Biggest trading/drafting stuffups

[Demon 16]

No... his point was that we could have gotten Ball for far cheaper, which is rubbish. I would actually prefer McLean over Ball with that pick myself, and I reckon most footy watchers would call it reasonably close even if swaying towards Ball.

I can't see how Melbourne are a ringer to take us to the cleaners either. Plenty of sub-10 picks don't make the grade and post 10 picks have an even worse strike rate. Considering also that the exclusion of 17yo from this draft means pick 11 is more around the 16-18 range of previous drafts.

McLean has shown how good he can be when his body is right and fills a much needed spot at a perfect age for our list. In Carlton's recent time trial he came in first and is currently having his first full pre-season for a couple of years now. I reckon he might have it a bit easier in our midfield than Melbourne's, so the chances are Carlton will walk away with a win on this trade. Of course this is footy, so anything can happen.

Baaahahaha ^^

Trying this hard to not to look like a loser is making you look.. like a loser.

Im not knocking Brock - if he gets his body right youll get a decent player. But Ball is better.

All my point was is that with hindsight it is amusing that Ball appears set for Collingwood at pick 30 (or Essendon/Brisbane slightly earlier) so you could have got a better player of the same type much cheaper.

And like I said to top it off we'll use pick 11 you gave us to take Black before your pick 12 just to rub it in.

You would take it back if you could so you lost on this trade - just accept it.

 

[wambat]

You have to decide where you sit before you comment...

In terms of the Tarrant/Croad/Headland/J Carr deal's either evaluate them on the draft picks we traded for them OR the players subsequently picked up.

As far as actual value of the draft picks goes...Who we would have taken with that draft pick is up for debate and not necessarily the who was actually taken. However in terms of pure value of the pick number I think we overpaid to some degree in all instances...That said...One look at who the Pies and Port picked up with those draft picks highlights how much of a gamble the whole drafting system is.

Croad deal was an out and out blunder, no doubt about it..Pick 1 should never have been on the table...Hawks good drafting with Mitchell was completely out of our control

J Carr in terms of pick value we overpaid...The fact the power squandered those pick's helps a littler but...But for a slow poor kicking tagger, way too high a price..

Headland was a game breaker we needed, fact he never carried that on at Freo is disapointing but doesn't detract away from why we chased him initially...As far as what we paid I think it was fair.

Tarrant for the draft picks we overpaid after year 1...Currently its certainly evening up.

Overall I wouldn't say our recent track record isn't as bad people make out, draft is allot about chance...Had we kept our picks and drafted well..who knows...

Tambling over Franklin
Fiora over Pavlich

Is allot worse

And herein lies the problem with the Fremantle football club , always looking to pass the buck.
Its why after 14+ years the clubs has failed to achieve anything of significance.

Fremantle are the worst traders/drafters in AFL history full stop.

Their fans can only hope over the past few years this can be rectified.

 

[free at last]

You have to decide where you sit before you comment...

In terms of the Tarrant/Croad/Headland/J Carr deal's either evaluate them on the draft picks we traded for them OR the players subsequently picked up.

As far as actual value of the draft picks goes...Who we would have taken with that draft pick is up for debate and not necessarily the who was actually taken. However in terms of pure value of the pick number I think we overpaid to some degree in all instances...That said...One look at who the Pies and Port picked up with those draft picks highlights how much of a gamble the whole drafting system is.

Croad deal was an out and out blunder, no doubt about it..Pick 1 should never have been on the table...Hawks good drafting with Mitchell was completely out of our control

J Carr in terms of pick value we overpaid...The fact the power squandered those pick's helps a littler but...But for a slow poor kicking tagger, way too high a price..

Headland was a game breaker we needed, fact he never carried that on at Freo is disapointing but doesn't detract away from why we chased him initially...As far as what we paid I think it was fair.

Tarrant for the draft picks we overpaid after year 1...Currently its certainly evening up.

Overall I wouldn't say our recent track record isn't as bad people make out, draft is allot about chance...Had we kept our picks and drafted well..who knows...

Tambling over Franklin
Fiora over Pavlich

Is allot worse

well who ever is gambling at freo at the moment ie 07 ,08 drafts. is gambling pretty damn fine.

 

[Tiger08]

Originally Posted by Weaver

Worst trade ever?

That's easy. Pick 16 and 46 for Stephen O'Reilly who played 12 games for you. AND you had to pay him illegally outside the cap. AND he blew the whistle on you. AND you had to pay a fine. AND you got kicked out of the draft and had to recruit hacks. AND it meant that your mulit-million investment in Denis Pagan was a waste because he had no players.

Stephen O'Reilly for - Pick 16, pick 46, $1m fine, pick 1, 2, 17 and 33 in the 2003 draft, pick 1 in the 2003 PSD, 1st and 2nd round picks in the 2004 draft.

I reckon that would have the McMahon trade covered by a couple of laps of Flemington, then a trip down the highway for a run round Caulfield, before a backtrack to run the length of the Moone Valley straight.

Haha.. clear winner every time this thread comes up. We could have picked JON over Buddy and this would still have it covered.. it almost sent the club to the wall.

 

[Lions1024]

JON pick 8 - Mitch Clark pick 9 and Shaun Higgins pick 11.
Tambling pick 4- Franklin pick 5.

Richmond win....

 

[Monkey King]

All my point was is that with hindsight it is amusing that Ball appears set for Collingwood at pick 30 (or Essendon/Brisbane slightly earlier) so you could have got a better player of the same type much cheaper.

You have yet to explain this wonderful piece of fiction. Are you claiming St Kilda knocked back pick 30 but would have accepted pick 43 or that Carlton can draft Ball with pick 43? I can't quite figure out exactly which nonsense it is you subscribe to.

Trying this hard to not to look like a loser is making you look.. like a loser.

And here you are, not even trying and yet you've pulled it off to absolute perfection. Thinking you've won on a pick that hasn't even been used yet makes about as much sense as everything else you've written.

Oh... and please take Black, leave Melksham for us thanks

 

[Monkey King]

I dont get this criticism of Brock being slow? McLean won Carlton's Prince's Park time trial.

I thought it was pretty funny that someone called McLean slow in comparison with Luke Ball. I for one am very, very happy at getting Brock to the Blues. If you'd offered both up prior to the trade my preference would have been exactly the same.

 

[Wee Jessies]

And herein lies the problem with the Fremantle football club , always looking to pass the buck.

Where in that post did sabre make excuses, he simply analysed the trades without the value of hindsight as we now know them. I though it was an excellent post.

Apart from Josh Carr, all those players filled massive gaps at our club on paper at least. The other key point that was made was the classic overvaluing of draft picks.

 

[Demon 16]

You have yet to explain this wonderful piece of fiction. Are you claiming St Kilda knocked back pick 30 but would have accepted pick 43 or that Carlton can draft Ball with pick 43? I can't quite figure out exactly which nonsense it is you subscribe to.

You traded pick 11 for Brock McLean.
Ball looks like he will go around pick 24 - 30.

All I am saying is that with the benefit of hindsight, you could have kept both picks 11 and 12, and traded for a far lesser pick which you could have picked Ball with instead of McLean.

So I am suggesting you could have obtained a better player for much less.

 

[bombermick]

Whether McLean or Ball are the better player is really neither here or there. What baffles is Carlton chased so hard for another mid when, next year year they will have an awesome midfield and some guy I think I've heard of, called Henderson, as the main target.

JON before Mitch Clark and Shaun Higgins? ouch
Can Richmond beat Joel Reynolds before Montagna? lol

 

[Monkey King]

What baffles is Carlton chased so hard for another mid when, next year year they will have an awesome midfield and some guy I think I've heard of, called Henderson, as the main target.

Well... the deal was done while Fev was still a Blue; but irrespective, pick 11 wasn't going to bring a genuine KPF to the club through any trade. Couldn't see why they'd back out of the deal though even after losing Fev. Getting McLean is a big bonus for the Blues in where we're at and potentially brings exactly what the Blues midfield was missing.

 

[Monkey King]

... because I feel sorry for you I will explain it to you one last time.

You traded pick 11 for Brock McLean.
Ball looks like he will go around pick 24 - 30.

All I am saying is that with the benefit of hindsight, you could have kept both picks 11 and 12, and traded for a far lesser pick which you could have picked Ball with instead of McLean.

So I am suggesting you could have obtained a better player for much less.

Are you getting confused between drafting and trading? We couldn't have traded pick 27 for Ball. As I have already said, with the Saints refusing to accept pick 30, why would they turn around and accept pick 27?

Now if you're talking about drafting, you're suggesting Carlton shouldn't have gone after Lachlan Henderson - exactly the type of highly rated young KPP we need - on an assumption that the Ball trade wouldn't eventuate and that he'd subsequently walk out on the Saints at the last minute; all while still hoping that Essendon don't select him with pick 24 at the end of the day anyway?

You make me very thankful our list managers have more nous than this

 

[Rosstickle]

Richmond's 2005 draft:

National Draft:
#8 Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls (13 embarrasing games) DELISTED
#24 Cleve Hughes (16 games) DELISTED
#40 Travis Casserly (0 games) DELISTED

Trades:
Traded pick 56 to acquire Patrick Bowden (25 games). DELISTED

(Joel Patful was taken at pick #56, Matthew Stokes was also available)

Preseason Draft:
#5 Matthew White - 54 games so far

(ahead of Porplyzia)

Rookie Draft:
#5 Angus Graham - 16 games so far
#21 Jeremy Humm - 1 game DELISTED
#36 Cameron Howat - 20 games DELISTED

So 4 years on all we have left from that draft is Angus Graham and Matt White. At least Graham is showing a bit and looks like he could be a player.

Thanks a lot Terry.

 

[mediumsizered]

Are you getting confused between drafting and trading? We couldn't have traded pick 27 for Ball. As I have already said, with the Saints refusing to accept pick 30, why would they turn around and accept pick 27?

Now if you're talking about drafting, you're suggesting Carlton shouldn't have gone after Lachlan Henderson - exactly the type of highly rated young KPP we need - on an assumption that the Ball trade wouldn't eventuate and that he'd subsequently walk out on the Saints at the last minute; all while still hoping that Essendon don't select him with pick 24 at the end of the day anyway?

You make me very thankful our list managers have more nous than this

I think you have pretty well covered why we couldn't have picked up Ball cheaply, as Demon 16 has poorly argued.

If we had tried to get him in trade week instead of McLean, St Kilda would have expected to get our Pick 11 in exchange. If we tried to trade for him with Pick 11 gone, St Kilda would not have accepted our Pick 27. If we had tried to trade for Ball after the Fev deal was done, St Kilda would have wanted our Pick 12. So far we haven't been in a position to pick him up cheaply.

Now if we look at how we could have recruited Ball in the ND, there are some different scenarios. If we don't do the McLean trade, but get the Fev deal done (there was no going back on the decision to trade Fev), we have pick 11, 12 & 43 in the ND. Ball won't be around at Pick 43, so we have to use pick 11 or 12 to recruit him. Given we did the deal for McLean, we now have Pick 12, 43 & 59 in the ND. Once again, Ball won't be around at Pick 43 therefore we would have to use Pick 12 to draft Ball.

Whichever way you look at it, we would have to use a first round pick to recruit Ball, not that Ball wouldn't be still worth a first round pick, but it means we couldn't get him cheaply, whichever way you look at it. My challenge to Demon 16 is to demonstrate how Carlton could have picked up Ball cheaply, using the facts at hand, rather than his poor attempt at trolling.

 

[Mr Rude]

I thought it was pretty funny that someone called McLean slow in comparison with Luke Ball. I for one am very, very happy at getting Brock to the Blues. If you'd offered both up prior to the trade my preference would have been exactly the same.

Im with you Monkey.

Brock is a darn good player. If his niggling injuries to his groin and ankles are overcome he will be easily worth pick 11 in this years draft.

I would also have Brock any day of the week ahead of Ball. Brock can kick the ball 50 metres, Ball cant get close. Brock's toughness and hardness is equally if not better than Ball's and to top it off he is 2 years younger.

To have this comparison on weather Carlton got ripped by getting McLean with pick 11 compared to where Ball goes at what pick is just stupid. McLean WANTED to go to Carlton and there for will be happy to be there and will play his heart out for his club of choice. Were as sooky lala Ball may only get through to pick 30 because of his lack of professionalism and unwillingness to talk or screen anyone but Collingwood.

What would you rather a younger guy at your club, a guy who wants to be there and is dedicated? Or a guy who piss' off overseas for a month and hides because he couldnt get his way in trade week and wants it now?

I hate how Brock walked out on the club and will be forever hoping Carlton turns to shite for him and we come good, but that doesnt change the fact he is a bloody good player and will be a VERY GOOD pick up for the blues barring injuries.

 

[juss]

JON pick 8 - Mitch Clark pick 9 and Shaun Higgins pick 11.
Tambling pick 4- Franklin pick 5.

Richmond win....

If the best player in a draft turns out to be pick 16, does that mean the first 15 clubs stuffed up? Even if they got good players?

I don't think so.

Tambling is not a bad player. Infact he showed in 08 that he could turn out to be a very good one.
Despite the fact you can't and shouldn't compare a small mid/ winger to a massive key forward, it's fair to say Buddy is a better player at the moment. But that doesn't mean we stuffed up.

Picking JON? That is a stuff up. But the Tambling pick wasn't.
It's just that another player down the order has come on quicker and gone further, it happens in every draft, to pretty much every club.

 

[Monkey King]

I think you have pretty well covered why we couldn't have picked up Ball cheaply, as Demon 16 has poorly argued.

Yep. An off the cuff comment that made little sense and the further he went, the more apparent it became that he hadn't really put a lot of thought into it; and even if it did make sense, I'd still prefer McLean.

Im with you Monkey.

Brock is a darn good player. If his niggling injuries to his groin and ankles are overcome he will be easily worth pick 11 in this years draft.

I always rated Brock's talent very highly at the Dees and was wrapped he came to Carlton. For our sakes I hope he can get his body right, which at this stage looks to be the case.

An interesting phenomenon among some opposition supporters regarding the Navy Blues; it seems the turnstiles of PP magically transform spuds to guns and guns to spuds.

What would you rather a younger guy at your club, a guy who wants to be there and is dedicated? Or a guy who piss' off overseas for a month and hides because he couldnt get his way in trade week and wants it now?

A terrific point that really is the coup de gras for this little side show.

 

[rocker_oz33]

1/alot of good players have been traded out of freo
2/Richmond under Wallace shocking era l fell sorry for richo and Richmond supporter
3/ l shouldn't be pointing fingers the cats have traded some hacks eg hooper,loats,charlie gardier etc.every team has had some shockers

 

[Demon 16]

I think you have pretty well covered why we couldn't have picked up Ball cheaply, as Demon 16 has poorly argued.

If we had tried to get him in trade week instead of McLean, St Kilda would have expected to get our Pick 11 in exchange. If we tried to trade for him with Pick 11 gone, St Kilda would not have accepted our Pick 27. If we had tried to trade for Ball after the Fev deal was done, St Kilda would have wanted our Pick 12. So far we haven't been in a position to pick him up cheaply.

Now if we look at how we could have recruited Ball in the ND, there are some different scenarios. If we don't do the McLean trade, but get the Fev deal done (there was no going back on the decision to trade Fev), we have pick 11, 12 & 43 in the ND. Ball won't be around at Pick 43, so we have to use pick 11 or 12 to recruit him. Given we did the deal for McLean, we now have Pick 12, 43 & 59 in the ND. Once again, Ball won't be around at Pick 43 therefore we would have to use Pick 12 to draft Ball.

Whichever way you look at it, we would have to use a first round pick to recruit Ball, not that Ball wouldn't be still worth a first round pick, but it means we couldn't get him cheaply, whichever way you look at it. My challenge to Demon 16 is to demonstrate how Carlton could have picked up Ball cheaply, using the facts at hand, rather than his poor attempt at trolling.

I clearly said 'with the benefit of hindsight' in my very first post.

You guys would be disappointed that Ball now appears available with a pick in the 20's but you have already spent pick 11 on McLean.

Read the posts before you jump in. You should be more astute and try to be a little impartial (as a Carlton supporter) if you want to be a mod..

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Until Richmond do something, they'll forever be haunted by Buddy/Tambling.

The club that will be haunted with the "what if" is the Doggies.What if they had Buddy in their fwd line over the past 3-4yrs.

 

[Primetime Pricey]

Steven McKee for Clinton King and pick 3 in the 1999 draft.

We all know who went at 4 to Fremantle. Could have got Pavlich, would have been handy in 2002 and 2003

 

[Dyerhard]

JON pick 8 - Mitch Clark pick 9 and Shaun Higgins pick 11.
Tambling pick 4- Franklin pick 5.

Richmond win....

I'll give you that about JON. You may be wrong about Tambling, as you would agree if you actually watched him last year.

 

[Monkey King]

I clearly said 'with the benefit of hindsight' in my very first post.

You guys would be disappointed that Ball now appears available with a pick in the 20's but you have already spent pick 11 on McLean.

Read the posts before you jump in. You should be more astute and try to be a little impartial (as a Carlton supporter) if you want to be a mod..

Still waiting for that explanation

Barely any chance Ball will available to draft at pick 27, which we've traded away, and he was never going to be traded for that, so you're not really making any sense. The only genuine chance we ever had was getting him was for pick 11, so no disappointment there as I'd prefer McLean outright. This is further strengthened by the comments of your fellow Dees supporter Mr Rude.

 

[Demon 16]

Still waiting for that explanation

Barely any chance Ball will available to draft at pick 27, which we've traded away, and he was never going to be traded for that, so you're not really making any sense. The only genuine chance we ever had was getting him was for pick 11, so no disappointment there as I'd prefer McLean outright. This is further strengthened by the comments of your fellow Dees supporter Mr Rude.

The concept of a hypothetical is a little complex for you isnt it?

Get over it.

 

[saj_21]

I dont get this criticism of Brock being slow? McLean won Carlton's Prince's Park time trial.

Sure, he looked pedestrian this year, but he was clearly injured and didnt have a full preseason. Let's see what he can do when he isnt burdened with injury before writing him off.

His speed of the mark is good enough but not elite in the AFL. No one has ever questioned his ability to run out a game, when fully fit. He did get run down a bit this year, mainly due to the fact he was unable to do a lot of sprint work in the pre season. He is smart, strong footballer who makes decisions and has reliable skills.