Apparently, according to Emma in a recent  article in the Age "we were allowed to keep Oliver in the Draft from Essendon". Seems like a different slant on things to me.

Essendon's poor man, Darcy Parish might make it here if he reads that anyway.

I think it means that our future draft pick trading meant that we stayed above Essendon in the pecking order, not that we kept Oliver from them per se. This allowed us to pick whoever we wanted, which was Oliver.

But yeah her wording is odd.

5 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Apparently, according to Emma in a recent  article in the Age "we were allowed to keep Oliver in the Draft from Essendon". Seems like a different slant on things to me.

Essendon's poor man, Darcy Parish might make it here if he reads that anyway.

I read that too and wondered what she was trying to say. Perhaps, Melbourne in a master stroke of trading, swapped picks in order to get future champion Clayton Oliver before evil Essendon.

My recollection of this trade period was Essendon was all over Oliver.  We needed to get a pick ahead of them when we realised he wouldn't bet there by the time our first pick came along.

2 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

My recollection of this trade period was Essendon was all over Oliver.  We needed to get a pick ahead of them when we realised he wouldn't bet there by the time our first pick came along.

Spot on.

14 minutes ago, willmoy said:

"we were allowed to keep Oliver in the Draft from Essendon"

I've read that 10 times and still NFI what it means

When we open threads to discuss a specific article it may be an idea to link that article so other posters have some sort of idea as to wtf you are on about...

AFL season 2016: Who'll win the trading game?
"Melbourne won't be sweating too much, right now. The Demons had played a big part in a lot of drafts when they decided to send their first-round pick this year to the Gold Coast, in a deal that allowed them to keep Clayton Oliver from Essendon. They got a second top 10 pick from the Giants, and grabbed another key forward (Sam Weideman) to tuck away for future use. They knew they had enough good young kids. They backed themselves in to improve, to move up the ladder, to have no regrets. So far, so good."
 

9 hours ago, ManDee said:

AFL season 2016: Who'll win the trading game?

"Melbourne won't be sweating too much, right now. The Demons had played a big part in a lot of drafts when they decided to send their first-round pick this year to the Gold Coast, in a deal that allowed them to keep Clayton Oliver from Essendon. They got a second top 10 pick from the Giants, and grabbed another key forward (Sam Weideman) to tuck away for future use. They knew they had enough good young kids. They backed themselves in to improve, to move up the ladder, to have no regrets. So far, so good."

That makes so much more sense, thanks ManDee

9 hours ago, ManDee said:

AFL season 2016: Who'll win the trading game?
"Melbourne won't be sweating too much, right now. The Demons had played a big part in a lot of drafts when they decided to send their first-round pick this year to the Gold Coast, in a deal that allowed them to keep Clayton Oliver from Essendon. They got a second top 10 pick from the Giants, and grabbed another key forward (Sam Weideman) to tuck away for future use. They knew they had enough good young kids."

Interpretation is a funny thing.  No idea how willmoy got from that sentence, to the sentence he wrote here.  Thanks - that actually makes sense.  

We also bid on Callum Mills, though i'm sure the recruiting department knew that was never going to happen haha

 

This would be similar to what Roos tried to orchestrate at Sydney to get Dustin Martin wouldnt it? I seem to recall Sydney desperately trying to trade their way up the draft order to snare him. Similar kind of players..

16 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

We also bid on Callum Mills, though i'm sure the recruiting department knew that was never going to happen haha

 

I reckon so it's on the record that a team was bidding on academy players. I think we did it the year before with Heeney as well.

I thought Emma Quayle's summation was pretty good. It was in the context of an article about trading future draft picks.

I think we traded next year's first round draft pick for these reasons:

1. It helped us to get the pick that we used on Oliver (ahead of Essendon)
2. It helped us to get another top-10 pick that we used on Weideman
3. If we rise up the ladder, two top 10 picks in 2015 are better than one top-10 pick in 2016
4. If we do, the 2016 first round pick wouldn't be worth much more than the extra 2015 first-round pick we received (#9). Make the 8 and our 2016 first-round pick is #10, at best.
5. It's better to have a good pick 'in the hand' and developing rather than another new recruit for 2017, especially with a tall like Weideman.

47 minutes ago, olisik said:

When we open threads to discuss a specific article it may be an idea to link that article so other posters have some sort of idea as to wtf you are on about...

Would have done that if I knew wtf to do!!!  Still doesn't mean I can't learn

3 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Would have done that if I knew wtf to do!!!  Still doesn't mean I can't learn

Highlight the text in the article, copy and paste in Demonland, you can then edit out if you like. The link is automatically included.

16 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I thought Emma Quayle's summation was pretty good. It was in the context of an article about trading future draft picks.

I think we traded next year's first round draft pick for these reasons:

1. It helped us to get the pick that we used on Oliver (ahead of Essendon)
2. It helped us to get another top-10 pick that we used on Weideman
3. If we rise up the ladder, two top 10 picks in 2015 are better than one top-10 pick in 2016
4. If we do, the 2016 first round pick wouldn't be worth much more than the extra 2015 first-round pick we received (#9). Make the 8 and our 2016 first-round pick is #10, at best.
5. It's better to have a good pick 'in the hand' and developing rather than another new recruit for 2017, especially with a tall like Weideman.

Also, our recruiters would've had a fair idea of the quality and mix of players coming up in this year's draft. Perhaps our needs were better met from the 2015 draft mix.

Edited May 11, 20169 yr by Moonshadow

9 hours ago, ManDee said:

AFL season 2016: Who'll win the trading game?

"Melbourne won't be sweating too much, right now. The Demons had played a big part in a lot of drafts when they decided to send their first-round pick this year to the Gold Coast, in a deal that allowed them to keep Clayton Oliver from Essendon. They got a second top 10 pick from the Giants, and grabbed another key forward (Sam Weideman) to tuck away for future use. They knew they had enough good young kids. They backed themselves in to improve, to move up the ladder, to have no regrets. So far, so good."

Makes sense however 'enabled' may have been a better choice imv.

The wording is fine as is.

9 minutes ago, P-man said:

The wording is fine as is.

Okay, Emma.

17 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Makes sense however 'enabled' may have been a better choice imv.

Agreed. I'm hardly a great wordsmith but to me allowed implies a sense of permission where as enabled implies that we actively did something to make it happen.

4 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Okay, Emma.

 

14 minutes ago, P-man said:

The wording is fine as is.

As Bullit says  'enabled' may have been a better choice.

Allow can mean 'permit' or 'authorise'. But it can also mean 'give the opportunity for'. Emma is using the latter.

Words can have multiple meanings, you know.

Where is Earnest when you need him?

The wording of the article is fine, the misquoting in the OP is what has caused the confusion.