Are we preparing to give up our draft picks?

[The heart beats true 18,201]

Just because we've selected poorly in the past doesn't mean we are doomed to do so forever.

I believe the industry built around statistic and analysis would disagree. We are certainly more inclined to stuff it up again based on history.

Mitch Clark is a great reference point for us. We trade for 2 players of his calibre in the midfield and we get 30 more games into half our team and we'll be a much better side. We need quality midfielders right now for our young blokes to learn from. I genuinely think Howe, Watts and Clark can be stars. If we can't get them the footy they'll just be missed opportunities.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Cale Morton says hi... Would you trade him for Boak?

Is that the level of your thinking ? Impressive stuff. Straight to the top of my astute posters list.

We had the entire field to choose from post pick number 3. The fact that we got it wrong doesn't mean we're consigned to do so forever.

[Biffen 12,949]

I really like the way the club is operating here, and do not have any concern at all. Publicly floating the idea about trading draft picks is very different from actually doing so but it does flag to all that we will be interested in any offers; that does not mean that we will necessarily accept them. The Travis Cloke 'offer' is fine too, if we are sure that he is going to stay with the filth. It was stated last night that a revised 'final' offer was was to Cloke. If we can increase the pressure on another club's salary cap by public posturing, then do so.

I am not privy to the inner thinking at the club and I do not really want to be. I am confident that they know exactly what they are doing and will play Hardball. The trades over the last few years, mentioned earler in this thread, give me that confidence.

The phoney war is about to begin. There will be many smokescreens, don't let them confuse you; trust the club..

I hope we just put in a false bid to drive the price of Cloke up . I dont think he is worth 1 mill a year-he will get in Mitch's way .

[Clark_Kent 315]

^{There is definetly benefits from trading/signing mature players already in the AFL system (best example being the Swans).}

^{But I still think we need to be careful, we don't want to go paying overs just to bring in someone like Boak. The Blues did this with Judd and they still havn't finished top 4 with him in the side and}

^{he is now getting older. Most of the best sides from the past 10 years have built a side from their drafting (Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn). I still think there is a lot of development in our list}

^{with a lot of our younger up and comers unable to get on the park for long stints. I think the footy department should have faith that they can build a strong side still rather then panic because we are having}

^{a bad year.}

^{That said it's always good to look to other clubs strengths to build our weaknesses ( if a side has a lot of good mids they may be willing to drop one).}

[beelzebub 23,392]

Cale Morton says hi... Would you trade him for Boak?

could we...please please !!!

[old dee 24,093]

^{There is definetly benefits from trading/signing mature players already in the AFL system (best example being the Swans).}

^{But I still think we need to be careful, we don't want to go paying overs just to bring in someone like Boak. The Blues did this with Judd and they still havn't finished top 4 with him in the side and}

^{he is now getting older. Most of the best sides from the past 10 years have built a side from their drafting (Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn). I still think there is a lot of development in our list}

^{with a lot of our younger up and comers unable to get on the park for long stints. I think the footy department should have faith that they can build a strong side still rather then panic because we are having}

^{a bad year.}

^{That said it's always good to look to other clubs strengths to build our weaknesses ( if a side has a lot of good mids they may be willing to drop one).}

Would I swap the Blues last 4 years for the MFC's and the next 3

In a heart beat

[old dee 24,093]

I really like the way the club is operating here, and do not have any concern at all. Publicly floating the idea about trading draft picks is very different from actually doing so but it does flag to all that we will be interested in any offers; that does not mean that we will necessarily accept them. The Travis Cloke 'offer' is fine too, if we are sure that he is going to stay with the filth. It was stated last night that a revised 'final' offer was was to Cloke. If we can increase the pressure on another club's salary cap by public posturing, then do so.

I am not privy to the inner thinking at the club and I do not really want to be. I am confident that they know exactly what they are doing and will play Hardball. The trades over the last few years, mentioned earler in this thread, give me that confidence.

The phoney war is about to begin. There will be many smokescreens, don't let them confuse you; trust the club..

you say that as if we have a choice.

In the end we have no choice they will do what they will do.

But after the last 5 years I will believe they know what they are doing when it happens.

talk is cheap we have heard every possible excuse over the last 5 years.

Actions are what will impress me.

[Pennant St Dee 13,473]

Best course of action draft/trade for today and draft/trade for tomorrow, unfortunatley we haven't done this enough over the years. Somehow work it to get Boak if we can but under no circumstances give up pick 3 or 4 for him. Pick 12 maybe play poker with GCS & GWS for Viney and worse case scenario if they call our bluff take Jack with pick 3 or 4 and another available Wines/Stringer/Toumpas and for god sake if there is another late bolter like Dustin Martin at least interview him to keep demonlanders happy.

One of these kids, Viney & Boak will improve us and another pre season into our boys. Like others I think Cloke is a pipe dream and smoke and mirrors

Buddy is out of contract 2013 and may be RFA

[stuie 7,374]

Is that the level of your thinking ? Impressive stuff. Straight to the top of my astute posters list.

We had the entire field to choose from post pick number 3. The fact that we got it wrong doesn't mean we're consigned to do so forever.

That's not my point.

I'm merely highlighting the idea of going for what is proven, same as the reason why we'll take Viney with pick 3, we know what we're getting and that's worth A LOT considering our recent draft history.

Sure, Boak may not be worth pick 4 technically, but he fills a need we have and we know what we're getting, and that's what will have to be weighed up.

[Philthy 284]

At this stage does anybody know what our 2nd/3rd/4th round pick numbers would be?

[GIRO 63]

Can we get Goddard, Boak and Caddy ??

[Johnny Karate 559]

I believe the industry built around statistic and analysis would disagree. We are certainly more inclined to stuff it up again based on history.

Pavlich, N Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Ball, Bartel, Goddard, Wells, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, B Reid, M Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury, Gibbs, Selwood, Hartlett, Naitanui, Martin, Cotchin, Rioli, Dangerfield , Kennedy (WCE) are but some of the quality players taken at the pointy end of the draft. That is what "the industry built around statistic (sic) analysis" says to me.

'Oh but the MFC effed it up in the past & therefore will eff it up in the future' - is the line of gutless spivs who buy into the 'industry' of superstition & voodoo.

Mitch Clark is a great reference point for us. We trade for 2 players of his calibre in the midfield and we get 30 more games into half our team and we'll be a much better side. We need quality midfielders right now for our young blokes to learn from. I genuinely think Howe, Watts and Clark can be stars. If we can't get them the footy they'll just be missed opportunities.

Indeed Mitch Clark is a great reference point but one that you miss - he was a top 10 pick. So we are to trade for two established top 10 pick worthy midfielders? Who & at what cost? Do we offer them the same kind of massive coin that Mitch Clark is on? Wouldn't it be far simpler with the age of our list, wage structure & current appeal to draft our own two top 10 worthy midfielders?

[Hannibal 5,814]

That's not my point.

Yes it was, which is why you said "Cale Morton says hi". You were insinuating that we're just as likely to stuff up the pick otherwise why bring up Morton ?

I agree that Boak fills a need and would like to get him, just not for pick 4. If I had a choice of pick 13 and Tapscott to Port or pick 4 to Port I'd do the former. What would you do ? I reckon Port would rather pick 4 too. What do you think Port would prefer ?

[stuie 7,374]

Yes it was, which is why you said "Cale Morton says hi". You were insinuating that we're just as likely to stuff up the pick otherwise why bring up Morton ?

I agree that Boak fills a need and would like to get him, just not for pick 4. If I had a choice of pick 13 and Tapscott to Port or pick 4 to Port I'd do the former. What would you do ? I reckon Port would rather pick 4 too. What do you think Port would prefer ?

Are you serious mate?

You try and change the point of what I said and then you put forward ridiculous comments like what follows?

Stop wasting my time with these silly comments.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Pavlich, N Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Ball, Bartel, Goddard, Wells, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, B Reid, M Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury, Gibbs, Selwood, Hartlett, Naitanui, Martin, Cotchin, Rioli, Dangerfield , Kennedy (WCE) are but some of the quality players taken at the pointy end of the draft. That is what "the industry built around statistic (sic) analysis" says to me.

'Oh but the MFC effed it up in the past & therefore will eff it up in the future' - is the line of gutless spivs who buy into the 'industry' of superstition & voodoo.

Indeed Mitch Clark is a great reference point but one that you miss - he was a top 10 pick. So we are to trade for two established top 10 pick worthy midfielders? Who & at what cost? Do we offer them the same kind of massive coin that Mitch Clark is on? Wouldn't it be far simpler with the age of our list, wage structure & current appeal to draft our own two top 10 worthy midfielders?

Nice post. Agree wholeheartedly. Use the two top 5 picks ourselves. If a suitable trade comes about for the mid first rounder then so be it but not for picks 3 and 4.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Are you serious mate?

You try and change the point of what I said and then you put forward ridiculous comments like what follows?

Stop wasting my time with these silly comments.

I'll play. Why bring up Morton smart guy ?

[The heart beats true 18,201]

Pavlich, N Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Ball, Bartel, Goddard, Wells, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, B Reid, M Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury, Gibbs, Selwood, Hartlett, Naitanui, Martin, Cotchin, Rioli, Dangerfield , Kennedy (WCE) are but some of the quality players taken at the pointy end of the draft

A list of players we didn't draft to prove the point that we should pluck from the draft again? It's hardly a compelling argument for us is it. The point is not are those players in the draft, it's can we find them and develop them in conjunction with our current list, and is it the best way for us to move forward? My argument is that we have enough to develop from a low base and we need proven experience to help the learning process. I'd argue that the way the clubs playing its hand lately proves our football department believes something similar to my argument.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I'd argue that the way the clubs playing its hand lately proves our football department believes something similar to my argument.

What hand ? They wouldn't have to give picks to Collingwood for Cloke. And all that has been mentioned by Harrington is that we may trade a first round pick, which could mean that 13 will be on the table. And you're talking about "proof" ?

Top 5 picks in this decade include Judd, Hodge, Riewoldt, Goddard, Murphy, Cotchin, Franklin, Roughead, Cooney, Griffen, Pendlebury, Thomas, Didak, Josh Kennedy, Hurley, Martin and a guy called Boak. And sure, there have been just as many that are just OK players, but why assume that we'll always get it wrong ? Judge each draft differently and on its merits. And also allow this new recruiting panel and coaching group a chance to develop top end talent and stop judging the club on the Bailey era.

I want a chance at a star. And I won't assume we'll always stuff up.

[Johnny Karate 559]

A list of players we didn't draft to prove the point that we should pluck from the draft again? It's hardly a compelling argument for us is it. The point is not are those players in the draft, it's can we find them and develop them in conjunction with our current list, and is it the best way for us to move forward?

Surely you can see that there is quality towards the top end of any draft? The last gun mid we traded for was Craig Turley, by your 'history says' logic we shouldn't do that again either. We are cursed & may as well wind up the joint tomorrow then, Chicken Little.

Again I ask; who of the potentially available midfielders would you trade for? Beams/Boak? They're hardly proven quantities themselves & not worth anymore than pick 13ish + a player. Their current clubs would salivate at the prospect of getting a top 5 pick for them. Not to mention the fact that plenty of other clubs that would be interested in those two would force a bidding war for their services - $500k plus for Beams/Boak & then out of contract Nathan Jones leaves because there's sweet FA for him.

In 2001 Fremantle traded away pick 1 for Trent Croad, seven years later pick 1 wins the Norm Smith & Croad plays in the premiership with him - for Hawthorn.

In 2002, Richmond trades it's first pick - #4 for Kane Johnson, after Carlton gets busted, #4 turns into #2 & is Daniel Wells.

In 2007, Carlton trade pick 3, Josh Kennedy (#4 in 05) & 20 for Chris Judd & #36. Despite Judd's greatness the Eagles are probably closer to a flag than Carlton through shrewd recruiting rather than buying a squad.

Picking up experienced players such as Warnock & McLean at the expense of recruiting hasn't worked as well as West Coast selecting the likes of Shuey, Gaff, S Selwood & Naitanui in the ND. Our friend history would indicate that drafting is probably the smarter method than trading away high picks for ok players.

My argument is that we have enough to develop from a low base and we need proven experience to help the learning process. I'd argue that the way the clubs playing its hand lately proves our football department believes something similar to my argument.

Blind Freddy can see that we need midfield talent. History suggests (albeit not always in the MFC's case) that the best way of procuring it is through drafting & developing your own.

Proven experience is great but doesn't have to come at a huge price - look at Sydney with their recruitment of role players or even GWS bringing in older leaders on the cheap as well as giving the odd state league player a crack.

Your last point is merely conjecture - time will tell.

[dee-luded 2,959]

A list of players we didn't draft to prove the point that we should pluck from the draft again? It's hardly a compelling argument for us is it. The point is not are those players in the draft, it's can we find them and develop them in conjunction with our current list, and is it the best way for us to move forward? My argument is that we have enough to develop from a low base and we need proven experience to help the learning process. I'd argue that the way the clubs playing its hand lately proves our football department believes something similar to my argument.

IF, you mean trading 'IN', one player a year of the ilk of Clarke, I'd say good. Use our Mid 1st Rnd pick for Boak.. thats OK. But no more.

We also need the youth & just because We 'Had' a 'gamestyle' we were recruiting toward, with lesser recruiters than we are organising now, we took some soft ones.

Now under the clubs changes that directed the change of coach, & the implementing of a new coach with a contested footy mantra,,,, we are onto the right pathway.

And this pathway dictates we can get the hard players required to play this style. We have the knowledge around the club now to recruit the right type of player...

I just hope they don't panic & get impatient, & try to sell of half the picks to make a quick fix.

This would be as bad as what we've done recruiting, over the last 12 years.

We have a chance to recruit some top young mids, from one of the best Mids drafts there's been.

And I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off with the quick skilled smalls in Kennedy & Colcohoun @ the Mid1st Rnder... both can play thru the mids, & one a renowned small forward, the other a small back who plays Mids, both pacy with top skills.

[rjay 25,434]

Surely you can see that there is quality towards the top end of any draft? The last gun mid we traded for was Craig Turley, by your 'history says' logic we shouldn't do that again either. We are cursed & may as well wind up the joint tomorrow then, Chicken Little.

Again I ask; who of the potentially available midfielders would you trade for? Beams/Boak? They're hardly proven quantities themselves & not worth anymore than pick 13ish + a player. Their current clubs would salivate at the prospect of getting a top 5 pick for them. Not to mention the fact that plenty of other clubs that would be interested in those two would force a bidding war for their services - $500k plus for Beams/Boak & then out of contract Nathan Jones leaves because there's sweet FA for him.

In 2001 Fremantle traded away pick 1 for Trent Croad, seven years later pick 1 wins the Norm Smith & Croad plays in the premiership with him - for Hawthorn.

In 2002, Richmond trades it's first pick - #4 for Kane Johnson, after Carlton gets busted, #4 turns into #2 & is Daniel Wells.

In 2007, Carlton trade pick 3, Josh Kennedy (#4 in 05) & 20 for Chris Judd & #36. Despite Judd's greatness the Eagles are probably closer to a flag than Carlton through shrewd recruiting rather than buying a squad.

Picking up experienced players such as Warnock & McLean at the expense of recruiting hasn't worked as well as West Coast selecting the likes of Shuey, Gaff, S Selwood & Naitanui in the ND. Our friend history would indicate that drafting is probably the smarter method than trading away high picks for ok players.

Blind Freddy can see that we need midfield talent. History suggests (albeit not always in the MFC's case) that the best way of procuring it is through drafting & developing your own.

Proven experience is great but doesn't have to come at a huge price - look at Sydney with their recruitment of role players or even GWS bringing in older leaders on the cheap as well as giving the odd state league player a crack.

Your last point is merely conjecture - time will tell.

Spot on Jimmy C, couldn't agree with you more. We need to build our own.

[The heart beats true 18,201]

History suggests (albeit not always in the MFC's case) that the best way of procuring it is through drafting & developing your own.

Did you just argue you my point for me? It sure sounded like it.

Your last point is merely conjecture - time will tell.

As are all of yours. We aren't talking about the concept of the draft, we are talking about the MFC's current situation.

My point is more about timing and supporting what we already have.

Young list, no midfield, a poor recent history of player development and a team that fails to compete. We aren't Sydney who bring in players that fill holes. We need players to build around. We have a few potentials, but we need 3-4 more and as much as everyone loves to salivate over a 17 year old that looks great against other 17 years olds I'd take Boak or Beams as they have made it at the level that the game is actually played at.

[Johnny Karate 559]

Did you just argue you my point for me? It sure sounded like it.

If that is all you got out of that entire post, I'm wasting my time. Point missed again. Say hi to Craig Turley for me!

As are all of yours. We aren't talking about the concept of the draft, we are talking about the MFC's current situation.

My point is more about timing and supporting what we already have.

Young list, no midfield, a poor recent history of player development and a team that fails to compete. We aren't Sydney who bring in players that fill holes. We need players to build around. We have a few potentials, but we need 3-4 more and as much as everyone loves to salivate over a 17 year old that looks great against other 17 years olds I'd take Boak or Beams as they have made it at the level that the game is actually played at.

*Sigh* How is it conjecture that top picks are of high value? How is it conjecture that most stars are drafted at the pointy end (even our own Clark, Frawley & Jones were taken high in their drafts)? How is it conjecture that trading high draft picks for ok players has been proven to bite you in the bum (see West Coast v Carlton)?

*Sigh* At what cost would you take Boak or Beams? I've asked this repeatedly.

If it's pick 13 + a player, sure. However if it's pick 3 or 4, you'd want to hope they turn out to be stars. Neither are the best midfielders at their own clubs - are they even that much better than our own Nathan Jones who may be forced to walk or take less cash as we attract these 'proven' commodities?

If we were talking about players the ilk of Chris Judd or Gary Ablett - proven stars and culture changers - I'd have no qualms about giving up top picks but to give them up for Beams or Boak wouldn't be the smartest thing to do. Giving up top picks (potential stars/good players/duds) for Beams/Boak (potential stars/good players/duds) is the equivalent of shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic & paying half a million for the honour.

"Young list, no midfield, a poor recent history of player development and a team that fails to compete. We aren't Sydney who bring in players that fill holes. We need players to build around. We have a few potentials, but we need 3-4 more"

Did you just argue my point for me? It sure sounded like it!

[old55 23,867]

The argument that we don't want to spend pick 4 on Boak is a fine one but to support it with the alternative of pick 13 and a player is unsustainable. Pick 13 and a player is not going to get you near Boak, Geelong will be able to offer something quite similar. The only way he'll get to MFC is with pick 4 in the mix and a deal too good for Port Adelaide to ignore. I'm happy for posters to push the use 3 & 4 in the draft line but you need to accept that it means no Boak and stop icing your cake with that idea. The best case Boak solution is 4 + 13 for Boak + 7.

Caddy might be a different proposition because Essendon's first available pick will be well in the 30s after they use their first rounder on Daniher. 13 plus a player may have traction there dependingon whether anyone else gets involved.

We've got a lot of alternatives when you work in pick 3 for Jack Martin. This has the advantage of guaranteeing Viney in the 2nd round because I don't think GC will bid for him.

I still like Martin, Boak, pick 7 and Viney - it's a good problem to have.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Geelong's compensation pick wasn't activated and I don't think Port are in the position to wait for talent, but yes, they'd be able to satisfy Port on the player side of things better than us.

In reality, the best way to get Boak is to convince him that we're the club for him. What will Geelong want to pay Boak ? $400K a year ? If Melb offer $550K a year over 4 years will that tempt Boak to move a bit up the highway ?

If Boak wants to go to Geelong the whole argument is moot. If he decides on Melbourne our position gets stronger and I wouldn't be offering pick 4. He's not that good.

I can see the argument of exchanging picks 4 and 7. As much as I find it unpalatable. But pick 4 without 7 coming back the other way is too much.