An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html

Good share.

I used to see this 'anchoring' concept a lot travelling through Asian countries, where Western tourists that weren't used to bargaining would go in hard trying not to budge on a certain price and invariably walking away smugly thinking they'd won something while getting horrendously ripped off.

An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html

Good to see they teach the bleeding obvious at Harvard. Presumably they teach some other stuff to justify the large fees.

Got to admit that I've done a 180 with Jake Melksham. I didn't want him at the club initially but I'm looking forward to seeing him run around and making himself a pest. And if he can play consistently like he did in 2013 we would have done well. Even if he has just short spells in the midfield (I'm assuming he will), it offers a chop out for others.

Jake Niall's excuse article for "nothing to do with flawed system"

An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html

Thanks.

Yes, it was interesting and one can't help but align with this comment as a Melbourne supporter:

Noble says that his Harvard lessons encouraged him to take "a more holistic" approach to trades, focusing less on one trade than on the aggregate outcome in the exchange period; the Crows might not have gained Troy Menzel from the Blues for pick 28, for instance, had they not finished the Dangerfield deal early.

We perhaps didn't know it, but one can't help feeling we were in very good hands during this trade period. They had an overall strategic plan that netted telling results.

Thanks.

Yes, it was interesting and one can't help but align with this comment as a Melbourne supporter:

Noble says that his Harvard lessons encouraged him to take "a more holistic" approach to trades, focusing less on one trade than on the aggregate outcome in the exchange period; the Crows might not have gained Troy Menzel from the Blues for pick 28, for instance, had they not finished the Dangerfield deal early.

We perhaps didn't know it, but one can't help feeling we were in very good hands during this trade period. They had an overall strategic plan that netted telling results.

The bit about them getting Menzel due to their swift dealings with Dangerfield is exactly the same point I made in one of the other threads. If we'd pissfarted around forever on the Melksham deal or the Howe/Toumpas deals, it's highly unlikely we'd have had time to get the GWS and GC deals done that made the whole lot a winner.

I doubt the MFC have sent Mahoney and Viney to Harvard (rich vs poor clubs anyone?), and we weren't involved in any high profile trades like the Dangerfield one, but that article could just as easily describe the MFC's dealings in the last few seasons. I agree with you that it really feels like we're in good hands - they're also starting to put the runs on the board to prove it.

An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html

View a deal in its totality not just one part... You need Harvard for that?

The bit about them getting Menzel due to their swift dealings with Dangerfield is exactly the same point I made in one of the other threads. If we'd pissfarted around forever on the Melksham deal or the Howe/Toumpas deals, it's highly unlikely we'd have had time to get the GWS and GC deals done that made the whole lot a winner.

I doubt the MFC have sent Mahoney and Viney to Harvard (rich vs poor clubs anyone?), and we weren't involved in any high profile trades like the Dangerfield one, but that article could just as easily describe the MFC's dealings in the last few seasons. I agree with you that it really feels like we're in good hands - they're also starting to put the runs on the board to prove it.

I think you're being presumptious. We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while. There's more certainty when trading for players than there is with future picks. If we have a bottom 4 year in 2016, we're definitely not winners.

I think you're being presumptious. We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while. There's more certainty when trading for players than there is with future picks. If we have a bottom 4 year in 2016, we're definitely not winners.

Would we be 'equal' then?

We did have ND6 and still have ND7 but effectively swapped next years pick for this year's ND3.

So unless we end up giving GC the first or second pick - you could argue we have simply brought forward next years pick.

View a deal in its totality not just one part... You need Harvard for that?

Most on here needed the overnight online equivalent of a Harvard degree when they heard we were giving up pick 25 for Melksham. It was meltdown central.

We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while.

Once again, we didn't give up next year's 1st round pick - we took it this year. We haven't lost a pick.

Two picks at the pointy end of the first round trumps pretty well everything IMHO, and to be able to take them sooner rather than later is some rather thick icing on the cake. We need improvement ASAP.

In any case, we'll move up the ladder next year, so it's a moot discussion. (insert relevant smiley)

I think you're being presumptious. We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while. There's more certainty when trading for players than there is with future picks. If we have a bottom 4 year in 2016, we're definitely not winners.

Can't even say that. After all, we all know the draft is a lottery (even if we pedantically argue about the obvious point that the probabilities in the lottery are weighted in favour of early picks.)

Can't even say that. After all, we all know the draft is a lottery (even if we pedantically argue about the obvious point that the probabilities in the lottery are weighted in favour of early picks.)

So it's not a lottery.

there's been some pretty shytey and self serving stuff come out of harvard too

just saying.......no need to swoon just because the "h" word is used

Most on here needed the overnight online equivalent of a Harvard degree when they heard we were giving up pick 25 for Melksham. It was meltdown central.

Most of us want wins now and most don't think old Milky pants will add too much change to that. Again we have to wait and see. I don't think he is a massive talent but he is an improvement on the usual suspects. He is a bridge to the "golden generation" that will be playing in winning flags for us.

Learned at Harvard....and any decent negotiation or sales course.

Wow, a simple behavioural concept of anchoring bias made into an article to suggest that the Adel/Geel was somehow special.

Obviously fluff filler whilst nothing else is going on.

It's funny. I haven't read one poster who articulated any degree of insight into the negotiations from this draft period, yet apparently, after the event, it's passe.

I accept it's not all ground breaking, but I found the interaction of the characters interesting and found it a good read. Clearly, I'm not as clever as some.

It's funny. I haven't read one poster who articulated any degree of insight into the negotiations from this draft period, yet apparently, after the event, it's passe.

I accept it's not all ground breaking, but I found the interaction of the characters interesting and found it a good read. Clearly, I'm not as clever as some.

you wot

I think you're being presumptious. We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while. There's more certainty when trading for players than there is with future picks. If we have a bottom 4 year in 2016, we're definitely not winners.

Agree, it will be years before we know whether we're winners, much like the Tyson/Salem vs Kelly trade. We don't know the quality of 2015 draft group vs 2016 draft group, and won't for some time. I think the most important thing is we get right the picks that we have.

I think you're being presumptious. We won't know the cost of giving up next years' 1st rd pick for a while. There's more certainty when trading for players than there is with future picks. If we have a bottom 4 year in 2016, we're definitely not winners.

We did what we had to do. Unless we can create a sense of optimism and success free agents just wont be coming to us. So we had to invest now rather than wait a year. In my opinion the risk involved in this was entirely worth it. I cant even entertain the thought of us being bottom 4 again next year. Surely this worm is turning!

Most on here needed the overnight online equivalent of a Harvard degree when they heard we were giving up pick 25 for Melksham. It was meltdown central.

I've always thought 25 for Melksham was a good trade. In isolation.

That it formed pat of a grand scheme of list improvement plays during the trade period made it even sweeter.

That we gamed Essendon all along and then ultimately managed to nail them on pick 3 (which presumably we'll spend on Parish whom they wanted all along) makes it simply unreal.

This club is now competent. We gamed all other clubs - except perhaps GWS and GCS, each of whom may very well have been in the tent on what we were doing all along.

So it's not a lottery.

O good grief. Just the pedantry I was referring to.

BTW, it you buy 100 tickets in a lottery, is it not a lottery to you because your odds are better than the bloke who has only bought one ticket.

It's funny. I haven't read one poster who articulated any degree of insight into the negotiations from this draft period, yet apparently, after the event, it's passe.

I accept it's not all ground breaking, but I found the interaction of the characters interesting and found it a good read. Clearly, I'm not as clever as some.

Ture, sensible postings were difficult to find amongs the volume of complaints that the club wasn't being tough enough. But they were there - they just didn't use jargon labels (copyrighted by Harvard) to attach to the concepts.

It's funny. I haven't read one poster who articulated any degree of insight into the negotiations from this draft period, yet apparently, after the event, it's passe.

I accept it's not all ground breaking, but I found the interaction of the characters interesting and found it a good read. Clearly, I'm not as clever as some.

It is difficult to articulate any degree of insight when we (and the journalists) are not in the room. Saying that they were avoiding anchoring bias is about as valuable as suggesting they had mapped out the MNP's, or whatever. It's rewriting history (like the Harvard case study method, BTW), and offers us no insight into how they did it, or whether it was anchoring or first positioning.

A behind the scenes review and interviews of each step of the deal would offer more insight. We could then understand then negotiations and how they played out. We could also learn if the two guys who went to Harvard were even involved, or if this was just a spurious link.

Anyway, if you enjoyed it, that's cool. It just seemed like a stretch too far to give the piece an angle.

Studied his highlights today, I think he could be useful if he decides to pursue the half-back role. He has a monster kick and seems pretty accurate as well. If he doesn't, he seems to have some poise in the midfield that could help, wont be the A+ were looking for but he seems to have some class about him and experience with Goodwin can only help.

I sincerely hope that the footy department decide which role he plays, not him. We have had enough of those.