List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Pretty cool how I managed to draw on the benefit of hindsight by hating the deal before the last 12 months even happened isn't it?

Here's what's happened here. Port traded a first round pick for two average depth players. The majority immediately hated it. You said to give it time. We did, and it turned out even worse than we thought it would when we hated it 12 months ago. You're now claiming that the deal only looks bad 'with the benefit of hindsight', because apparently you don't know what the word hindsight means.

How will the pick we traded away turn out as a player? I believe this is now pick 18 in the hands of Fremantle.

Please elaborate Oracle so as we can revisit this in a decade with the benefit of the hindsight this trade deserves.

Draft picks 11-20 have a 52% chance of playing more than 80 games. A coin toss on a battler.

There’s a 20% chance a player drafted pick 11-20 plays less than 20 career games, and we are talking pick 18 here, not pick 11.
 
How will the pick we traded away turn out as a player? I believe this is now pick 18 in the hands of Fremantle.

Please elaborate Oracle so as we can revisit this in a decade with the benefit of the hindsight this trade deserves.

Draft picks 11-20 have a 52% chance of playing more than 80 games. A coin toss on a battler.

There’s a 20% chance a player drafted pick 11-20 plays less than 20 career games, and we are talking pick 18 here, not pick 11.
Why are you such a defender of that trade? It’s so bad, and it’s not defendable. Go read last year’s trade thread—we all hated it even then. It’s not about the benefit of hindsight.

It’s as simple as this: we caved and overpaid for an OOC Esava, and then overpaid for Soldo when there were other options. I mean, the Swans got Grundy for cheaper than what we paid for Soldo. Rucks are usually so cheap, like Sweet, yet we got bent over for no reason.

Esava doesn’t even play in the position we brought him in for anymore, and Soldo can’t even crack the first team—it’s only been a year.

Pick 18 is still good. It’s been said it’s a deep draft, so why downplay 18 when so many clubs are trying to load up around that position? I mean it’s only 5 picks down from the main piece of what we’re about to trade one of our top 5 players for.

I just don’t get why you downplay how bad it is and act as if everyone is being unreasonable and keep bringing up hindsight.
 
How will the pick we traded away turn out as a player? I believe this is now pick 18 in the hands of Fremantle.

Please elaborate Oracle so as we can revisit this in a decade with the benefit of the hindsight this trade deserves.

Draft picks 11-20 have a 52% chance of playing more than 80 games. A coin toss on a battler.

There’s a 20% chance a player drafted pick 11-20 plays less than 20 career games, and we are talking pick 18 here, not pick 11.
As much as anything, by the time we know if the player that the pick got was successful or not Ratagolea will be retired. For that reason alone the trade is dodgy.
 
In other news - Carlton have secured pick 3 from WCE
IMG_7757.jpeg

Bryan Cranston Mic Drop GIF
 
Can we focus more on the 2024-25 list management. Last years future first rounder that Is (pick 18?) is gone, it’s like crying over spilt milk now. And honestly i don’t think pick 18 is worth all this commotion. Let it go and focus on future deals.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How will the pick we traded away turn out as a player? I believe this is now pick 18 in the hands of Fremantle.

Please elaborate Oracle so as we can revisit this in a decade with the benefit of the hindsight this trade deserves.

Draft picks 11-20 have a 52% chance of playing more than 80 games. A coin toss on a battler.

There’s a 20% chance a player drafted pick 11-20 plays less than 20 career games, and we are talking pick 18 here, not pick 11.
I feel you're missing the point.

Its not about waiting 5 years and seeing what the exact pick we gave up ends up like as a player.

The point is that Geelong had no reason or leverage to make such a ridiculous demand. We caved when we held all the cards.
 
I feel you're missing the point.

Its not about waiting 5 years and seeing what the exact pick we gave up ends up like as a player.

The point is that Geelong had no reason or leverage to make such a ridiculous demand. We caved when we held all the cards.
And we look like potentially caving in again if we're not careful, despite holding all the cards - and shuffling the deck to our advantage as well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top