Nasher

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.

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.

I disagree that he can play. If you haven't got a lot going for you personality wise, you need to be a good enough player to offset that, and Robinson isn't.

There is a good chance we'd be looking at the same pool of players anyway. It'll be smaller as some of our options would be gone, but it's likely some of the players we like for 23 will still be there at 40. I'd love to see some analysis on the "hit rate" of picks in the 20-25 range vs the 38-43 range. I expect it would show not much difference I'm comfortable with this for the same reason I was comfortable with downgrading early picks for Tyson: draft picks are monumentally overrated by footy fans.

If he goes on to have a solid career at Adelaide, I won't lose any sleep.

I predict that the ladder next year will be identical to this years.

I'm really looking forward to the next decade of crud Frost jokes.

At least you will admit that you thought it was overs even though you didn't know anything about the player.

Your obtuse point seems to be the as my obtuse point was. Experience has told me that, collectively, we fans have NFI what we're talking about and should probably hold off on the panic about any decisions until we've really seen how these decisions turn out. For example, the mass wailing that went on after the Pedersen trade looks hilarious in hindsight. I am in absolutely no position to judge this trade because: - I know next to nothing about Frost - I have no idea what sort of players will available between picks 23 and 40 - It's entirely possible the player we will pick at 40 will be better than who we picked at 23 - it could even be the same player. I'm pretty content to sit back and watch this unfold over the next few years.

I CAN'T BELIEVE WE GAVE AWAY GYSBERTS AND DOWNGRADED PICKS FOR THIS "PEDERSEN" GUY ...sorry, wrong year.

Ludicrous relative to what? It's ludicrous relative what you or I earn. Don't think it's ludicrous as far as being in the best couple of players at a footy club go.

I think you'd be wrong - there were people complaining about that by the truckload when they were the rumours. You can't recall reading the word "overs" on the odd occasion recently?

I highly doubt two years under Roos instead of one would be the difference between a gun player with 6+ years left signing or not mate.

Is it? Or is it just leaving Mahoney, Viney and Taylor to do their jobs? I doubt Roos would have pressed the 'reject' button when he saw his phone ring. I'm not putting forth an opinion either way - just presenting the flipside to your argument.

Props to to the person who compiled that. That would have taken some serious research.

His mummy? Jeez there are some tools on this site.

Sooooooooooo... did we stop the Jack Watts trade?

Which goes to prove the short sightedness of the AFL's decision to disallow Sydney to trade players in. It cripples the clubs on the other side of the transaction too, not just Sydney.

Who says we didn't tempt the player?

...or shyt happens and the trades they wanted just couldn't get done. It doesn't mean they didn't do their jobs properly.

Awesome, the Dangerfield thread will be 300 pages by this time next year.

We're totally on the same wavelength here pitchfork.

Yes, there is a chance. Most clubs who have been in the bottom four break out of it through organic improvement rather than mass single-season turnover. I can't see a reason why we could not. Until the Collingwood game this year, we looked like we might be one of them. I'm not saying we will, just that we could. Tipping us for last place in October seems to be going ridiculously early to me.

"There will be some good free agents this time next year and we will go hard at those" = "You idiots Adelaide, you should have done the deal for Dangerfield while you had the chance" Or so I like to think, anyway