Draft Review 2019 - Revisit the 2019 AFL Draft

[Blue__Balls]

Ah, the classic 'salty' argument. That's as water-tight as you can get.

Carton fans really covering themselves in glory today.

1. Sydeny list manager was on radio yesterday. So, no, not really ' cards close'.
2. "Carlton drafted for the furture" should read "18 clubs drafted for the future.

meh, SOS fans - gotta love 'em

Feel free to explain how Carlton "burnt bridges" then, because I'm not seeing it.

1. Everyone had Flanders to Sydney until yesterday afternoon. The change to Stephens impacted trade discussions between Carlton and Adelaide, and pretty much ruled out any chance that Geelong, Port and Hawthorn had of trading up for McAsey. Those possibilities were all on the table for weeks, and it was only in the hours leading up to the draft that Sydney's actual preference came to light.

2. Context - Carlton's draftees have been "fast-tracked" to the seniors by necessity recently, whereas this year we've taken a talented kid who slid due to an ACL and will probably spend 2020 in rehab, and a slight inside mid who will develop in the 2's for a bit. That's all I'm getting at there, we didn't get sucked in on "best available" Flanders just because he'd be ready to go in his first season, and I'm happy with that and what it means for the list as a whole.

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

I have no idea who has 'won' and 'lost' thus far but can be sure that the Carlton supporters are at least being the most overly defensive in this thread.

 

[Kramer1]

Ah, the classic 'salty' argument. That's as water-tight as you can get.

Carton fans really covering themselves in glory today.

1. Sydeny list manager was on radio yesterday. So, no, not really ' cards close'.
2. "Carlton drafted for the furture" should read "18 clubs drafted for the future.

meh, SOS fans - gotta love 'em

Numerous posts in it's still a little unclear...where exactly were the consensus top 3 and top 10 talents supposed to be bid on to avoid burning bridges?

 

[Drewie11]

It's an interesting hypothetical - would we have approached GWS for the same pick swap? You guys were locked in on McAsey and rightly so, and were confident to get him at 6.

The facts of Carlton's trade are that SOS turned pick 4 into 17, 19 and 22. He got two players the club rates much more highly than where they went in the draft and a more speculative player who is rated as a solid bolter by respected draft analysts.

If you are going to use what sos has done with pick 4 then you have to include what pick 4 was used for

 

[Blue__Balls]

I have no idea who has 'won' and 'lost' thus far but can be sure that the Carlton supporters are at least being the most overly defensive in this thread.

Because we seem to be the club being targeted by opposition fans - it's responsive.

Don't mind questions about what we did or why, but some of the aggressive anti-Carlton stuff presents as trolling, or at the very least lazy and poorly-researched.

Seems odd to criticise a club's drafting without at least giving thought to why they did it.

Why did Adelaide trade up to 4, only to trade it down to 6? It's the same scenario, but doesn't attract the same criticism. They wanted a top end pick, traded last year to get it, got it, then identified the player that they wanted to take would actually be available later and shifted back a bit to get him and scored another pick for their trouble.

Carlton had 9, saw a potential opportunity to trade up to get one of their three preferred players, that didn't pan out, so they traded down knowing they'd still get the player they'd take at 9, but also get another first round selection.

 

[WilloTree]

Numerous posts in it's still a little unclear...where exactly were the consensus top 3 and top 10 talents supposed to be bid on to avoid burning bridges?

Mate, not to go around in circles (because this will be deleted anyway), but why bid on two players then trade the pick?
A. Being a total wnk*er
B. I didn't really want those payers, just thought I'l throw a couple of hand grenades on the way out (ie- be a total ank*er)

I can't think of a C.

 

[De Iulio2Wiggins]

If you are going to use what sos has done with pick 4 then you have to include what pick 4 was used for

I don't think so. Pick 4 was out of his hands the moment it went to Adelaide. I can see what you're trying to do, which is devalue SOS getting the equivalent of pick 25 for free, but my opinion is that you're grasping at straws.

 

[Blue__Balls]

If you are going to use what sos has done with pick 4 then you have to include what pick 4 was used for

You can't add them all together though.

It's Kemp, Stocker and Philp
vs.
EITHER Pick 4 or Pick 6 and GWS' future first. Given we probably wouldn't have done the trade with GWS, 4 makes more sense. Adelaide did that deal because they knew McAsey would last. Carlton would probably have just gone with Young or Stephens.

For Adelaide it's different, as they wouldn't have taken Stocker, but would probably have still taken McAsey at 9. Something like Pick 19 (2018) vs. Pick 15-25 (2020 - no idea where it falls, depending on ladder positions and academy bids).

 

[LordLucifer]

Like the way Carlton played it, at least keeping Freo and GWS vaguely honest. I think Melbourne should have swung on Green at 3, really. Don't just hand the Giants a free gun.

Ain't that the truth !!

Melbourne were as soft as butter, they certainly should have bid on Green at #3, by not doing so they gave the Giants two top 5 players for virtually the price of one.

 

[De Iulio2Wiggins]

Mate, not to go around in circles (because this will be deleted anyway), but why bid on two players then trade the pick?
A. Being a total wnk*er
B. I didn't really want those payers, just thought I'l throw a couple of hand grenades on the way out (ie- be a total ank*er)

I can't think of a C.

C: you paid a fair price for Henry and GWS still got Green for an absolute steal. SOS just had the cojones to call the draft system out by completely acting within the rules. Most of the press this morning have lauded his actions last night, but I understand the chip wrappers out west might be a little saltier.

 

[WilloTree]

Numerous posts in it's still a little unclear...where exactly were the consensus top 3 and top 10 talents supposed to be bid on to avoid burning bridges?

Not sure what is "unclear" to you.
SOS entered the draft at 9.
Freo had 10, but knew his personality, so traded up to 8.
SOS did as SOS does, and pissed everyone off.
SOS was fired
No more SOS.

 

[WilloTree]

C: you paid a fair price for Henry and GWS still got Green for an absolute steal. SOS just had the cojones to call the draft system out by completely acting within the rules. Most of the press this morning have lauded his actions last night, but I understand the chip wrappers out west might be a little saltier.

So, why trade the pick?

 

[Drewie11]

I don't think so. Pick 4 was out of his hands the moment it went to Adelaide. I can see what you're trying to do, which is devalue SOS getting the equivalent of pick 25 for free, but my opinion is that you're grasping at straws.

How is it okay to apply every bit of what SOS did with the trade but not apply the complete amount that happened from the other side.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Mate, not to go around in circles (because this will be deleted anyway), but why bid on two players then trade the pick?
A. Being a total wnk*er
B. I didn't really want those payers, just thought I'l throw a couple of hand grenades on the way out (ie- be a total ank*er)

I can't think of a C.

C. Because both players were valued thereabouts.

Wouldn't have bid if we would have been unhappy with a club choosing not to match. Wanted more pace, bid on Henry. Matched by Freo. Green is a top 5 talent still available at 10, bid on Green. Matched by GWS. Next preference is Kemp, top end talent sliding due to ACL, reckon he'll still be there later so trade down to get a bit extra.

It's not a grand conspiracy to mess with Freo, it's just how the bidding system works. And clearly your club knew it was happening and planned for it, so I don't get why you're so hung up on it.

 

[LordLucifer]

I don’t really see the point in bidding unless you’re doing it with a top 5 pick your chances of getting that player are very low as clubs always tend to match the bid in the process you just piss that club off and make any future deals with them a lot more difficult!

You don't see the point ?? Then clearly you do not understand the mechanics of live trading and I suggest you go and do some in-depth research.

Piss that club off ?? Who really gives a toss about that ??

This is not a hippie commune where everyone sits around singing 'kumbeyah', it's professional sport and it's meant to be competitive.

 

[WilloTree]

Ain't that the truth !!

Melbourne were as soft as butter, they certainly should have bid on Green at #3, by not doing so they gave the Giants two top 5 players for virtually the price of one.

Yeah, let's just be spoilers and haters. What a wonderful outlook you have.

 

[Kramer1]

Mate, not to go around in circles (because this will be deleted anyway), but why bid on two players then trade the pick?
A. Being a total wnk*er
B. I didn't really want those payers, just thought I'l throw a couple of hand grenades on the way out (ie- be a total ank*er)

I can't think of a C.

Again. When specifically where the bids meant to come for Green and Henry? Simple question.

Henry's name has appeared on our board multiple times in recent weeks by ITKs...he's an exact type we need. Why wouldn't we bid?

It should not have been SOSs job to bid on Green. It should have happened half a dozen picks earlier. Again...how far was Green supposed to slide?

Still not understanding your angst. Carlton fans would be thrilled to have Henry or Green on board.

 

[Drewie11]

You can't add them all together though.

It's Kemp, Stocker and Philp
vs.
EITHER Pick 4 or Pick 6 and GWS' future first. Given we probably wouldn't have done the trade with GWS, 4 makes more sense. Adelaide did that deal because they knew McAsey would last. Carlton would probably have just gone with Young or Stephens.

For Adelaide it's different, as they wouldn't have taken Stocker, but would probably have still taken McAsey at 9. Something like Pick 19 (2018) vs. Pick 15-25 (2020 - no idea where it falls, depending on ladder positions and academy bids).

No you are choosing what you want. You are adding in the 2 picks traded with GC but not adding in the changes that happened to what was originally Carlton’s pick. It doesn’t matter what another team did with it because it is all still apart of what was originally traded

 

[Kramer1]

Yeah, let's just be spoilers and haters. What a wonderful outlook you have.

Not sure what is "unclear" to you.
SOS entered the draft at 9.
Freo had 10, but knew his personality, so traded up to 8.
SOS did as SOS does, and pissed everyone off.
SOS was fired
No more SOS.

Again...when was it OK to bid on these guys. Still not clear despite your many posts.

 

[De Iulio2Wiggins]

So, why trade the pick?

The players they wanted were gone (fact) and they speculated that they could still get Kemp at 17 AND another decent player.

 

[LordLucifer]

Well it can't be worse than Carlton. What a joke - went home with a couple of bridges burnt.

This could have long-term effect on the CFC.

Bridges burnt ??

What a load of shit !!!

In case you hadn't noticed, nice guys finish last.

The "long-term effect" has us shuddering in our footy boots too.

 

[Milanista28]

THIS ⬆

Consistently the smartest Swans fan by the length of the Flemington straight.

*Essendon

 

[Jimbojay]

Mate, not to go around in circles (because this will be deleted anyway), but why bid on two players then trade the pick?
A. Being a total wnk*er
B. I didn't really want those payers, just thought I'l throw a couple of hand grenades on the way out (ie- be a total ank*er)

I can't think of a C.

Because the club actually wanted one of Green or Henry. Sure it was obvious they would be matched, but on the off chance they weren't Carlton ends up with a top 10 talent that they want.

Once those 2 were gone the next player we wanted was Kemp and identified that he would be available at 17 so did the trade with the Suns.

The fact that you are so mad (which you clearly are) is incredible considering you got a top talent in Henry for virtually nothing.

 

[LordLucifer]

Not sure what is "unclear" to you.
SOS entered the draft at 9.
Freo had 10, but knew his personality, so traded up to 8.
SOS did as SOS does, and pissed everyone off.
SOS was fired
No more SOS.

No he didn't and you have no clue as to why that all transpired.

 

[WilloTree]

Because the club actually wanted one of Green or Henry. Sure it was obvious they would be matched, but on the off chance they weren't Carlton ends up with a top 10 talent that they want.

Once those 2 were gone the next player we wanted was Kemp and identified that he would be available at 17 so did the trade with the Suns.

The fact that you are so mad (which you clearly are) is incredible considering you got a top talent in Henry for virtually nothing.

I put it to that SOS didn't want those players, but bid on them just to be a wan*er
ie
Henry-small forward
Green-inside mid

pick traded.

Pick 17-ACL.

No need for me to go on. I think we just have to agree to disagree.