16 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Weideman - didn’t work 

Pickett - worked, filled a need, original deal was bad value that turned in to solid value after swapping picks with Freo. Improving to mid table ladder position sure helped the deal.

 

Not every draft pick works out, just out St Kilda.

Just be thankful we pick Oliver who is that standout of the same draft and a top 5 player in the league as we speak.

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

Bowey was a pretty decent consolation...

Sure was and I’m sure he was in their plans somewhere. Only JT and the club will know who they wanted and who they got, and whether there was any meaningful difference.

Strike early, strike hard, hope the draft falls our way seems to be the thinking. In JT we trust 

I'm not the best at working out the pros and cons of pick swaps but we're effectively receiving pick 17 this year and giving up pick 18 next year yeah?

5 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

 

I understand what you're saying but we also 'gave to much for Lever' at the time.

...

The same trade which got us Harrison Petty

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Name a year it’s come back to bite us so far… 

We have a very young list and are eyeing off a top 4 finish for the next few seasons. We won’t be giving up a top 10 pick. It’s not a big risk. 

If we traded our first round after our 2018 season it would have bit us big time. I don't think Collingwood ever thought they would be getting pick 2 this year. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. 

Bizarre that people are questioning this and again not surprised that it's the same individuals as usual. 

Same list management who's done this strategic for a number of years are also the same ones who have just built a premiership team by doing this.

Some will never be satisfied. 

Edited October 6, 20214 yr by dazzledavey36

3 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I'm not the best at working out the pros and cons of pick swaps but we're effectively receiving pick 17 this year and giving up pick 18 next year yeah?

17 will end up either 19 or perhaps 20 with bid matching. Though the same could also happen next year.

Do we have any F/S prospects next year? At some point we may have the need to rid ourselves of a 1st round pick to avoid using it on a F/S bid match, like Collingwood this year. Eg. Kalani White perhaps in a couple of years

Edited October 6, 20214 yr by Stiff Arm

 

Wonder if this is a move to get points for our NGA Mac Andrews?

20 minutes ago, Deefiant said:

One of these years this will come back to bite us....

One year clubs won't let us trade back in. But given how young our list is, and how many first rounders we've had in the last few years, I don't think it will matter too much if we miss out on the first round in a year or two

4 minutes ago, COVID Dan said:

Wonder if this is a move to get points for our NGA Mac Andrews?

Only if he is available at pick 21+, as unlikely as that is. We would've used 17 by then anyway.

 

I love how we don't faff about at trade time!!!

I love this game. Keep going Demons and we could end up with pick 2 and put in a bid for Nick Daicos 😀

Can't say I like it. Values our future first at about pick 18, which only occurs if we win the flag again. Hopefully Jason Taylor gets one of the players he must be targeting.

3 minutes ago, Greendale said:

Can't say I like it. Values our future first at about pick 18, which only occurs if we win the flag again. Hopefully Jason Taylor gets one of the players he must be targeting.

The points system doesn’t mean anything to us

Pick 17 turns into?

Got the feeling we will not be taking it to the draft......We aint finished yet!

<3 our recruiting team....They know how to make things happen.

The mind boggles....

2 minutes ago, godees said:

The points system doesn’t mean anything to us

It's hardly even about points, the picks line up very well with each other. Picks 33 and 45 are slightly worse than 37 and 49. Therefore we think pick 17 must be at least slightly better than out future 1st. I'm not sure it should be.

16 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bizarre that people are questioning this and again not surprised that it's the same individuals as usual. 

Same list management who's done this strategic for a number of years are also the same ones who have just built a premiership team by doing this.

Some will never be satisfied. 

We've done it 3 times with Weids, Pickett and Bowey, but also stayed in the 2nd round and drafted Spargo, Sparrow, JJ, Petty, Fritsch, Rivers etc as well. Can put it down to the process or can also put it down to JT being really good at drafting? There's an alternate reality where we've traded back in the draft a number of times, giving JT and fleet of 2nd and 3rd round picks and he's knocked them out of the park too.

I've been pessimistic because for 57 years Melbourne didn't really give me much reason not to be, including a run of a best part of a decade butchering trades and high draft picks too. And I've examined the analytics because Liverpool, the Moneyball baseball teams, Brentford, the Houston Rockets etc have do so too.

If the cost here has only been a slight shuffle in the 2nd and 3rd rounds - one or both of which probably gets shuffled around with Taj Woewodin anyway, then I'm immediately more optimistic. Make finals next year and there's only so much we can lose out.

But I stand by the point that this is the first time we've been unable to improve our ladder position to shift the deals in our favour and improve the strategic benefit, and it also seems very early on when deciphering who will be available come draft night.

I'm definitely more positive seeing the deal now but it was well worth debating. Oh and the best case to calm anyone's fears - the year we wanted to trade out of the pick that became Luke Jackson - we nearly did for Zak Butters. I'm glad we've got the big fella but I could settle for Butters.

 

Just when we thought that the trade period would be dull due to our lack picks, we turn up with pick 17 and Dunstan and ?

6 minutes ago, Greendale said:

It's hardly even about points, the picks line up very well with each other. Picks 33 and 45 are slightly worse than 37 and 49. Therefore we think pick 17 must be at least slightly better than out future 1st. I'm not sure it should be.

 

And if we took this attitude and played conservative we woudn't have Lever and May, both of which deals were seen as overs by many at the time

 

45 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

 

I understand what you're saying but we also 'gave to much for Lever' at the time.

...

I think we have to accept that you need to give to get. We got the trades done that we knew we needed to get done. One trade in isolation doesn't matter, it is the balanced list you build overall. What we paid for Lever looks to me like peanuts when I see what that back line has done for our confidence over the year.

We started with one red paperclip.  Who can say what treasure we'll end up with?