Draft Night Blunder perhaps? The critique of Hine et al

[What'sinaname]

^ Our trading has been mostly successful. Our drafting has been a disaster. We've whiffed at almost every draft pick...couldn't even land a speculative pick.

Trading and drafting aren't mutually exclusive. Honestly, how would you attempt to get into the draft without trading? Just more sensational adjectives thrown in for effect.
Throw away lines that our drafting hasn't been up to scratch is pointless without comparable analysis.

How do you get into the draft without trading? Everyone gets into the draft. That's the beauty of it. All you have to do is finish a season and, BINGO, you're in the draft. You don't have to trade s&%t to get into the draft.

As for Treloar, we didn't draft him. We didn't identify young talent. Someone else did so effectively and then we have to pay for that.

[LaurieHolden]

How do you get into the draft without trading? Everyone gets into the draft. That's the beauty of it. All you have to do is finish a season and, BINGO, you're in the draft. You don't have to trade s&%t to get into the draft.

As for Treloar, we didn't draft him. We didn't identify young talent. Someone else did so effectively and then we have to pay for that.

I didn't expect anything sensible or informative in reponse, in order to advance any discussion. I really don't know why you bother.

[What'sinaname]

How do you get into the draft without trading? Everyone gets into the draft. That's the beauty of it. All you have to do is finish a season and, BINGO, you're in the draft. You don't have to trade s&%t to get into the draft.

As for Treloar, we didn't draft him. We didn't identify young talent. Someone else did so effectively and then we have to pay for that.

I didn't expect anything sensible or informative in reponse, in order to advance any discussion. I really don't know why you bother.

Not sure what else to say. I've provided facts and analysis, even though you continue to accuse me to sensationalising this issue. Your own analysis isn't disproving what I have said.

At the moment, we have next to no AFL-ready talent in the VFL, no one banging down the door of an aging senior list. Yet, you are adamant that our drafting is not an issue.

[Geek]

2005 National Draft pick 2 (Priority) Dale Thomas (awarded clubs draft picks if they lost key players to retirement or free agency - as compensation for the loss of Chris Tarrant, who had left Collingwood to join the Fremantle)

Just an FYI: Daisy's pick 2 was given to us for finishing with 5 wins. Notably, Carlton and Hawthorn also finished with 5 wins and got priority picks but it was us that Paul Roos had his big sook about. The AFL dutifully changed the rules shortly after, as is their wont when we benefit.

I thought of him and smiled with each flag we have won since.

Anyway.... If you were wondering what Malthouse was crapping on about with his Rommel comment, it makes sense when you remember the Rommel was the greatest tank commander to have lived.

Nothing to do with Daisy, of course.

We traded Tarrant in 2006 for Paul Medhurst and pick 8 (Ben Reid)

[LaurieHolden]

^cheers, I thought something was amiss there.

[qldmagpie67]

The 2013 draft hurt us. Who would have guessed with 2 x top 10 picks both would have careers ruined by injury without basically firing a shot.
Scharenberg played what 40 games, Freeman 0 for us.
Scharenberg was very highly rated. Williams made the comment he was the best young SA player he had seen in decades.
We took him knowing he missed a chunk of his under 18 season with a foot injury so there was a buyer beware sign there but we did our homework we assume and thought it would be ok.
When he got on the paddock he showed there was something there but by that time he was battling knee and ankle issues already in his career
Freeman (and I think pies2016 made the comment) never had a soft tissue injury prior to arriving at the club
Seriously what are the odds.
Had either one of those been a 150-game player it changes our draft strategy going forward because it one less player in that spot we are looking for.

[LaurieHolden]

^The Scharenberg & Freeman busts are well known and covered off. But in 50 words or less, in context of the thread question, has Hine's list management been any worse than our rival Clubs?

[qldmagpie67]

^

Wouldn’t think so he’s worked with what he has and what the coaches believed they needed for infield performance

[LaurieHolden]

^ I do wonder who over that period, were we close to trading in a big name, but the deal fell apart at the 11th hour? (ref to Tony Lockett if indeed that rumour was true)

[Jezza]

The 2013 draft hurt us.

2013 was poor, but it was offset by the 2014 drafts with the acquisitions of De Goey (#5), Moore (#9 - F/S) and Maynard (#30).

[neil]

I've heard the line "draft best available, trade for needs" but do clubs really do that?

I assume all clubs go into draft night with a list of players ranked 1-100 or whatever, but surely those rankings must take into account need as well as the attributes the club rates more highly than others?
If you've got pick 10 and your turn comes up, the next best kid on your list is a classy inside mid, but you already have plenty of classy inside mids, what you need are outside speed and talls who can mark at either end.

It just happens that a few places down your list is a speedy outside mid and next spot down a 198cm KPP with sticky hands who can play either end. Do you really stick to your rankings and take the inside mid or go for needs and take one of the other 2?

Simple really the definition best available changes from club to club and year to year

If your club needs a speedy mid and a KPF then they are the best available
If your club has no-one over 195 cm and under 30 then talls become more valuable in the eyes of that clubs recruiter
If your club has pick 30 as the first pick then whoever is available is best pick

Recruiters are not blind to needs and no matter how much your club needs a gun KPF unless you have a top 5 pick best is unavailable.