1. We don’t know how many of the top bunch Dodoro and Keane rate. They might actually see 1 standout or 2 or 3. Just because “the internet” can’t split a few, doesn’t mean that our recruiting team haven’t split them.
We don’t know how hard Dodoro and Keane tried to sell #1. It probably depends on their answer to 1. But you also need to make it appear to be worthy, so you can’t sell it too hard, even if you want to sell it. Especially if you want to get “overs”
Picks 3+16 that GWS did with Brisbane may never have been available to us, and even if it was we might not have rated the 16th best player in the draft as materially different to 29 anyway. If we thought there were 1 or 2 standouts at the top that could have been a massive loss from our point of view.
The proposed “2 shots in the top 10” that we were going to be able to pick up if we sold this thing hard enough were very possibly not there. As Ants has shown, in terms of points 4+8 wasn’t really a goer from GCS. What other 2 in 10 options were likely to have worked and been available to us? And then which of these (if there were any) would have been good value to us?
I am certain that an “internet forum favourite” will be there somewhere in the later part of the top 10, and another will go between 16 and 20 and we’ll be having this same “discussion” again. Please remember that “internet forum favourite” != Dodoro and Keane’s preference (in many cases), and we won’t be able to judge the final result of this trade and draft period for 5+ years.
FYI Frosty, I think Jackets said at the end of his Trade wrap up interview they rate 2 players for #1 draft pick. Check @2.55
I know that pretending we've got everyone else outsmarted is one of the core pillars of the Essendon Football Club but again, I don't know what was gained by being coy about putting it on the market.
I also wonder if there’s a larger discussion to be had about the value of one very high pick to the worst football club each year. Surely that’s almost always of more benefit to the top clubs where the bottom clubs would almost always be better suited with multiple picks. We were the most unique wooden spoon team in league history though given the calibre of players we have coming back of course.
Can you stick your bottom lip out any further? Do you want the dummy stuck back in so you can spit it out again?
not sure how he is spitting the dummy, he is just questioning the club and how they went about things. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he is spitting the dummy.
I know that pretending we've got everyone else outsmarted is one of the core pillars of the Essendon Football Club but again, I don't know what was gained by being coy about putting it on the market.
I also wonder if there’s a larger discussion to be had about the value of one very high pick to the worst football club each year. Surely that’s almost always of more benefit to the top clubs where the bottom clubs would almost always be better suited with multiple picks. We were the most unique wooden spoon team in league history though given the calibre of players we have coming back of course.
Can you stick your bottom lip out any further? Do you want the dummy stuck back in so you can spit it out again?
not sure how he is spitting the dummy, he is just questioning the club and how they went about things. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he is spitting the dummy.
I was teasing him firstly and, secondly, he has repeated it ad nauseam if you want to have a look.
I know that pretending we've got everyone else outsmarted is one of the core pillars of the Essendon Football Club but again, I don't know what was gained by being coy about putting it on the market.
I also wonder if there’s a larger discussion to be had about the value of one very high pick to the worst football club each year. Surely that’s almost always of more benefit to the top clubs where the bottom clubs would almost always be better suited with multiple picks. We were the most unique wooden spoon team in league history though given the calibre of players we have coming back of course.
Can you stick your bottom lip out any further? Do you want the dummy stuck back in so you can spit it out again?
not sure how he is spitting the dummy, he is just questioning the club and how they went about things. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he is spitting the dummy.
So when does it become certain of pick 1 in the phantoms darfts now. surely it relieves a lot of pressure if we just say who we are going to take. Dodoro can tell the world surely who he picks at 1. its not going to impact who he gets at 20.
So when does it become certain of pick 1 in the phantoms darfts now. surely it relieves a lot of pressure if we just say who we are going to take. Dodoro can tell the world surely who he picks at 1. its not going to impact who he gets at 20.
Why should we relieve any pressure on any other club? Keep them guessing and off balance l say. The longer the better. You sound like the one who can’t deal with the pressure.
I would have thought the less conspiratorial answer is simply that it makes no sense to announce it. Even if they’re 99.999% sure who they’re taking, he could still get in a car crash, or rob a bank, or find god and join a monastery. If they’ve made a public commitment, the club gets dragged into the ensuing debacle. If they’ve stayed quiet, they can just switch players and not have to worry about it.
The Afl dont want it announced early. They like all the pageantry crap of the "pick 1" reveal.
Well, there’s a reason for announcing it early then. But I can’t see any genuine point in doing it early and don’t understand why you’d even think about wanting to.
I suppose we can just put it down to impatience of modern youth.
The Afl dont want it announced early. They like all the pageantry crap of the "pick 1" reveal.
As has been said before it’s been informally announced/known almost every year. The only one where there was uncertainty was when St Kilda bucked “common” understanding and went for McCartin over Petracca.
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
You can assume all you like, but you are still wrong.
One reason we might not want to announce it early is that we might bid on Bowes, or there has even been talk we might bid on Setterfield.
If we were to bid it, would give GC or GWS plenty of time to weigh up the options. It has been posted by others here that a bid on Bowes would mean GC would have to use pick 4 and points from pick 6, downgrading it to become pick 11, leaving them with Bowes (#1) and picks 8, 10 &11, a very different mix from 4, 6, 8 &10.
Similarly Setterfield.
I say give them no certainty and let them stew on all the possibilities.
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
You can assume all you like, but you are still wrong.
LOL. So if someone traded for pick 2 and we offered them pick 1 for the exact same deal the answer would have been no?
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
You can assume all you like, but you are still wrong.
LOL. So if someone traded for pick 2 and we offered them pick 1 for the exact same deal the answer would have been no?
Lol all you like. And enjoy your fantasies. But the fact is you are wrong, and your fantasies are just that.
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
You can assume all you like, but you are still wrong.
LOL. So if someone traded for pick 2 and we offered them pick 1 for the exact same deal the answer would have been no?
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.
What deal…oh the one in your head.
This has been said a couple of times and I’m not sure it’s fair. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that we could have used pick 1 to get the same deal that another club got with pick 2.
In fact going beyond that, it’s probably pretty logical that the other club (wasn’t it GWS?) would have run it by us before signing off, meaning we probably flat batted… meaning we either rate whoever we’re going to pick and/or assume GWS want the same player as us.
You can assume all you like, but you are still wrong.
LOL. So if someone traded for pick 2 and we offered them pick 1 for the exact same deal the answer would have been no?
Lol all you like. And enjoy your fantasies. But the fact is you are wrong, and your fantasies are just that.
Is he wrong that we were also asked? Or that if we’d known we could have got the same deal?
Do you know if we were aware of the deal occurring?