I get that but I feel that all clubs are constantly improving with the exact science involved in getting it right. However bad luck, errors, injuries and unseen/unimaginable circumstances can all derail the best laid plans of all clubs. Technically every draft pick is a risk in varying degrees.Pies4shaw wrote:Why take the risk if (as I've already said) "you've decided you want someone else"? Imagine the uproar on here if we had a crack at somebody else's father/son with our pick one and ended up with that player when we just thought we were being "smart". And don't kid yourself that all "top" picks are equal. It's not that long ago that St Kilda took McCartin and left Melbourne with the Petracca dregs - how's that looking?
The 2021 Great Big Consolidated Trade & Draft thread
Moderator: bbmods
- Lazza
- Posts: 12836
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 7:01 pm
- Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine!
Exactly, there is no point in trying to be too smart by half and calling someone's bluff as you only run the risk of not getting the player you wanted and had the chance to get.. All teams would be crazy to not simply call out who they think the best player is available who's characteristics best suit their needs at the time. That's not only demonstrating integrity but also the smart way to operate a drafting situation.
Collingwood Domination. Envy of the Nation!
^ ^ ^
All correct points about the Kangas decision to pick J H F first. The other aspect involved in picking J H F first, is the likely financial gains that come with marketing him as the best U19 kid in the country. They have freely and unashamedly spruiked this kid as the best player in the draft. On the back of that promotion, they would look pretty silly picking Daicos before him.
Interesting to see Twomey and Sheehan still rate Daicos as #1 but J H Fs preliminary final in SA N F L certainly bridged the gap.
All correct points about the Kangas decision to pick J H F first. The other aspect involved in picking J H F first, is the likely financial gains that come with marketing him as the best U19 kid in the country. They have freely and unashamedly spruiked this kid as the best player in the draft. On the back of that promotion, they would look pretty silly picking Daicos before him.
Interesting to see Twomey and Sheehan still rate Daicos as #1 but J H Fs preliminary final in SA N F L certainly bridged the gap.
Gary Player “ the harder I practice, the luckier I get “
- jackcass
- Posts: 12529
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:17 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Nah. If we'd kept pick 2 you could almost guarantee a North bid on Daicos. To do anything but that would dilute the options available to them at their pick 20 as it'd slide to 21. Even if it's by only 1 player, strategically silly to allow it.mattdally wrote:IF we had kept pick #2 it would have gone like this.
#1 North - Horne-Francis
#2 Collingwood - Darcy - Dogs match it
#3 Collingwood - Next best player in the draft
#4 Gold Coast - Daicos? - Pies match it
Giving away pick #2 has cost us a potential gun.
Last edited by jackcass on Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- WhyPhilWhy?
- Posts: 9510
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: Location: Location:
- Has liked: 25 times
- Been liked: 25 times
- jackcass
- Posts: 12529
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:17 pm
- Location: Bendigo
If we still held our 1st round pick I doubt North would have engaged the media in the same way they did.Pies2016 wrote:^ ^ ^
All correct points about the Kangas decision to pick J H F first. The other aspect involved in picking J H F first, is the likely financial gains that come with marketing him as the best U19 kid in the country. They have freely and unashamedly spruiked this kid as the best player in the draft. On the back of that promotion, they would look pretty silly picking Daicos before him.
Interesting to see Twomey and Sheehan still rate Daicos as #1 but J H Fs preliminary final in SA N F L certainly bridged the gap.
- MJ23
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm
- Location: Sydney
Id argue that IF we had pick 2, North would absolutely bid on Nick so that a competitor didn't get two of the best 3 kids in the draft instead of one.mattdally wrote:IF we had kept pick #2 it would have gone like this.
#1 North - Horne-Francis
#2 Collingwood - Darcy - Dogs match it
#3 Collingwood - Next best player in the draft
#4 Gold Coast - Daicos? - Pies match it
Giving away pick #2 has cost us a potential gun.
Id argue that it would not have been a gamble we were prepared to take and would have looked to trade it anyway.
Also, we now have two kids with a year under their belt and Lipinski for the value of the no 1 pick and Im all good with that.
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
Michael Jordan
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54657
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 73 times
- Been liked: 74 times
Couple of other things.Pies2016 wrote:^ ^ ^
All correct points about the Kangas decision to pick J H F first. The other aspect involved in picking J H F first, is the likely financial gains that come with marketing him as the best U19 kid in the country. They have freely and unashamedly spruiked this kid as the best player in the draft. On the back of that promotion, they would look pretty silly picking Daicos before him.
Interesting to see Twomey and Sheehan still rate Daicos as #1 but J H Fs preliminary final in SA N F L certainly bridged the gap.
The kid wants to be called at No 1.
North genuinely rate him as the best, so why not take him there
North has never had a first pick before, they want to leverage it.
There are also financial rewards for the player picked at 1
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54657
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 73 times
- Been liked: 74 times
-
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:17 pm
- Has liked: 23 times
- Been liked: 15 times
Not only that, the world could be a different place if we had retained pick 2.jackcass wrote:Nah. If we'd kept pick 2 you could almost guarantee a North bid on Daicos. To do anything but that would dilute the options available to them at their pick 20 as it'd slide to 21. Even if it's by only 1 player, strategically silly to allow it.mattdally wrote:IF we had kept pick #2 it would have gone like this.
#1 North - Horne-Francis
#2 Collingwood - Darcy - Dogs match it
#3 Collingwood - Next best player in the draft
#4 Gold Coast - Daicos? - Pies match it
Giving away pick #2 has cost us a potential gun.
Before the Draft :
I would have nominated Daics if I was North. Especially knowing the kid is worth it, and is a Pies supporter's dream. After all, It's not just 400 points they are messing us up with, it's a top 3 pick they are denying us.
We could be saying : Pies should have picked up MacRae last year, but may gave up a bird in the hand for SFA.
But overall, who cares ? Who would prepare for a bottom 2 finish ?
Then after the draft :
I told you So! We were forced to use the pick on Daicos, and we could have had MacRae too.
- MatthewBoydFanClub
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:02 pm
- Location: Elwood
- Been liked: 1 time
It's all water under the bridge now. We know we're getting Nick Daicos. We got one of the best available mids in the draft last year in MaCrae as well as our academy player in McInnes and got a top 10 selection in Henry for which we had to sacrifice this year's first round selection pick. When all is said and done I don't think we could have done any better than we have done to extricate ourselves from the mess we got ourselves into by overpaying on the contracts of Treloar, Stephenson and Phillips.MJ23 wrote:Id argue that IF we had pick 2, North would absolutely bid on Nick so that a competitor didn't get two of the best 3 kids in the draft instead of one.mattdally wrote:IF we had kept pick #2 it would have gone like this.
#1 North - Horne-Francis
#2 Collingwood - Darcy - Dogs match it
#3 Collingwood - Next best player in the draft
#4 Gold Coast - Daicos? - Pies match it
Giving away pick #2 has cost us a potential gun.
Id argue that it would not have been a gamble we were prepared to take and would have looked to trade it anyway.
Also, we now have two kids with a year under their belt and Lipinski for the value of the no 1 pick and Im all good with that.
- Boogie Knights
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:00 pm
- mattdally
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 1 time
- Contact:
The deal wasn't great.
We gained picks 24 and 30 plus future 2021 4th rounder tied to Geelong (which we traded for pick 44 - McCreery) for pick 2.
No one is doing that deal with the Giants before this draft.
Would you sacrifice two of McCreery, Poulter and McMahon for pick 2 in this year's draft? That's what we're left with.
We gained picks 24 and 30 plus future 2021 4th rounder tied to Geelong (which we traded for pick 44 - McCreery) for pick 2.
No one is doing that deal with the Giants before this draft.
Would you sacrifice two of McCreery, Poulter and McMahon for pick 2 in this year's draft? That's what we're left with.