Pick 1 2023 Trade value - What would it take?

[swingdog]

This past week there's been a bunchhhh of people in AFL media saying things like "Harley Reid is probably relieved, it's pretty well known he wants to stay in Victoria".

Wonder how WCE recruiters felt hearing that.

I'd hope they'd be remembering that Harley and his management (apart from a rogue uncle mouthing off to Sam McClure) have stated they'd be happy to go wherever to play.

I hope they'd be thinking "wow, Garry Lyon trying to manipulate the draft and the rest of the Vic media falling into line....this Harley Reid must be really good."

I hope they'd be thinking like Ed Masry in Erin Brockovich: "28 billion! I didn't know it was worth that much!"



The thing about this push from the Victorian media is that none of these guys are very good poker players.

 

[Shueygod]

You are not getting 2 and 3 for 1.

If North were considering that type of trade, then today was some kind of sick joke to win.

If we really wanted 1 and I’m not sure we do want it that badly. The best would be 2 and the Port first rounder.

I could see 2 & 3 for 1 & 19 happening if north were also able to snag Gc’s 1st using 19.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Two things:

1) Whoever joins us will get to play regularly in front of 60k crowds (when we're good again) and won't have to live in the Melbourne fishbowl. Reid is from a town of 2,000 people, McKercher is from Launceston and Curtin is from WA. Whoever lands with us will be just fine.

2) No team should ever give up an A+ player for three B grade players. If we were to land the #1 pick and trade it, it'll be to Hawthorn or Melbourne. ie. picks 4 or 5. You'd still expect an A-grader from that pick.

Not only that. I'll go through the drafts when I get some time after dinner but the number one pick is rarely a dominating player beyond what is available in the top 10.

Rozee, Butters, Both Brayshaws and Caleb Serong weren't #1 and are all probably top 20 RN

 

[Caligo]

If North are tanking then you need to admit Hawthorn are also tanking.

Both clubs cleared out players that would impact their results in the short term.

You can’t say one team is tanking and not the other when you cleared out Mitchell and O’Meara which are better players than the young guys that have been rotating through your midfield.

I dont think we will ever get anywhere because I have explained my position to you multiple times, but let's try again.

Pick five random NM games this year and watch them. Then pick five random Hawthorn ones. What you will notice is that one team is jam packed with elite draft picks and talent, and the other is relying on guys from the MSD and the rookie draft and pick 92 (or whatever Lewis was).

And yet the team with no real talent shows endeavour and fight and dash, and the team with all those first rounders just curls up and dies over and over.

That is intentional. It was engineered. I won't go into every aspect of how because that will take too long, but I will look at some key features.

Hawthorn had midfield problems, as a result of an aging and unsuccessful slow midfield, headlined by two big names on two big salary. We tried moving them onto the flanks, but it didn't work. They kept getting in the way of our youth progression. So we shipped them. At the same time we correctly recognised we lacked midfield pace, so we actively sought support in that area.

North had midfield problems, as a result of one of the best midfielders in the league being unavailable long term. Rather than doing anything to support the problem, they moved young guys in to replace him who weren't ready, and never tried to bring in mature recruits who would actually drive progress. Instead they sought to pile up losses thinking top 5 picks and AFL assistance would take them to a flag. Like Hawthorn, they desperately lack pace and class in their midfield, but never went for guys like impey or amon who could have fixed it. Because they wanted to lose for more draft picks.

This is the worst day to make this argument because Hawthorn were so poor and I assume North were magnificent. But we have years of games that bear out my point. North aren't good to watch. Hawthorn are.

 

[Roosurgence]

I could see 2 & 3 for 1 & 19 happening if north were also able to snag Gc’s 1st using 19.

I can’t see in any world where West Coast get 2 and 3 for Pick 1. It’s fantasy land.

 

[H00t]

If North are tanking then you need to admit Hawthorn are also tanking.

Both clubs cleared out players that would impact their results in the short term.

You can’t say one team is tanking and not the other when you cleared out Mitchell and O’Meara which are better players than the young guys that have been rotating through your midfield.

Hawks midfield has improved since losing Mitchell and O’Meara.

JOM has been woeful this year.

North have won the last 3 spoons after tossing out every senior player they could.

 

[Roosurgence]

I dont think we will ever get anywhere because I have explained my position to you multiple times, but let's try again.

Pick five random NM games this year and watch them. Then pick five random Hawthorn ones. What you will notice is that one team is jam packed with elite draft picks and talent, and the other is relying on guys from the MSD and the rookie draft and pick 92 (or whatever Lewis was).

And yet the team with no real talent shows endeavour and fight and dash, and the team with all those first rounders just curls up and dies over and over.

That is intentional. It was engineered. I won't go into every aspect of how because that will take too long, but I will look at some key features.

Hawthorn had midfield problems, as a result of an aging and unsuccessful slow midfield, headlined by two big names on two big salary. We tried moving them onto the flanks, but it didn't work. They kept getting in the way of our youth progression. So we shipped them. At the same time we correctly recognised we lacked midfield pace, so we actively sought support in that area.

North had midfield problems, as a result of one of the best midfielders in the league being unavailable long term. Rather than doing anything to support the problem, they moved young guys in to replace him who weren't ready, and never tried to bring in mature recruits who would actually drive progress. Instead they sought to pile up losses thinking top 5 picks and AFL assistance would take them to a flag. Like Hawthorn, they desperately lack pace and class in their midfield, but never went for guys like impey or amon who could have fixed it. Because they wanted to lose for more draft picks.

This is the worst day to make this argument because Hawthorn were so poor and I assume North were magnificent. But we have years of games that bear out my point. North aren't good to watch. Hawthorn are.

Your theory is cooked.

Results aside Hawthorn cleared out players better than their replacements, which by your logic is tanking.

Just because the players you had on the field tried, it’s still tanking by your logic.

North players were trying, they just aren’t any good.

 

[Barrybran]

Not only that. I'll go through the drafts when I get some time after dinner but the number one pick is rarely a dominating player beyond what is available in the top 10.

Rozee, Butters, Both Brayshaws and Caleb Serong weren't #1 and are all probably top 20 RN

Statistically speaking, #1 won't be the best player in the draft, however #1 also buys you more opportunity than #3 - two more players are on the board, trade value is higher, etc.

I can’t see in any world where West Coast get 2 and 3 for Pick 1. It’s fantasy land.

Yeah, won't happen and doesn't make sense for either side. North are going to get two very good players regardless of whether they are 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

 

[Roosurgence]

Hawks midfield has improved since losing Mitchell and O’Meara.

JOM has been woeful this year.

North have won the last 3 spoons after tossing out every senior player they could.

I call bullshit.

Mitchell and O’Meara at this stage of their career are better players than Nash, McKenzie, Ward etc.

I never said Hawthorn tanked, but by old mates logic what Hawthorn did is no different to North. The only difference is that you won more games.

 

[Caligo]

Your theory is cooked.

Results aside Hawthorn cleared out players better than their replacements, which by your logic is tanking.

Just because the players you had on the field tried, it’s still tanking by your logic.

North players were trying, they just aren’t any good.

I don't think the club was trying though. Unless you mean trying to engineer picks and assistance (I do think the NM players were trying, just like the Melbourne and Carlton players were)

 

[Eastern Rangers]

If I were West Coast I am definitely trading pick 1. Not only is Reid too much of a risk but West Coast are in a position right now where they need numbers. If they can turn pick 1 into 2 top 10 picks or 3 first rounders it would be ideal.

West Coast would be much better suited getting 3 B grade players than 1 A+ player.

Only if it delivers us a top four pick.

Also Reid to West Coast media beat up is mostly that. I doubt we'd struggle to retain him.

 

[H00t]

I call bullshit.

Mitchell and O’Meara at this stage of their career are better players than Nash, McKenzie, Ward etc.

I never said Hawthorn tanked, but by old mates logic what Hawthorn did is no different to North. The only difference is that you won more games.

JOM is thoroughly cooked and Mitchell while good was only stifling our other players. Our midfield went from one of the worst to mid table.

Getting rid of those players helped.

North turfed them and won 3 spoons. Not sure it fits the strict definition of tanking. But losing was certainly part of the plan.

 

[Shueygod]

I can’t see in any world where West Coast get 2 and 3 for Pick 1. It’s fantasy land.

Statistically speaking, #1 won't be the best player in the draft, however #1 also buys you more opportunity than #3 - two more players are on the board, trade value is higher, etc.


Yeah, won't happen and doesn't make sense for either side. North are going to get two very good players regardless of whether they are 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

Just based off the Roos probably having a preference for a Reid & Watson/Duursma/O’Sullivan combo to Curtin and Mckercher given they have a plethora of mids.

 

[Demon 16]

Today's result will have no bearing on any draft assistance given to NMFC.

McKay compensation is wholly unrelated to draft assistance.



North don't 'need' Reid and won't trade up for pick 1. Bookmark this post.

Bookmarked.

Now go enjoy another bourbon and coke.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Statistically speaking, #1 won't be the best player in the draft, however #1 also buys you more opportunity than #3 - two more players are on the board, trade value is higher, etc.


Yeah, won't happen and doesn't make sense for either side. North are going to get two very good players regardless of whether they are 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

Agreed. I just can't see the obsession from fans and the media regarding the #1 pick.

Joel Selwood was like #5.

But beyond that, Collingwood won the 2010 grand final on the back of drafting solid KPP from pick 30+

 

[Shinboner roo]

i posted months ago "The Eagles should just take Reid and back themselves in to keep him"


Pick 1 Eagles Reid
Pick 2 North Walter bid
Pick 3 Curtin
Pick 4 Watson
Pick 5 Hawks Duursma
Pick 6 GC traded pick

 

[TheUnicorn]

 

[Barrybran]

Agreed. I just can't see the obsession from fans and the media regarding the #1 pick.

Joel Selwood was like #5.

But beyond that, Collingwood won the 2010 grand final on the back of drafting solid KPP from pick 30+

I don't disagree. Looking at West Coast's 2018 premiership team, we had one top 10 pick play in that game - Chris Masten. But we wouldn't have got there without the likes of Naitanui (#2), Gaff (#3) and Sheppard (#7) throughout the year. You need top end talent but you don't need #1. But #1 gives you the first bite of the cherry or a greater ability to split that pick into multiple better bites of the cherry. For me, it's really a value game. How can we get as many of the best players into our best 22 and be contending for flags as soon as possible? #1 arguably makes that a little easier than #3, but is certainly not the be all and end all, as you rightly suggest.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Perfect example of how being obsessed about the #1 pick is stupid

2017 draft all but one of the top 5 in Paddy Dow

15

Paddy Dow

Age

24

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.0

3star

HB

7.1

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.9

4star

CL

2.6

4star

D

7.0

1star

K

4.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.0

3star

CL

0.0

1star

D

12.4

4star

K

5.8

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

2.8

5star

CL

2.6

5star

are top 50 players

2018 draft is full of top 50 players

As good as Walsh is, he's not a cut above the other top ranked players in that draft that would warrant tanking for.

 

[Chadwiko]

Is this post referring to Essendon's 2024 hopes?

 

[swingdog]

I don't disagree. Looking at West Coast's 2018 premiership team, we had one top 10 pick play in that game - Chris Masten. But we wouldn't have got there without the likes of Naitanui (#2), Gaff (#3) and Sheppard (#7) throughout the year. You need top end talent but you don't need #1. But #1 gives you the first bite of the cherry or a greater ability to split that pick into multiple better bites of the cherry. For me, it's really a value game. How can we get as many of the best players into our best 22 and be contending for flags as soon as possible? #1 arguably makes that a little easier than #3, but is certainly not the be all and end all, as you rightly suggest.

It's also about how number 1 is compared to what follows. If they're pretty even then it may not matter but we are being told that's not the case here.

 

[Barrybran]

It's also about how number 1 is compared to what follows. If they're pretty even then it may not matter but we are being told that's not the case here.

In fairness though, we got Nic Naitanui instead of Jack Watts

 

[Purple7x08_24]

It's also about how number 1 is compared to what follows. If they're pretty even then it may not matter but we are being told that's not the case here.

How often is the number one pick an absolute dominating machine above every other player in the draft. Even if you look at the '19 draft with Rowell (Who was treated in the same regard to Reidy)

Anderson, (irrelevant because GC had top two anyway)
Serong
Ash (has exploded)
Flanders
Hayden Young
Tom Greene (Exploded)

 

[Shueygod]

How often is the number one pick an absolute dominating machine above every other player in the draft. Even if you look at the '19 draft with Rowell (Who was treated in the same regard to Reidy)

Anderson, (irrelevant because GC had top two anyway)
Serong
Ash (has exploded)
Flanders
Hayden Young
Tom Greene (Exploded)

Tricky to say what Rowell could’ve been without injuries though

 

[Caligo]

I don't disagree. Looking at West Coast's 2018 premiership team, we had one top 10 pick play in that game - Chris Masten. But we wouldn't have got there without the likes of Naitanui (#2), Gaff (#3) and Sheppard (#7) throughout the year. You need top end talent but you don't need #1. But #1 gives you the first bite of the cherry or a greater ability to split that pick into multiple better bites of the cherry. For me, it's really a value game. How can we get as many of the best players into our best 22 and be contending for flags as soon as possible? #1 arguably makes that a little easier than #3, but is certainly not the be all and end all, as you rightly suggest.

Josh Kennedy was a sort of top 10 pick who led you that day. And you don't get him without a top 3 pick.