The Gaffer coming home?

[Guest Dr Who]

Do you think the 2 1st round compo picks were fair compensation for Tom Scully the #1 pick?

Depends on who you traded him too & what they had to offer. We manufactured the "best" deal available. Be thankful for small mercies. We got a few very lucky breaks.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Dr Who

[Demon Disciple 12,127]

There is still another 8 months until trade week and 9 months until the next draft. Now, of course we'll nominate both compo picks for this years draft. We have still got another 8 months to figure out if we trade these picks for players, or the draft, or even the mini-draft.

With Neeld at the helm, i don't think we will go all out for the mini-draft, as it is another year wasted before we see the results. As Neeld has previously stated, he only gets one shot at this, he'll want to see returned dividends straight away.

fwiw, Gaff is definitely not worth 2 cp's in this years bumper draft. All high draft picks lose their value as the #1 pick come the following year. Patton will not be worth the #1 pick this year and this years' #1 pick won't be worth next years #1 pick.

If we were able to bring in the likes of Gaff, Caddy and Viney with our picks (absolute pipe dream) then sure, otherwise, i'd just use them in the draft, enabling us to get the players that Neeld needs.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Demon Disciple

[rpfc 28,433]

Depends on who you traded him too & what they had to offer. We manufactured the "best" deal available. Be thankful for small mercies.

If those picks were not able to be traded?

Or if we can't get a suitable trade?

I would say in these instances, we did not get 'fair compensation.'

Therefore, those picks can be viewed as currency, and if we manage to get a player similar in potential to that which we lost - we will have got fair compensation.

I don't care if we overspend for talent, I just want to get the talent.

[old55 23,576]

All high draft picks lose their value as the #1 pick come the following year. Patton will not be worth the #1 pick this year and this years' #1 pick won't be worth next years #1 pick.

Que?

[binman 42,972]

I would prefer too keep Bennel and off load Morton if we trade one compo plus a player.

It always amuses me that footy fans go ballistic at the thought of a player being a traitor and leaving their own club but won't bat an eyelid at trading out players or throwing in a couple of stalwarts into a deal mix to get a good player from another club (who of course is being traitorous to the club they are leaving).

We hate Scully (yes more for the way he handled himself but never the less) but laud Clark for joining the dees (after telling Brisbane he really, really wanted to go home to WA). Ahh the beautiful mystery of football!

(P.S not having a go at you JD, your post just made me think of this apparent double standard amongst footy fans)

[Hannibal 5,814]

Not in this draft he aint.

You speak sense. There's no way Gaff is worth 2 first round draft picks in what many are touting as the best draft since 2001. It's fanciful to suggest otherwise.

I also agree that one first round pick plus a fringe player won't get it done. There are other combinations that may work after protracted negotiations.

[old55 23,576]

You speak sense. There's no way Gaff is worth 2 first round draft picks in what many are touting as the best draft since 2001. It's fanciful to suggest otherwise.

Is Scully worth 2 first round draft picks in what many are touting as the best draft since 2001?

If not, then we got over-compensated by the AFL for him going to GWS?

I post these questions because many here, perhaps even most, thought we got ripped off with 2 mid 1st round picks for a #1 pick with 2 years development. But apparently according to this thread we did the ripping off because the compo is worth more than a proven #4 pick (Gaff).

[Hannibal 5,814]

Is Scully worth 2 first round draft picks in what many are touting as the best draft since 2001?

If not, then we got over-compensated by the AFL for him going to GWS?

I post these questions because many here, perhaps even most, thought we got ripped off with 2 mid 1st round picks for a #1 pick with 2 years development. But apparently according to this thread we did the ripping off because the compo is worth more than a proven #4 pick (Gaff).

Scully was worth 2 first round draft picks based on the criteria set out by the AFL, i.e. (in the main) his age and his salary. This decision was irrespective of the quality of any particular draft, but any attempt to try and recruit Gaff won't be.

On output to date Scully wasn't worth the compensation that was given. On a futures market though you'd keep what you've got, which is why many weren't happy with the compensation.

The Gaff scenario will be treated as a separate entity. As it should.

[rpfc 28,433]

Ok, how about I put a value to these 'awesome picks' we suddenly have.

The numbers, assuming we finish 8th, will be:

Best Case Scenario: Picks 11 and 13.

Reality: Picks 13 and 16.

There are other compensation picks to go around and there will be more (looking at you PA and GC).

They are 'teen picks' no matter what happens and guess what?

Here are the 'teen picks' from the now famous 2001 draft:

10 Sam Power

11 Richard Cole

12 Brent Reilly

13 Nick Dal Santo

14 Ashley Watson

15 Barry Brooks

16 Rick Ladson

17 James Kelly

18 Shane Harvey

19 Jason Gram

We better pick Dal Santo and Kelly...

[rjay 24,928]

Ok, how about I put a value to these 'awesome picks' we suddenly have.

The numbers, assuming we finish 8th, will be:

Best Case Scenario: Picks 11 and 13.

Reality: Picks 13 and 16.

There are other compensation picks to go around and there will be more (looking at you PA and GC).

They are 'teen picks' no matter what happens and guess what?

Here are the 'teen picks' from the now famous 2001 draft:

10 Sam Power

11 Richard Cole

12 Brent Reilly

13 Nick Dal Santo

14 Ashley Watson

15 Barry Brooks

16 Rick Ladson

17 James Kelly

18 Shane Harvey

19 Jason Gram

We better pick Dal Santo and Kelly...

Like the homework. The danger is that we get too greedy with these picks. If we get one good A grade player then that will be great to expect 2 might be pushing it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Like the homework. The danger is that we get too greedy with these picks. If we get one good A grade player then that will be great to expect 2 might be pushing it.

Exactly. Our compensation is rubbish (really) so we must take the best we can get. If that is Gaff..do it.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Is Scully worth 2 first round draft picks in what many are touting as the best draft since 2001?

If not, then we got over-compensated by the AFL for him going to GWS?

I post these questions because many here, perhaps even most, thought we got ripped off with 2 mid 1st round picks for a #1 pick with 2 years development. But apparently according to this thread we did the ripping off because the compo is worth more than a proven #4 pick (Gaff).

Do you think we got the right balance of compensation, Or do you think it would have been more equitable to get a No1 pick (floating), + a 1st pick of the 2nd Rnd as well?

[furious d 464]

Ok, how about I put a value to these 'awesome picks' we suddenly have. The numbers, assuming we finish 8th, will be: Best Case Scenario: Picks 11 and 13. Reality: Picks 13 and 16. There are other compensation picks to go around and there will be more (looking at you PA and GC). They are 'teen picks' no matter what happens and guess what? Here are the 'teen picks' from the now famous 2001 draft: 10 Sam Power 11 Richard Cole 12 Brent Reilly 13 Nick Dal Santo 14 Ashley Watson 15 Barry Brooks 16 Rick Ladson 17 James Kelly 18 Shane Harvey 19 Jason Gram We better pick Dal Santo and Kelly...

Good post.

The top 10 isn't as special as most would think either.

After the famous top 3 of Hodge, Ball and Judd came Polak, X Clarke, Sampi, Hale, Bartel, Molan and Sam Power.

I've posted in the past that I'd prefer to keep at least 1 compo pick and trade only 1 at most.

The only way I'd be keen to trade both would be for something similar to what we've lost. That means a quality young mid worthy of a top 5 pick. They are not on the trade market very often.

I don't think Gaff has proven just yet that he is worthy of his top 5 status but if he backs up last season and shopws improvement he could be there by seasons end. We need top end quality in our midfield and if we can't get that through a trade we should take our luck in the draft.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

We had Tom Scully (as yet, an unproven pick 1 from 2009 IMO). He left.

In return, it seems we will receive two fairly low first round draft picks. Some people here seem to think we'll unearth solid gold with those picks.

We may, but the better view is probably that we'll get AFL standard players in three or four years from now, both of whom will be far from elite.

If we have a good chance to land Gaff (IMO a proven pick 4 from 2010), we should be going at this like a bull at a gate. It is likely he will be a gun player - certainly this is not remotely as speculative as the alternative.

In fact, I would be really happy with a straight swap of Scully for Gaff (particularly when one also factors in the character and potential 'love of club' issues), which is essentially what some of us are putting forward here in saying the MFC should be prepared to part with both compo picks to get him.

We've got to be realistic. Pick 15 is not likely to get Gaff to this club next year.

[old55 23,576]

Do you think we got the right balance of compensation, Or do you think it would have been more equitable to get a No1 pick (floating), + a 1st pick of the 2nd Rnd as well?

I think the compensation was unders for Scully and pick 1 in 2011 would have been fair but that was never going to happen after the Ablett compensation set the precedent and I was grateful we got the maximum available in the end. If it's unders for Scully then it's a bargain for Gaff - a proven pick 4. It can't be under for Scully and over for Gaff - that means what? It was just right for a pick 2 or 3?

[Guest Dr Who]

I think the compensation was unders for Scully and pick 1 in 2011 would have been fair but that was never going to happen after the Ablett compensation set the precedent and I was grateful we got the maximum available in the end. If it's unders for Scully then it's a bargain for Gaff - a proven pick 4. It can't be under for Scully and over for Gaff - that means what? It was just right for a pick 2 or 3?

Interesting comment. What you have said would hold true if all drafts were exactly the same in depth & ability. However, they are not.

The buying power of the picks we received are fluid and will rise and fall relative to the draft depth & ability in which you choose to activate them.

In reality we received better than Ablett compensation, for two reasons. a/ Our picks are better because of our finishing position and b/ Our picks are able to be activated in less compromised deeper drafts.

We are holding two very, very powerful bargain chips in next years draft. You would logically think clubs will ALL want to talk to us if a player has 100% made the commitment to move. You are always in a more powerful position if they are coming to you and not visa-versa.

[rpfc 28,433]

We are holding two very, very powerful bargain chips in next years draft. You would logically think clubs will ALL want to talk to us if a player has 100% made the commitment to move. You are always in a more powerful position if they are coming to you and not visa-versa.

We are not holding two "very, very powerful bargain chips."

They're just not. Individually they may facilitate a trade for a good kid, but together they might get us a HWFUA type talent - the true value of these picks is together.

We have one trade week to dangle both in front of a club to get a Gaff or a Rohan or a Shuey or any other very talented Victorian we can coax home.

Otherwise we can settle for a decent kid in the draft that might be very good. But no promises.

Edited February 20, 2012 by rpfc

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

Stats, courtesy of Footywire, indicate a straight Scully for Gaff swap to be quite fair and reasonable

Player Statistics Comparison Andrew Gaff Name Tom Scully West Coast Eagles Team GWS Giants Midfield Position Midfield 17 Career Games 31 Oakleigh Chargers Origin Dandenong Stingrays June 16, 1992 Date of Birth May 15, 1991 19yr 8mth Age 20yr 9mth 182cm Height 181cm 78kg Weight 78kg 2010 National Draft Last Drafted In 2009 National Draft Round 1, Pick #4 Last Draft Position Priority Pick #1 West Coast Eagles Last Drafted By Melbourne Demons 2011 Stats for Season 2011 17 Games 10 10.1 Kicks Per Game 7.6 7.6 Handballs Per Game 13.2 17.8 Disposals Per Game 20.8 4.4 Marks Per Game 2.1 0.4 Goals Per Game 0.1 0.4 Behinds Per Game 0.5 1.1 Tackles Per Game 5.4 0 Hitouts Per Game 0 2.3 Inside 50s Per Game 1.6 0.6 Goal Assists Per Game 0.4 1.0 Goals Contributed Per Game 0.5 0.2 Frees For Per Game 0.9 0.4 Frees Against Per Game 0.8 $322,900 Dream Team Price $379,400 65.4 Dream Team Score Per Game 76.7 $331,100 Supercoach Price $423,400

Edited February 20, 2012 by fndee

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

Sorry the above comparison was supposed to appear in table format.

I am not smart enough to fix.

Suffice to say that Scully had 3 more disposals per game last year and more tackles

Gaff had more marks and inside 50s

[BIG JIM 508]

We lost a player that thought he was bigger and better than the club we all love. If we finsh 10th or 11th this year we could hold picks 8,9 and 11 or 12 which in a very strong draft will be a very silly move to trade. unless we get a ready made gun who is under 25. Is gaff a gun? no way in my mind. Is he a chance? yes. But so are picks 9 and 11.Im glad we are in this position of power. And we should be happy to have this power back because the little money spider who tangeld a web around our club had all the power last year and played us like a fly and sucked the blood out of the club. Now we need to make the best move for the club and that is something i will leave to the experts. But if i had my way i would go for caddy with 1 pick or keep both. GO DEES 2012

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Gaff was also regularly a substitute

[Hannibal 5,814]

Interesting comment. What you have said would hold true if all drafts were exactly the same in depth & ability. However, they are not.

The buying power of the picks we received are fluid and will rise and fall relative to the draft depth & ability in which you choose to activate them.

In reality we received better than Ablett compensation, for two reasons. a/ Our picks are better because of our finishing position and b/ Our picks are able to be activated in less compromised deeper drafts.

We are holding two very, very powerful bargain chips in next years draft. You would logically think clubs will ALL want to talk to us if a player has 100% made the commitment to move. You are always in a more powerful position if they are coming to you and not visa-versa.

But of course you're right - again.

I'll reference the last 3 drafts, as it's more pertinent to current talent identification procedures. Players drafted outside the top 10 have included Sidebottom, Shuey, Redden, Hannebery, Zaharakis, Beams, Shiels, Liam Jones, Gysberts, Menzel, Fyfe, Bastinac, Duncan, Gunston, Isaac Smith, Darling, Batchelor, Howe...

I stopped listing players at around pick 35, but clearly there's quality that can be picked up after pick 10 with a sound recruiting strategy. Rather than focus on how one may fluff a pick I'd rather focus on the clear quality that can be secured. FFS, pick 12 in a compromised draft was able to glean Mitch Clark.

I like Gaff as a footballer, but he's yet to show that he's worth two first round draft picks. North were desperate for Jonathan Hay and gave Hawthorn two first round draft picks. That worked out well. In this year's draft clubs would be very reticent to give up two first rounders unless it was for a ready made proven gun. Brad Ottens cost Geelong two first rounders, but at least he'd had 7 years under his belt and was exactly what they needed.

It's not out of the question that in this year's draft you'll get a mid at around picks 12 or 13 that's as good as Gaff. I understand the desire to get a quality player NOW, but Viney will deliver straight off the bat and really good first round mids are producing the goods by their second, or third year.

[Disco Demons 92]

it's almost worth trading the two comp picks and more to GWS for suclly...just to shut people up

Edited February 21, 2012 by disco_demon

[daisycutter 29,616]

One thing that is being overlooked by many is that the AFL has stated that the "compensation" picks were never intended to be "fair compensation"

The difference between fair and what you get can be seen as your clubs contribution to the establishment of a new club (whether you like it or not)

So....the compensation picks we got for voldemort were not necessarily meant to be enough for an adequate replacement

If we scrape together a reasonable deal for our picks then great, but forget whether it is "fair"

If Voldemort turns out to be less than a no1 draft pick then all the better for us

If we can get a good topline midfield player for two compo picks then I will be "happy"

[old55 23,576]

If Gaff says he wants to come to Melbourne Football Club one compo pick should close the deal. If he says he wants to come back to a Victorian club it will take both picks.