- Aug 16, 2009
- 4,384
- 8,093
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Canucks
It's funny on thus board
No one mentions the following trades:
Hill
Howe
Mitchell
Frampton
Cameron
Crisp
It's all:
Schultz
Henry
There have been so many worse trades:
Pick 2
C Wood for pick 12-14 (can't remember)
Murry
Just to name a few
That's because the price we paid for the players you listed didn't mortgage our future.
If they had gone badly, we still would have been ok.
I also don't think we undersold those clubs on those players in terms of their value at the time.
Wood was terrible but that trade doesn't really impact our current list.
But we should mention them because we have made some great trades - 2014 was also amazing.
There's been some shockers - Pick 2 / Beams in particularly bc of the price paid.
Murray was bad but it's easier to recover from losing a second / third.
We mention Henry because we put in 2 years of development then put out a narrative (as we should) that we wouldn't accept anything other than a first. But we did. And to suggest it got us Mitchell I think is a little misleading - we'd have been able to swing that trade anyhow.
The Schultz trade keeps getting mentioned because it use still relevant - the price is still being determined and is having a direct impact upon our trading / drafting ability and, indeed, our prospects going in 2025 and beyond.
We simply refuse to learn the lesson of what the value of future firsts are or what type of player they should be used for.
I get the Beams interest in addressing a need observed in the 2018 GF, but as we should have walked away when the cost was to be 2x first rounders, we also should have walked away from a future first in the Schultz trade.
This isn't hindsight - go back and read the draft thread and the number of posters that were very wary of the value of this pick.
EDIT: Yes, we'll recover at some point, we always do, but this thread is for our drafting / trading in 2024 so I think the trades we're raising constantly have merit.