With all due respect it seems like you do not understand how the draft works

Two picks at these levels represents a chance of getting a good player, but probably an avg player Dunn/bate anyone? I think there are about ten players in the last ten years taken in the range of our picks that are better than gaff

Quick statistic course that means that in the draft we have a 20% chance using both super compo picks to get someone who will be top ten at there club

As for people linking this to sully it is a terrible argument

Look at g abelett. Geelong got two compo picks let's say 8&12

Only comparable trade is Judd which was for pick 3, 20?, and Kennedy ( probably equivalent to pick 3 in terms of value)

Geelong got screwed on the same basis melb got screwed

We are not getting sulky back we have two picks that from a trade perspective might get a decent player and or gamble in the draft and probably get nothing.

Yes I am going on record that our recruiting people paid less or the same as the other 17 teams are not some how superior because they work for Melbourne.

Let us try to put some realism into our arguments

Btw if you going to do a rebuttal try to base it on the facts. Ie in this past draft we would have got xy&z therefore draft is better

If you can't do that don't do anything. Quoting this is a super draft so .... Does not count

I've given examples of players taken post pick 10 over the last 3 years in this very thread. Do your own research of that post and then come back to me.

EDIT: I'm feeling benevolent, so I'll make it easy for you. Post 122 on page 4:

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.

Decision on talent aside. You have listed plays up to pick 35. Therefore 25 picks for three years. So you are saying for each pick we have a 19/75 chance of getting a better player. Using both compo picks we have less than 60% chance of getting a better player. I think I would take gaff as it is certain but that is just me

In any case even on your judgement of gaff he is close to being worth two compo picks

However I suspect a lot of people list gaff higher than a number of people in your list

However I suspect a lot of people list gaff higher than a number of people in your list

How about you list them ? I suspect you've seen Gaff play live no more than once, if at all. Btw, I could have listed rookie picks such as Rockliff and Barlow.

Do you think Gysberts would glean two first round picks in this year's draft ?

If you're not certain of the quality of this year's draft you need to read more.

As I said to Ron earlier, we're just quibbling on price.

Gaff isn't coming home. End the thread please.