Dees on Brink of Another Trade Disaster

[jnrmac 19,039]

We all know how this story ends

 

Its written in the stars

[jumbo returns 6,490]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

We all know how this story ends

 

Its written in the stars

Norm Smith Curse

[Coq au vin 754]

3 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Norm Smith Curse

Pickett will be a VFL player.

[Earl Hood 5,789]

1 hour ago, Half forward flank said:

And another. Should have taken Tom Greene last year, understanding it was a bit complicated with the Academy situation.

So we would now have two AFL ready players, Green and King.

 

We couldn’t get Greene, Giants would just equal our bid. 

[picket fence 15,234]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Plenty of water to go under the bridge first.

I'm happy with what we did last year.  Hopefully we can get a few wins on the board and at least make the North pick land outside the Top 4, but as someone mentioned above, we won't know the outcome until years down the track.  North might end up with Sam Walsh or Cale Morton. 

Have you got ur floatation device ready??

Also nar, only the Dees would recruit so poorly in Cale the whale and dare i say it ..... Jimmy Toumpas! only us!!?

[Coq au vin 754]

10 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Have you got ur floatation device ready??

Also nar, only the Dees would recruit so poorly in Cale the whale and dare i say it ..... Jimmy Toumpas! only us!!?

And Gysberts, Jack Watts, Trengove and so many others. Too many to name. This footy club is a dead duck.

Edited July 7, 2020 by President Dee Trump

[ChaserJ 3,964]

2 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

You are ignoring the part where we also gave up pick 26 and 50 to the Kangas so it is not fair of you to include Rivers as we would have had him regardless.

If we don't make the finals, it's a [censored] trade.

We got access to Rivers after we traded back to pick 10 from 8 & also got pick 28 back as part of the deal with the Dockers.

Once all of that trading is factored in, the extras balance out, we effectively traded this years first rounder for Kozzy. And I'm ok with that.

The one that could really bite us, more than any other trade or draft blunder in our history, is the May over Ben King decision.

Edited July 7, 2020 by ChaserJ

[Half forward flank 1,022]

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

We couldn’t get Greene, Giants would just equal our bid. 

How would they have done that if we took him with 3.

[KingDingAling 3,612]

Kossie is a good little forward pocket player - nippy, sharp, skillful, crafty, necessary. But not the type of player you hand over a top 5 pick for. If we do land in the bottom 5-6 this year, then it will be a poor trade. No dodging that for mine. It would add to the collection of very poor trades by MFC in the past 5 years - Lever, May, and potentially North trade. I don't know who ticks off on these trades, but its never too late to fire these people. It won't top the May trade though. That was just an idiotic trade. We'll pay for that.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

2 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

It’s only a bad trade if the players we took turn out to be worse than the players Nth take.

If Pickett is the next Cyril Rioli and Nth takes the Toumpas, then we win.

Cant judge any trade before the players take the field.

Nope that's not how you judge draft pick trades. You judge them based on what was known at the time not what is known 15 years down the track.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

3 hours ago, Half forward flank said:

And another. Should have taken Tom Greene last year, understanding it was a bit complicated with the Academy situation.

So we would now have two AFL ready players, Green and King.

 

Green was always going to the Giants, we never had any chance to get him.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

Kozzie is a good (and important pick) no matter what the cost has been, it's up to the cub and the team to balance out the worth by pulling their collective fingers out. As @Axis of Bob has also said, this year the draft will be heavily compromised because of COVID. It's still going to suck if we finish low but I actually liked the club backing themselves in to make the pick a 10> pick, it's a rare piece of bold strategy.

The disaster is the team (and right now the coach), not the trade.

It's not just compromised due to covid it was already heavily compromised with about 20 father/son and academy selections tipped for selection

Edited July 7, 2020 by Dr. Gonzo

[Demon Dynasty 15,553]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

The problem won't be whether we have a 1st round or not this year.

The problem will be whether we selected the right type of player at pick 3. I am a Jackson fan and think he'll be a good solid player. I'm starting to question whether we made a mistake on not selecting players with quality kicking skills in Young, Stephens and Ash.

Was an up and coming young ruckman that's going to take 5 years to develop really what we needed at pick 3?

Regarding the Kozzie pick, this will turn out to be a steal. Don't underestimate how good this kid can be. Already reminds me of a mix of Eddie Betts/Charlie Cameron.

Young was a must get vs Jackson imo Dazzle given Young was the best kick in the draft and many of our existing players are (and were) generally rated as some of the worst.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

25 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

How would they have done that if we took him with 3.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-draft-2018-how-fatherson-and-academy-draft-picks-work-explaining-the-bidding-system/news-story/bb9ba1f8cd67a43acd15ac6415f1fc26

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-make-changes-to-academy-draft-rules-20190710-p525yi.html

If a rival club was to bid for Green at No.5, based on current ladder positions the Giants would have to use picks 10 (which they received from Essendon as part of the Dylan Shiel deal) and 14. The leftover points from the latter pick would see them slide down to 17.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

3 hours ago, Half forward flank said:

And another. Should have taken Tom Greene last year, understanding it was a bit complicated with the Academy situation.

So we would now have two AFL ready players, Green and King.

 

Dees rated Green as the best player of that draft, but there was just no way they were able to get him, plus the decision was more that we were drafting for needs rather than pure talent.

[Earl Hood 5,789]

49 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

How would they have done that if we took him with 3.

He was a NSW Giants academy player so all they have to do is match our first round bid which was pick 3 with their first rounder, pick 17 to get Greene. That’s the rules. I am sick of these academies, the draft has become a compromised joke against clubs like us. 

[DubDee 20,722]

Young looks a dead set start. 6 foot 2, big body for a kid, amazing kicking and great awareness and decision making

Jackson will have to be very good to justify we taking him over Young

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

44 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Young was a must get vs Jackson imo Dazzle given Young was the best kick in the draft and many of our existing players are (and were) generally rated as some of the worst.

I was also strongly of this view, however, Rivers looks likely to turn this thinking on it's head. He was a potential top 10 pick before he got glandular fever over his last junior pre season. I've watched Young closely so far this season and I don't think we've missed much be getting Rivers. The bonus is we also get Jackson. Unfortunately the List Managers and recruiters have been gambling the last couple of years and those gambles so far have mostly blown up in their faces. First gamble was at the end of 2018 that Weid had proved enough that he was coming of age. Second gamble was on the basis of that virtually pushing Hogan out of the door. Third gamble on the back of that was getting in a key back in May instead of a key forward in King. None of those gambles would have looked bad if Weid had come on. Weid can't get a game now and T Mac has vanished since the end  of 2018. Now the one gamble led to potentially three failed gambles. They've now gone and taken a very big gamble on Jackson. They might be right. They might also be wrong. He had very limited exposure as a key forward and is very raw in that position especially compared to the Kings. He's also very raw as a ruckman and short for a ruckman. Time will tell. 

[WERRIDEE 5,218]

55 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Young was a must get vs Jackson imo Dazzle given Young was the best kick in the draft and many of our existing players are (and were) generally rated as some of the worst.

I agree going for a ruckman was just plain stupid by Melbourne as usual. We already have the best ruckman in the league. Why on earth did we need another ruckman?

[DeeSpencer 23,187]

57 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Dees rated Green as the best player of that draft, but there was just no way they were able to get him, plus the decision was more that we were drafting for needs rather than pure talent.

Ahhh we could've bid on him with pick 3 and there was strong mail that the Giants would pass him up to get Jackson. There was no reason not to bid on Green if we wanted Green. GWS no the academy rules as well as anyone.

Anyway, Green wouldn't help us all that much right now. He'd be whacking away at half forward and fighting for on ball time and we'd just have a bigger log jam of contested ball mids with average kicks. That's no reason not to draft him but people upset we didn't based on his current form aren't watching our team play!

That doesn't excuse the Jackson pick if it was for needs and the recruiters talked themselves in to Jackson being a key forward when his forward craft looked a long way off. He's a ruck and will be ready to play as a ruck quicker than a lot of people think and he might be very good very quickly. But he might also be a good example of why you don't draft for need.

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

17 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

I agree going for a ruckman was just plain stupid by Melbourne as usual. We already have the best ruckman in the league. Why on earth did we need another ruckman?

Gawn is 28.

 LJ at pick 3 was the right choice.   Special talent. 

[DeeSpencer 23,187]

30 minutes ago, It's Time said:

I was also strongly of this view, however, Rivers looks likely to turn this thinking on it's head. He was a potential top 10 pick before he got glandular fever over his last junior pre season. I've watched Young closely so far this season and I don't think we've missed much be getting Rivers. The bonus is we also get Jackson. Unfortunately the List Managers and recruiters have been gambling the last couple of years and those gambles so far have mostly blown up in their faces. First gamble was at the end of 2018 that Weid had proved enough that he was coming of age. Second gamble was on the basis of that virtually pushing Hogan out of the door. Third gamble on the back of that was getting in a key back in May instead of a key forward in King. None of those gambles would have looked bad if Weid had come on. Weid can't get a game now and T Mac has vanished since the end  of 2018. Now the one gamble led to potentially three failed gambles. They've now gone and taken a very big gamble on Jackson. They might be right. They might also be wrong. He had very limited exposure as a key forward and is very raw in that position especially compared to the Kings. He's also very raw as a ruckman and short for a ruckman. Time will tell. 

Trading Hogan whilst he still had currency wasn't a gamble. It was the safe move.

Taking a very good full back rather than a skinny kid in King wasn't a gamble. Again, the safe move. We needed a full back, we got one rather than a skinny kid.

Jackson's certainly a gamble. I do wonder if they saw the King's a year after the draft and thought lets get a guy like that even though he's not the same type of player, but I guess we have to give them more credit than being victim to such recency bias. I saw it as basically Nic Nat over Rich and I'll stand by that call for now.

Weid not coming on is a problem. But the more Melbourne problem that this club recreates time and time again is a player like Tom McDonald who was fringe AA quality as a key forward in 2018 is suddenly very ordinary. Time and time again whether it's James Frawley, Brock McLean, Cameron Bruce and plenty of others we have guys who have amazing seasons then fall in a heap. Brayshaw and Melksham the 2 others from 2018 who have gone from hero to zero.

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Trading Hogan whilst he still had currency wasn't a gamble. It was the safe move.

Taking a very good full back rather than a skinny kid in King wasn't a gamble. Again, the safe move. We needed a full back, we got one rather than a skinny kid.

Jackson's certainly a gamble. I do wonder if they saw the King's a year after the draft and thought lets get a guy like that even though he's not the same type of player, but I guess we have to give them more credit than being victim to such recency bias. I saw it as basically Nic Nat over Rich and I'll stand by that call for now.

Weid not coming on is a problem. But the more Melbourne problem that this club recreates time and time again is a player like Tom McDonald who was fringe AA quality as a key forward in 2018 is suddenly very ordinary. Time and time again whether it's James Frawley, Brock McLean, Cameron Bruce and plenty of others we have guys who have amazing seasons then fall in a heap. Brayshaw and Melksham the 2 others from 2018 who have gone from hero to zero.

I agreed with your first two points at the time they were made but you've missed my point which is that all these decisions were largely based on the gamble that Weid had come of age as a key forward. Hogan could therefore go and be replaced with a backman not a forward. That was the gamble. Weid not even being able to get a game has a domino effect on a series of list management decisions. 

[DeeSpencer 23,187]

5 minutes ago, It's Time said:

I agreed with your first two points at the time they were made but you've missed my point which is that all these decisions were largely based on the gamble that Weid had come of age as a key forward. Hogan could therefore go and be replaced with a backman not a forward. That was the gamble. Weid not even being able to get a game has a domino effect on a series of list management decisions. 

Only those at the club will know, but I always saw it as the club thinking Tom McDonald will be a quality CHF capable of 50 goals for the time we were in the premiership window. Tom fished 5th in the B+F on the back of 20 games, Hogan was 11th with the same amount of games. Obviously the club thought Weid would be a decent best 22 regular and hopefully more - which in time he still could be. They didn't have to think he was going to be a star because we already had a star.

If McDonald was still the kind of guy you build a forward line around things could be a lot different for Weid right now. 

 

[Dr.D 1,771]

People have short memories. The last time we drafted for foot skills we got Watts, Strauss, Blease and Maric etc. 

It shows that picking guys with good skills means nothing.