Now we have Stewart, we only need one more new face — a midfielder. Whoever Jackets & co have decided on, it doesn’t matter which pick we use to get him, as long as no one else gets in first. There’s only one cast-iron copper-bottomed guaranteed pick and that’s the #1 pick. No point in trading it off for a couple of lesser picks: we don’t need them, and we might lose the one we want, whichever he is.
Take McLuggage or McGrath with #1. Pick up the other one with #20 if he’s still available. If he’s not, so what ? We only need one of them anyway.
Just look at our list. Now we have Stewart, we only need one more new face — a midfielder. Whoever Jackets & co have decided on, it doesn't matter which pick we use to get him, as long as no one else gets in first. There's only one cast-iron copper-bottomed guaranteed pick and that's the #1 pick. No point in trading it off for a couple of lesser picks: we don't need them, and we might lose the one we want, whichever he is.
Take McLuggage or McGrath with #1. Pick up the other one with #20 if he’s still available. If he’s not, so what ? We only need one of them anyway.
If it was Pick 2 you'd all be on my side. The allure of Pick 1 obscures your judgement.
I think it’s more the logic of your assessment of pick 1 sits with every other club who factor in the risk of taking one pick vs two. It’s would have been us having to give a little to get the two and I don’t think we would have done that.
1, 20, 29 is not that bad.
1, 20, 29 is not that bad. The question is could it have been 3, 16, 20 (plus another 2nd for next year to target a big fish). I agree that I don’t think anyone of us would do that trade of #3 and #16 for #1 and late picks. But GWS we know were willing to do that trade, because they did do it for #2. I always said the two top 10’s was a myth, but for a top 4 pick and a first round we should jump. Well, that offer was out there, and either through choice, inferior relationships or lack of knowledge of it we didn’t jump. Brisbane did.