One compo pick and who? They would have to be someone of note, why do people think picks and discards are appealing to anyone? And why are people so greedy with these compo picks? We got two for $ully- trading two for a "very, very good player" seems par for the course. Where is your logic?

One compo pick and a player is the logical way to go, even if they were to decline.

Gaff isn't a superstar. He has played one season if football. How do you know how good he will become or even is?

He was drafted at number 4 in a fairly shallow draft.

We have a super draft coming up, (so the experts say) and we have the opportunity of picking up two fantastic players.

Why in the hell would we give away two first round compo's for a first year player who has hardly set the world on fire?

Logic? You are asking for logic?

2 compo's for gaff is surely a no brainer

You are the no brainer sister.

I don't understand why the 2 compos is

One compo pick and who? They would have to be someone of note, why do people think picks and discards are appealing to anyone? And why are people so greedy with these compo picks? We got two for $ully- trading two for a "very, very good player" seems par for the course. Where is your logic?

A simple question. Had MFC and WC done a straight swap Scully for Gaff in the trade period would you have found that a satisfactory trade?

FWIW I'd prefer us to chase Gaff rather than Caddy

Alright then- one compo pick and Jetta. Jetta should get the deal over the line.

How could offering a deal which will get rejected be the logical way to go? Learn from Freo's mistake- play around and miss out. There are no gaurantees to come out of a supposed "super draft" the chances of getting two fantastic players are slim- as history proves.

You move on the two picks gained for one player for another of equal or greater stature. Gaff will be good, I'll settle for Gaff.

I don't understand why the 2 compos is

A simple question. Had MFC and WC done a straight swap Scully for Gaff in the trade period would you have found that a satisfactory trade?

I wouldn't have traded $ully.

We have a super draft coming up, (so the experts say) and we have the opportunity of picking up two fantastic players.

"Fantastic" players at Picks 10 and 13?

That's some draft...

They are also a chance to be good players, or average players. I would trade them both if it meant securing a potential star talent and known commodity.

I wouldn't have traded $ully.

Neither would I, but in the context of this discussion that isn't the point. I'm asking you had MFC made the trade what would your thoughts have been?

One compo pick and a player is the logical way to go, even if they were to decline.

Gaff isn't a superstar. He has played one season if football. How do you know how good he will become or even is?

He was drafted at number 4 in a fairly shallow draft.

We have a super draft coming up, (so the experts say) and we have the opportunity of picking up two fantastic players.

Why in the hell would we give away two first round compo's for a first year player who has hardly set the world on fire?

Logic? You are asking for logic?

You are the no brainer sister.

This is where your not looking at the real picture, he has been fantastic in his performances as a first year player.

And more importantly he will be a player has played 2 years come trade time, im sure we are all happy to judge Trengove after 2 years? why not Gaff?

We will all know how good or have a fair idea after a second season of football has been played.

Out of curiosity what player do you see sweetening a pick 13 or so into getting us Gaff?

Neither would I, but in the context of this discussion that isn't the point. I'm asking you had MFC made the trade what would your thoughts have been?

It would have been seen it as a slight loss, but Gaff doesnt have the injury concerns that Scully has.

Both are very similar imo, both high possession getters, Gaff with better disposal!

Neither would I, but in the context of this discussion that isn't the point. I'm asking you had MFC made the trade what would your thoughts have been?

I would have thought why the hell did we trade away a potential Brownlow medalist after just 31 games! I understand your point but the hyperthetical is inconceivable.

Port Adelaide were trying to give pick 8 and another 1st round pick two years ago to get our pick 2, for Trengove.

I realise it's obvious, but to get real class like Gaff you have to give a lot. If our picks are now worth equal to what Port Adelaide were offering, it would be fair if Gaff is close to that stratosphere.

Whether he is worth it i have no idea.

I do believe it is worth it to Melbourne in its present position of decent depth, to have one A grade rather than 2 B+.

It is not always the case. last year St Kilda lost Hayes (A+) and only could replace him with C grade as they had crap depth. They might have a different view.

"Fantastic" players at Picks 10 and 13?

That's some draft...

They are also a chance to be good players, or average players. I would trade them both if it meant securing a potential star talent and known commodity.

Yes fantastic players at picks 10 and 13.

You would trade them both if it meant securing a 'potential' star?

You ain't making sense.

Once again, Gaff is a silky skilled mover who would not have gone at pick 4 had there been a wealth of talent within the draft that year.

We have the possibility of snaring two great AFL players this draft, or luring a big fish.

Gaff is not a proven player. He is not impacting games like Martin or someone of similar ilk. He is a small straight line running silky skilled mid.

Let's just see what happens. But I would be happy to bet anyone $100 that the MFC would not trade it's two compo's for Andrew Gaff.

It would have been seen it as a slight loss, but Gaff doesnt have the injury concerns that Scully has.

Both are very similar imo, both high possession getters, Gaff with better disposal!

Ok, nothing wrong with that opinion at all, I think the gap is a little wider than that in favour of Scully but I'll go with it.

Now, given that Scully is arguably slightly ahead of Gaff as a player (with more experience) and then incorporate his inflated salary to move to GWS, we end up with a the AFL's compo system spitting out 2 compo picks for a player who (for all intents and purposes) was stripped from us via an offer he couldn't refuse.

If we find ourselves competing for Gaff it will be in a free-trade environment where the player in question (allegedly) wishes to go home. A compo pick and a player is more than a reasonable starting point. There is no point in connecting what we may have to pay for Gaff with what we got for Scully what so ever. The only point to come out of it is that GWS would never have offered such money for Gaff and hence a band 1 would never have fallen in WCE's lap.

I am not for one minute suggesting that MFC wouldn't part with both compo picks for Gaff but I find some posts which try to validate 2 compo picks as a starting point (or no brainer) simply based on the fact that that's what we got for Scully and the whole "out with a kid in with a kid" approach to be quite misguided.

I would have thought why the hell did we trade away a potential Brownlow medalist after just 31 games! I understand your point but the hyperthetical is inconceivable.

Of course, but as you realise the point still stands and it is a point that has not been explored in the context of this debate.

Ok, nothing wrong with that opinion at all, I think the gap is a little wider than that in favour of Scully but I'll go with it.

Now, given that Scully is arguably slightly ahead of Gaff as a player (with more experience) and then incorporate his inflated salary to move to GWS, we end up with a the AFL's compo system spitting out 2 compo picks for a player who (for all intents and purposes) was stripped from us via an offer he couldn't refuse.

If we find ourselves competing for Gaff it will be in a free-trade environment where the player in question (allegedly) wishes to go home. A compo pick and a player is more than a reasonable starting point. There is no point in connecting what we may have to pay for Gaff with what we got for Scully what so ever. The only point to come out of it is that GWS would never have offered such money for Gaff and hence a band 1 would never have fallen in WCE's lap.

I am not for one minute suggesting that MFC wouldn't part with both compo picks for Gaff but I find some posts which try to validate 2 compo picks as a starting point (or no brainer) simply based on the fact that that's what we got for Scully and the whole "out with a kid in with a kid" approach to be quite misguided.

I think people are arguing that 2 compo picks will be the end point not the start.

No point saying what is he gonna cost, and saying what you want him for ideally, ideally yes we would get him for 1 compo pick, but i think to most he is far more valuable than that.

I think people are arguing that 2 compo picks will be the end point not the start.

I read some of these posts differently but anyway...

No point saying what is he gonna cost, and saying what you want him for ideally, ideally yes we would get him for 1 compo pick, but i think to most he is far more valuable than that.

I'm not saying what he is "gonna" cost at all. I am hignlighting that it will be a completely different process to how we were awarded the Scully compo and any direct link is pointless wrt the comp picks. Gaff's value will be determined by a prospective bidding war not by the virtue of what we got for Tom Scully.

Yes fantastic players at picks 10 and 13.

You would trade them both if it meant securing a 'potential' star?

You ain't making sense.

Once again, Gaff is a silky skilled mover who would not have gone at pick 4 had there been a wealth of talent within the draft that year.

We have the possibility of snaring two great AFL players this draft, or luring a big fish.

Gaff is not a proven player. He is not impacting games like Martin or someone of similar ilk. He is a small straight line running silky skilled mid.

Let's just see what happens. But I would be happy to bet anyone $100 that the MFC would not trade it's two compo's for Andrew Gaff.

I wrote a slightly incongruous sentence I'll admit but if Gaff is not a proven player than what are Picks 10 and 13?

I am happy to take those picks but I know that the A-grade 'prospects' will be gone by then.

If Shuey or Gaff want to come home we may have to give both picks to trump another suitor, especially if that suitor is an Ess, or Coll, or Carl.

The fact remains that we didn't trade Pick 2 for Picks 8 and 9 when PA offered and with good reason. Those picks have worked out for PA but the fact remains that the top 5 picks are high up the J-curve and it falls away quickly after that.

The whole process is a lottery in many ways.

We say how much we need to pay for a Shuey or Gaff. one went at pick 4 the other at pick 18 or so......

with many players in different drafts of lesser value picked between picks 4-18.....

There is a chance we could recruit 2 Shuey, Blease, Gysberts types

Or a near equal chance we will pick average players at best

That is why we pay for proven or more proven talent

I think we have less deadwood in our list now after the pruning of the last three years. I think we'd only need to draft 3-4 kids in the 2012 draft, we have Viney, mid first round concession (9) and we trade our second Concession (13) and our 2nd round pick (31) for Gaff (or equivalent) then use our 3rd round pick (49) to gamble on a smokie/dev player.

I wrote a slightly incongruous sentence I'll admit but if Gaff is not a proven player than what are Picks 10 and 13?

I am happy to take those picks but I know that the A-grade 'prospects' will be gone by then.

Do you mind if I ask. How do you know that the A-grade 'prospects' will be gone by then? Have you done your phantom drafts? Who are your Picks 10 and 13 making the assumption we do finish where you expect us to finish?

It's amazing how some supporters can overrate an opposition's young talent when compared to their own. Gaff and Gysberts have played virtually the same number of games, but Gysberts has had an extra year in the system. Both have had a RS nomination (Gysberts twice). Gysberts averages more disposals and has a higher statistical player rating.

I rate Gaff and I really rate Gysberts, but I acknowledge that not one other club would give up two first round draft picks for Gysberts at this year's draft. But that's exactly what some of our supporters are advocating to give up for Gaff.

The comparisons are below:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=&Compare=Go&PlayerName1=a+gaff&PlayerName2=j+gysberts&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=

I'd like to be at the poker table with some of you.

No you have put a number to the picks - not a "value" the value is fluid. Taking the West Coast as an example pick 3 in one draft buys you Chris Judd in another draft it buys you Chris Masten. Both are picks 3 but I know which one was the better "value".

To the contrary, the above comparison doesn't in fact say anything about the respective draft depths. At all. It's far too small a sample.

What it does say though, is that the order in which players are picked in the national draft doesn't necessarily reflect the order at which they should have been picked (ie, it's speculative). In the case you've highlighted above - time has shown that Judd should have been picked higher than pick 3 ; Masten lower.

What follows from the above comparison is that Gaff, a proven pick 4 with a season under his belt, is a lot more valuable (and a lot less speculative) than spending picks 13 and 15 on two wholly unproven kids who may not even get a game in the seniors. In fact, I doubt WCE would be particularly impressed with an offer of pick 4 in this year's draft for Gaff, let alone some low teen pick. Why? Because Gaff's shown himself worthy of being pick 4. And there's value in that.

And that's why no club would trade both compo picks for a Masten if push came to shove, but all most definitely would for a Judd. This is not a game of bingo - we're actually talking about parting with low end first round picks we received for ONE player to try and secure an equivalent player to the ONE player we lost.

Your argument, to my mind, just doesn't stack up.

I'd like to be at the poker table with some of you.

Yep, I'd be feeling pretty confident too.

It's always fun negotiating with people who have a hand full of threes and fours, yet seem to think they've got a full house.

I'd like to be at the poker table with some of you.

And some on here remind me of the Freo recruiters who snared Mitch Clark...

In this 'poker game' everyone knows your hand, so that would make it difficult to bluff...

If we have to pull the trigger on the second pick for the right player I wouldn't hesitate.

We're trying to win a flag here.

If we have to pull the trigger on the second pick for the right player I wouldn't hesitate.

We're trying to win a flag here.

Your first line goes without saying and funnily enough your second line goes without saying. Any other gems ?