You really do need to take these threads with a big dose of salt but clearly we were jammed up by the Saints.

Guess we did not want another Jack Hannath situation developing.

Still, none of us yet know if all the handwringing over that one was justified, so chill people.

We clearly wanted Frost badly so that's what we have - a second athletic tall like McDonald who can butcher the ball like Frawley.

So let's get Yze back from the Hawks and teach them how to kick.

Someone please explain to me the difference between these two picks?

The difference is that last year the following players were selected on or after pick 23: Crouch, Hartung, McStay, Merrett, Lemmens and Taylor.

Not sure how much footy you watch but all of those look like they'll make it.

We look to have found a player at 40 in JKH but after that in the 40's only Ben Brown from North at pick 47 has played a game.

So you might say you've probably got a 50% chance of finding a player at 23 whereas it might be 20-25% at pick 40.

If Jason Taylor finds a player at 40 or 53 and Frost makes it, it'll be a great trade.

I think the more accurate comparison is what is the difference between 40 & 53 compared with 23 & PSD1.

Do the club expect a better player to be available at 53 than via the PSD?

Franklin was ND5, Fyfe was ND20, and Priddis made it to the rookie draft there were so many overlooking him.

The difference, to answer the question, will be the players we will no longer be able to get, but the club with this one deal was able to secure Frost, secure another new player for the list at ND40 and position themselves to go after someone in the PSD or use ND53. 3 for the price of 1.

Oh, and the irony of your handwringing, Lamashtu?

Luke Parker - Selected with the 40th pick in the National Draft in 2010...

Mate, lighten up for a change. The irony of your post is you're so quick to jump down my throat that you're too short-sighted to even realise that mine, filled with numerous incorrect facts (which you laughably went on to correct like that know-it-all kid in school that nobody likes), was a blatantly tongue in cheek reference to the endless wailing about missing Wines with Toumpas, or Darling with Cook, and so forth.

I (incorrectly) assumed getting all their draft numbers wrong (including Priddis, a notable rookie draftee) was hint enough that I was highlighting the futility of draft choices; that inevitably you miss some good players no matter who you choose. The fact that you label it "ironic" that I didn't realise Parker was pick 40 (another well known fact) just highlights that some around here need to get off their high horse.

The irony in his posts aren't all that surprising. Bloke can't see past his nose, just wants to find any way he can to be negative.

Nah mate, what's ironic is you can't see far enough past your nose to notice a joke when you see one.

Mate, lighten up for a change. The irony of your post is you're so quick to jump down my throat that you're too short-sighted to even realise that mine, filled with numerous incorrect facts (which you laughably went on to correct like that know-it-all kid in school that nobody likes), was a blatantly tongue in cheek reference to the endless wailing about missing Wines with Toumpas, or Darling with Cook, and so forth.

I (incorrectly) assumed getting all their draft numbers wrong (including Priddis, a notable rookie draftee) was hint enough that I was highlighting the futility of draft choices; that inevitably you miss some good players no matter who you choose. The fact that you label it "ironic" that I didn't realise Parker was pick 40 (another well known fact) just highlights that some around here need to get off their high horse.

Nah mate, what's ironic is you can't see far enough past your nose to notice a joke when you see one.

You'll forgive me for missing it as all you've done for a fortnight is moan about not landing 7 A grade midfielders and that we aren't doing enough and blah blah blah. At no stage did it look like an attempt at humour, it was more about a bloke who didn't know what he was talking about.

Just to put things into perspective, here's some successful picks from 2004 - 2010 for picks 35 - 45 (too early too tell for 2011 - 2013 drafts):

Mark LeCras, Travis Cloke (father/son), Ivan Maric, Andrew Swallow, Alipate Carlisle, Alwyn Davey, Todd Goldstein, Josh P Kennedy (father/son), Tom Hawkins (father/son), Bachar Houli, Scott D Thompson, Chris Mayne, Jack Steven, Zach Clarke, Matt Broadbent, Steven Motlop, Rory Sloane, Sam Reid, Allen Christensen, Luke Parker, Tom Liberatore (father/son), Alex Fasolo.

So there is a decent chance we can snare a great player at pick 40 especially with our current recruiting team.

Someone please explain to me the difference between these two picks?

Aside from the obvious being that there are 17 players selected between them, there are a few other factors.

It’s essentially a probability equation based on the subjective ratings of our recruiters.

The quality of players available at those picks and the chance of them making it both decrease the further you head in to the draft.

I haven't followed this draft closely, but from all reliable reports the talent drops a level after pick 8-10 and again somewhere between pick 20-30.

If you're interested in doing some research there are a number of experts on BigFooty with good track records - Knightmare, paige cardona, foj, chris25 are all normally spot on - all of their previous efforts are on the website so you can always reconcile their pre-draft views for previous years against your own rankings. Emma Quayle is the journalist worth listening to, Callum Twomey does the hard yards, but his publicly accessible body of work isn’t large enough to make a call on how good he is at judging young talent.

Knightmare's power rankings are normally a good guide for player talent - he will update these in the next few weeks, prior to the draft.

Mate, lighten up for a change. The irony of your post is you're so quick to jump down my throat that you're too short-sighted to even realise that mine, filled with numerous incorrect facts (which you laughably went on to correct like that know-it-all kid in school that nobody likes), was a blatantly tongue in cheek reference to the endless wailing about missing Wines with Toumpas, or Darling with Cook, and so forth.

I (incorrectly) assumed getting all their draft numbers wrong (including Priddis, a notable rookie draftee) was hint enough that I was highlighting the futility of draft choices; that inevitably you miss some good players no matter who you choose. The fact that you label it "ironic" that I didn't realise Parker was pick 40 (another well known fact) just highlights that some around here need to get off their high horse.

I was 'correcting' it for the benefit of others who would have thought you weren't talking out your o-ring.

You gave a post that attempted to play right into the battered psyche of suffering MFC fans for a laugh.

I got it.

But I also found it funny that only two of those players were available post ND23 and one of them was taken with the very pick we now have.

Maybe you should 'lighten up?'

Just to put things into perspective, here's some successful picks from 2004 - 2010 for picks 35 - 45 (too early too tell for 2011 - 2013 drafts):

Mark LeCras, Travis Cloke (father/son), Ivan Maric, Andrew Swallow, Alipate Carlisle, Alwyn Davey, Todd Goldstein, Josh P Kennedy (father/son), Tom Hawkins (father/son), Bachar Houli, Scott D Thompson, Chris Mayne, Jack Steven, Zach Clarke, Matt Broadbent, Steven Motlop, Rory Sloane, Sam Reid, Allen Christensen, Luke Parker, Tom Liberatore (father/son), Alex Fasolo.

So there is a decent chance we can snare a great player at pick 40 especially with our current recruiting team.

To reach that conclusion how many spuds were taken? What was the hit ratio? Then devalue the hits by the average result

The difference is that last year the following players were selected on or after pick 23: Crouch, Hartung, McStay, Merrett, Lemmens and Taylor.

Not sure how much footy you watch but all of those look like they'll make it.

We look to have found a player at 40 in JKH but after that in the 40's only Ben Brown from North at pick 47 has played a game.

So you might say you've probably got a 50% chance of finding a player at 23 whereas it might be 20-25% at pick 40.

If Jason Taylor finds a player at 40 or 53 and Frost makes it, it'll be a great trade.

Tom Langdon?

and to that the fact we were stooged again, like a little boy.

the saints sure saw us coming, forced us to cough up a top pick like a seagull with a burning hot chip.

The Saint r taking Membrey so it seems so they did force our hand let's file that away 4 the future and play hard ball with them, Cats & Hawks too for taking Clark & Spud.

Member is a forward. We wanted the best developing defender. If the Saints were into Frosty, then it was not a like for like. We don't need the member, we have Dawes, Fitzy, hogan. We need the replacement for chip. Therefore, going at 23 to get the defender, not risking him going in the PSD to the saints, makes sense. Where the go in the draft has little impact on their future performance. We need to select the best we can that suits our needs.

If Roosy and co had the toughest interviews, maybe we have a process for getting the right players in. Let's see what they land, and we do with them. The proof is in the pudding....

Will some clubs have used all their picks by 40 ie could it actually be say Pick 35?

pick 40 got us JKH last year, hoping its our lucky number again

pick 40 got us JKH last year, hoping its our lucky number again

Do you ever sleep HH? Your the only poster that seems to post 24/7

Will some clubs have used all their picks by 40 ie could it actually be say Pick 35?

No. GWS is the only club with four or more picks by that stage, and they're all in the top 24. It'd be unprecedented (and insane) for a team to pass then, their pick 24 is an academy pick, and given their insistence on pick 23 they'll certainly be using it. Four players are off the board by 40, already committed to their clubs via father-son or academy picks.

I'm not sure what else we were supposed to pay anyway, given:

- There is a high chance St Kilda would've dealt for Membrey if this trade didn't happen, and they'd have taken Frost in the PSD.

- Late picks are worthless to GWS, so 23 was the only pick of any use to them

- GWS returned their two earliest picks (other than one the one directly after it, which is spoken for) to us, meaning we got the best upgrade they could give us

Whether it turns out to be a valuable trade depends on whether Frost is any good or not, but really this seems to be the only plausible trade. We wanted the player, so we paid for him. It would seem to me that people would only have been happy if we'd gotten him for free ala Garlett; that's not how this game works.

Edited October 17, 201410 yr by Nasher

I'm not sure what else we were supposed to pay anyway, given:

- There is a high chance St Kilda would've dealt for Membrey if this trade didn't happen, and they'd have taken Frost in the PSD.

- Late picks are worthless to GWS, so 23 was the only pick of any use to them

- GWS returned their two earliest picks (other than one the one directly after it, which is spoken for) to us, meaning we got the best upgrade they could give us

Whether it turns out to be a valuable trade depends on whether Frost is any good or not, but really this seems to be the only plausible trade. We wanted the player, so we paid for him. It would seem to me that people would only have been happy if we'd gotten him for free ala Garlett; that's not how this game works.

The Membrey situation is interesting. With academy picks and rookie upgrades the swans have nothing they want to get from St Kilda. I don't think they would've traded. But the possibility that Sydney fills its list and then Membrey became a DFA could've happened, although it doesn't seem to go that way. Funny how that was a threat before the end of the trade period but not after?

What seems to annoy me is that we were caught on the hop with that. We should have seen that coming and therefore potentially got a better trade. Or seen through it and held our ground.

In some ways it does look like we will need 2 picks in the draft regardless (after 2 and 3) so splitting 23 in to 40 and 53 plus getting Frost is somewhat reasonable. I would've preferred if we split 23 with a 3rd club in to something better like 35, 45 and 50 and sent 50 to GWS. It's not that useful for them but they could've packaged it up with other picks and got higher in the draft.

By the way, look at the graph in this post.

23 and 40 compare pretty well.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-history-of-pickflation.638451/page-4#post-35376498

The Saint r taking Membrey so it seems so they did force our hand let's file that away 4 the future and play hard ball with them, Cats & Hawks too for taking Clark & Spud.

Yes remember the saints, not so sure of about the hawks and the cats, the hawks did take frawley which i consider a plus given the compensation we got and whether clarke is a loss of us or a win is really going to depend on how well Clarke is going to go, if past history is any guide then this maybe a great win for us as well.

By the way, look at the graph in this post.

23 and 40 compare pretty well.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-history-of-pickflation.638451/page-4#post-35376498

It reinforces my view that the relative value between the picks is not greatly different, but the strongest point it makes is how stupid it is to calculate the value of draft picks based on which players were taken with that pick in the past. Going off that logic you'd prefer any pick in the 40s or 50s over pick 35 (but not any other pick in the 30s) given how many busts there have been at 35.

Will some clubs have used all their picks by 40 ie could it actually be say Pick 35?

Few F/S and Academy picks already decided as well.

I find it interesting that so much of the discussion regarding the Frost trade has focussed on the loss of pick 23, while neglecting the gain of two later picks.

If we accept that drafting is speculative, then having two later picks might actually improve the odds of drafting a 100 game player (as opposed to the single pick at 23).

With the loss of Frawley, our list is chronically short of 100+ game players. Compare the number of 100+ players at Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong and Freo.

The Saint r taking Membrey so it seems so they did force our hand let's file that away 4 the future and play hard ball with them, Cats & Hawks too for taking Clark & Spud.

I see jack steven is a free agent, or out of contract this time next year.....

# yep here it is > http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-18/the-next-crop-of-free-agents

I find it interesting that so much of the discussion regarding the Frost trade has focussed on the loss of pick 23, while neglecting the gain of two later picks.

If we accept that drafting is speculative, then having two later picks might actually improve the odds of drafting a 100 game player (as opposed to the single pick at 23).

With the loss of Frawley, our list is chronically short of 100+ game players. Compare the number of 100+ players at Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong and Freo.

could be, but its not ideal to lose an early 2nd Rnd pick unnecessarily, at any time.. especially when the Opp' is just being vindictive.

the car ma can be a [censored].