Analysis Should we really be spewing over trading out our 2021 picks?

[Gone Critical]

What *did* we do with our '21 2nd rounder? Did it get blended down in the Stevo/Treloar shmozzle I guess?

I've seen people argue sensibly that if we'd hung on to the pick we could have traded it for more than what we got, seeing as it turned out to be pick two. I have not seen people argue sensibly that anyone should have predicted that outcome and therefore a mistake was made.

But even the first point - that we could've got more in return - is debatable. That's the question that Ugene has correct, and that many posters get miles wrong because they run with just one or two pieces of the puzzle and glue it together with attitude.

I was involved in a number of discussions around that point and numerous posters expressed concerns from draft night onwards. It always seemed an unnecessary risk. We were coming off a bad finish to the season with a list that had some problems. Virtually all the 2020 finalists and a number outside the 8 made list changes that could be expected to translate into immediate improvements. The off season upheavals left potential rifts in the palying coaching groups. Our coach was under the hammer with a real risk he wouldnt be reappointed. We were expected to fall, the hope was not too far.

We staked our hopes on the dual options of us maintaining a reasonable place on the ladder and Nick Daicos realising his huge potential as an U18 and no other bright stars emerge to push him out of the top few spots. ND has done his part thankfully. We paid off on that part. Fortunately stayed fit, impressed and we have a rolled gold star in the making.

We slid more than we thought but bottom 4 was always a possibility where we were coming from. We only just staved off the disaster that would have been us getting pick one or Nick sliding to say pick 3 ( what if he had a significant injury, what if Horne and Darcy had eclipsed him in 21, what if....) while we finish 17 meaning we could have had 2 of the top 4 players form this draft.

Why did we take that risk given the reward was pushing up our picks in the draft a bit and getting a few points for Daicos. It always had risk with little reward. We got burnt

The other element I am critical of is the club treated the draft as a PR exercise as well a list improvement procedure. I am cynical about the motives. We were in crisis and the club were desperate for good news. The media played along. Jake Niall sitting in on our draft team, having access to write a piece about the brilliant machinations. Swapping out our 2021 1st was part of the Hine/Guy strategy wizardry the club hoped would placate an irate fan base. I was never happy with that aspect. It was part of the ongoing snow job we were sold. Reading the Niall article again its a propaganda piece to resurrect the reputaions of Hine and Guy

 

[lenny&carl]

I was involved in a number of discussions around that point and numerous posters expressed concerns from draft night onwards. It always seemed an unnecessary risk. We were coming off a bad finish to the season with a list that had some problems. Virtually all the 2020 finalists and a number outside the 8 made list changes that could be expected to translate into immediate improvements. The off season upheavals left potential rifts in the palying coaching groups. Our coach was under the hammer with a real risk he wouldnt be reappointed. We were expected to fall, the hope was not too far.

We staked our hopes on the dual options of us maintaining a reasonable place on the ladder and Nick Daicos realising his huge potential as an U18 and no other bright stars emerge to push him out of the top few spots. ND has done his part thankfully. We paid off on that part. Fortunately stayed fit, impressed and we have a rolled gold star in the making.

We slid more than we thought but bottom 4 was always a possibility where we were coming from. We only just staved off the disaster that would have been us getting pick one or Nick sliding to say pick 3 ( what if he had a significant injury, what if Horne and Darcy had eclipsed him in 21, what if....) while we finish 17 meaning we could have had 2 of the top 4 players form this draft.

Why did we take that risk given the reward was pushing up our picks in the draft a bit and getting a few points for Daicos. It always had risk with little reward. We got burnt

The other element I am critical of is the club treated the draft as a PR exercise as well a list improvement procedure. I am cynical about the motives. We were in crisis and the club were desperate for good news. The media played along. Jake Niall sitting in on our draft team, having access to write a piece about the brilliant machinations. Swapping out our 2021 1st was part of the Hine/Guy strategy wizardry the club hoped would placate an irate fan base. I was never happy with that aspect. It was part of the ongoing snow job we were sold. Reading the Niall article again its a propaganda piece to resurrect the reputaions of Hine and Guy

Fair enough. Such pessimists were in a small minority at that stage though.

 

[lenny&carl]

Would they have done anything different without such attention? They had decided to buy in heavily to that draft year because of their list assessment and because of how they rated the draft. I don't mind the club talking it up and saying "hey here's something positive, a plan we're enacting." Sure the club was desperate for a good news story after the recent f-ups...and that's why they traded our 1st round pick????? Really?

 

[BEEG]

Us losing 2021 pick 2 has nothing to do with 95% of what you wrote lol.

The decision of trading out pick 2 for peanuts is an undeniable mistake, just face it. It's not just losing out on a top end talent, this also has a flow on impact to the points we need to obtain as other clubs know that we will match anything for Daicos even at pick 1.

I appreciate the positivity, but no point justifying what was clearly an irrefutable error.

This

It was just a lazy decision on draft night, I feel it was only really done for PR, let's bring in an extra kid and show everyone where on track.

Most fans loved it and those fans are still defending that decision.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I don't think this is actually right. Before the draft people were saying that we had enough points for pick 25 and he would have gone later than he did, as we asked GWS to bid on him. Are you sure you've got the picks we had and points right?

So during the draft, we ended up trading pick 2 and 20 from 2021 draft. In return, we got two future 3rd rounders and 2020 picks which we used on Poulter, McMahon and McCreery. We can be confident that we wouldn't have gotten Poulter without the trade. We may have still got McMahon and McCreery. And if we didn't, we would have gotten two others kids who may be just as likely.

The draft night itself was a wild tangle of pick trades, and I couldn’t find a definitive reference of each and every one of those trades that didn’t have obvious mistakes (the 2020 AFL draft details on Wikipedia). To add to the confusion, the picks get pushed back at the draft due to bid matching.

So the only way I could figure out how things went down was to look at what we went into the draft with, and compare it to what we came out of the draft with.

I’m comfortable that it’s a good and valid way of doing things. It simplifies things too.

For the inputs into the draft I used this reference below from the AFL website. It includes all the picks we got from our trades of Treloar, Stephenson, Atu and Philips, plus pre-draft pick swaps.

Final draft order: Your club's picks for the 2020 NAB AFL Draft

The final draft order is set ahead of the 2020 NAB AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

Feel free to check my work on this.

… as we asked GWS to bid on him.

I don’t understand this comment? Why would a club ask another club to bid on one of their players? It’s in Collingwood’s best interest that nobody else bids on Reef or N.Daicos and we get them with the last picks of the draft?

 

[BEEG]

Would they have done anything different without such attention? They had decided to buy in heavily to that draft year because of their list assessment and because of how they rated the draft. I don't mind the club talking it up and saying "hey here's something positive, a plan we're enacting." Sure the club was desperate for a good news story after the recent f-ups...and that's why they traded our 1st round pick????? Really?

Yeah 100%

The easy lazy option which would give them a short term PR boost after the horror show and credit to them it worked out exactly how they wanted now all the blame of trading pick 2 can be put on the previous team.

 

[Anzacday]

I miss Bucks

 

[76woodenspooners]

We wouldn’t have been forced to use it because we could have traded it for a player or picks. Plenty of examples where clubs have traded picks in a similar situation prior to or during the draft.

True.

Instead of Reef, Poulter, McMahon and McCreery …

… we could have ended up with four different players from picks in the 60’s …

… or we could have ended up with Reef and three others and points deficit.

In each of those cases the pick 2 will have gotten gobbled up by Daicos picks (although we could have done trades to beak up that pick to maximize its points value).

The only scenario I can see that we would have ever have been able to use that pick 2 is if we ran the gauntlet of going into the 2021 draft with it, and North don’t pick Nick Daicos at 1.

And even in that case, we would have essentially lost our 2022 first round pick to get the Daicos points, unless we got them from somewhere else.

Time will tell whether the move was a winner or not.

Agreed.

What we’re essentially looking for is whether Reef, Poulter, McMahaon and McCreery become decent players. If they do, then we should be very happy with how things happened.

 

[magpies42]

True.

Instead of Reef, Poulter, McMahon and McCreery …

… we could have ended up with four different players from picks in the 60’s …

… or we could have ended up with Reef and three others and points deficit.

In each of those cases the pick 2 will have gotten gobbled up by Daicos picks (although we could have done trades to beak up that pick to maximize its points value).

The only scenario I can see that we would have ever have been able to use that pick 2 is if we ran the gauntlet of going into the 2021 draft with it, and North don’t pick Nick Daicos at 1.

And even in that case, we would have essentially lost our 2022 first round pick to get the Daicos points, unless we got them from somewhere else.



Agreed.

What we’re essentially looking for is whether Reef, Poulter, McMahaon and McCreery become decent players. If they do, then we should be very happy with how things happened.

We could have traded it for just about any player in the league and got change. We could have also traded it for a future first rounder and then traded back into this years draft if we needed.

I like the positive side you’re putting forward, I know most punters on here were happy with our draft takings from last season so it’s definitely not all bad. Our timing to bottom out definitely sucks.

 

[76woodenspooners]

For my enjoyment as a Collingwood fan, the biggest win we got by trading that 2021 first round pick …

… and nobody has mentioned this yet …

… is that we would have spent the 2021 season with the suggestion of tanking over our heads.

Elements of the supporter base would have been cheering for us to finish below North Melbourne. Being around folks who complain about winning the WCE and Richmond games. Going into games around fans cheering us to lose. Going from a SF to bottom of the ladder in a single season and facing media and opposition accusing us of tanking? IMO it would have been intolerable. It pisses me off even in non-freefall seasons.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

In what world is trading a future 1st when you're a declining middle-of-the-pack team for pick 24 + pick 30 acceptable?

How did we expect the team to perform after losing Treloar, Stephenson, Phillips (in probably our weakest line) for no senior player in return?

The recruitment team simply wanted to save their jobs, and it was at the cost of our future.

Exactly! We were always going to go backwards this year after the players we lost.

Quite clearly the list manager horribly overrated the list. Despite the injuries, its clear that Treloar was missed in our midfield. Certainly for the first half of the season when we still had a season to play for. Maybe De Goey 'replaced' him in the 2nd half of the season but that left a hole in the forwardline. Phillips is also an underrated player that we couldn't replace properly this season. We rotated a bunch of young players in Phillips' old spot but the output was not up to the previous output.

Yes we were going to need to trade our first pick with Daicos coming on board but there was no need to rush and do that deal at tge draft last year. Especially after the turmoil of having to move players on for salary cap reasons. Ned Guy, Geoff Walsh, Nathan Buckley and whoever else was involved in making these list decisions got it horribly wrong and the club had no choice to fire them. They couldn't be trusted to make the right decisions going forward.

 

[sr36]

I don’t understand this comment? Why would a club ask another club to bid on one of their players? It’s in Collingwood’s best interest that nobody else bids on Reef or N.Daicos and we get them with the last picks of the draft?

If GWS didn't bid on Reef and then if we traded down the Poulter pick for more points like we did. There is a fair chance the Poulter pick would have been swallowed by someone else bidding on Reef.

A journo said we asked them to bid on hin. I think it was the bloke with us during the draft.

 

[Ugene41]

In the same way you would have backed in the two different players we would have drafted in in their place if we had kept pick 2 (one of which may well have still been McMahon)

Of course. If Hine had deemed that taking a pick in the 60s at the end of the draft would get us a similar player to Poulter then I would have backed that decision in. The fact that he identified Poulter as a first rounder in his draft rankings and then decided to trade for that then I'm willing to back him in. He's in a much better position than us to judge.

We need to stop placing so much emphasis on the actual number of the draft pick once draft night occurs. Whether we selected Poulter with pick 15 vs with pick 30 won't make a difference as long as you have him. There's value in having as high a draft pick as possible before the draft to give you the best chance of selecting the players you ranked highly on your draft board. But once the draft starts playing out and players picked deviate from your own rankings, that becomes less important. It's why you see so many trades on draft night that give away so much perceived draft value just to target a specific player.

E.g. Adelaide effectively traded 2020 pick 26 and 2021 pick 41 for our pick 25 last year. Gave away their early 3rd rounder just to move up 1 spot in the second round. Why is no one talking about how stupid that trade is and how no matter how high Adelaide finished they were never going to get the value of their third round back? Because it doesn't really matter. They got the player they were after in Brayden Cook.

 

[Ugene41]

I don't think this is actually right. Before the draft people were saying that we had enough points for pick 25 and he would have gone later than he did, as we asked GWS to bid on him. Are you sure you've got the picks we had and points right?

So during the draft, we ended up trading pick 2 and 20 from 2021 draft. In return, we got two future 3rd rounders and 2020 picks which we used on Poulter, McMahon and McCreery. We can be confident that we wouldn't have gotten Poulter without the trade. We may have still got McMahon and McCreery. And if we didn't, we would have gotten two others kids who may be just as likely.

There's no way we'd do that if we could have our time back.
.

Nah we came into the draft with a bunch of pick 60s (after our two first rounders) that would have equated to <200 points. The bid for Reef required >600 points to match so without trading our 2021 second we would've been in deficit and would've eaten into our 2021 second anyway.

The mistake we made in hindsight was trading out our own 2nd rounder instead of WB's. But it's easy to say that with hindsight. No one could confidently say there would be such a big gap between the two clubs given we finished above them last year.

 

[Trickster]

The draft night itself was a wild tangle of pick trades, and I couldn’t find a definitive reference of each and every one of those trades that didn’t have obvious mistakes (the 2020 AFL draft details on Wikipedia). To add to the confusion, the picks get pushed back at the draft due to bid matching.

So the only way I could figure out how things went down was to look at what we went into the draft with, and compare it to what we came out of the draft with.

I’m comfortable that it’s a good and valid way of doing things. It simplifies things too.

For the inputs into the draft I used this reference below from the AFL website. It includes all the picks we got from our trades of Treloar, Stephenson, Atu and Philips, plus pre-draft pick swaps.

Final draft order: Your club's picks for the 2020 NAB AFL Draft

The final draft order is set ahead of the 2020 NAB AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

Feel free to check my work on this.



I don’t understand this comment? Why would a club ask another club to bid on one of their players? It’s in Collingwood’s best interest that nobody else bids on Reef or N.Daicos and we get them with the last picks of the draft?

If you scroll all the way down 76 in the link below, this has the trades that occurred on draft night.

AFL Draft 2020 Every club's draft haul rated (espn.com.au)

 

[sr36]

I was involved in a number of discussions around that point and numerous posters expressed concerns from draft night onwards. It always seemed an unnecessary risk. We were coming off a bad finish to the season with a list that had some problems. Virtually all the 2020 finalists and a number outside the 8 made list changes that could be expected to translate into immediate improvements. The off season upheavals left potential rifts in the palying coaching groups. Our coach was under the hammer with a real risk he wouldnt be reappointed. We were expected to fall, the hope was not too far.

We staked our hopes on the dual options of us maintaining a reasonable place on the ladder and Nick Daicos realising his huge potential as an U18 and no other bright stars emerge to push him out of the top few spots. ND has done his part thankfully. We paid off on that part. Fortunately stayed fit, impressed and we have a rolled gold star in the making.

We slid more than we thought but bottom 4 was always a possibility where we were coming from. We only just staved off the disaster that would have been us getting pick one or Nick sliding to say pick 3 ( what if he had a significant injury, what if Horne and Darcy had eclipsed him in 21, what if....) while we finish 17 meaning we could have had 2 of the top 4 players form this draft.

Why did we take that risk given the reward was pushing up our picks in the draft a bit and getting a few points for Daicos. It always had risk with little reward. We got burnt

The other element I am critical of is the club treated the draft as a PR exercise as well a list improvement procedure. I am cynical about the motives. We were in crisis and the club were desperate for good news. The media played along. Jake Niall sitting in on our draft team, having access to write a piece about the brilliant machinations. Swapping out our 2021 1st was part of the Hine/Guy strategy wizardry the club hoped would placate an irate fan base. I was never happy with that aspect. It was part of the ongoing snow job we were sold. Reading the Niall article again its a propaganda piece to resurrect the reputaions of Hine and Guy

Yeah, I think it was a PR move. "5 of the top 31". Trading our second rounder for two picks in the 40s was a shit deal - the draft was expected to be in its final stages by then - Hawthorn would have been laughing. Trading our first rounder for two picks in the 20s was even shitter. even if we had have been ok this year and ended up with pick 10, it was still big unders - GWS would have been laughing. I don't have an issue with us trading the pick in general, but the price we got was woeful. How we didn't get more out of them than just the add on of the 4th round selection is beyond me. There's no way we should be scratching around for Daicos points, as we should have gotten them as part of that deal.

 

[barrackers]

Trading our second rounder for two picks in the 40s was a sh*t deal - the draft was expected to be in its final stages by then - Hawthorn would have been laughing.

This is the one the gets me. Effectively we traded pick 21 (after Daicos, Darcy) for pick 23 less 20% discount. I sense we done it to offset an earlier bid on McInnes, but that didn't come and ultimately we would have had almost enough points without the deal. Any deficit would have only pushed our 2021 second back a couple of places if at all. Without the Hawthorn deal we still could have drafted all of our 2020 group too.

 

[Trickster]

Ignoring all the impracticalities of salary cap and open list spots to those points picks, lets take this new scenario. If it's as easy as being able to trade Sier, Cox and Lynch for three 3rd rounders nothing is stopping us doing that in our current situation. Our draft hand this year would then be 1 2nd rounder and 6 third rounders. So better than your scenario and we will have more than enough points for Daicos and Dib and will preserve all 2022 picks. We can still pick up Lipinski in the PSD.

Net result is Dawson and Stephens instead of Poulter and McMahon. But if we had the salary cap to pay the combined ~$800k for Dawson and Stephens, why wouldn't we just sign Luke Parker as a RFA for $750k p.a. and have Poulter and McMahon developing as young talent in the background. We get a proven AA who's much better than Dawson and better list profile for our salary cap as once Poulter and McMahon develops and starts demanding higher salaries, Parker's contract will be done.

So trading pick 2 last year means we can get Parker/Poulter/McMahon/Lipinski which is unquestionably better than Dawson/Stephenson/Lipinski.

All ridiculous of course given our salary cap situation and the fact we were actively trading out salary for draft picks.

You've asked for an example of an end-game scenario and what we could have done with Pick 2 so there it is. Dawson is younger than Parker so I'd absolutely take him / Stephens first. Parker by the way is neither here nor there in this discussion anyhow as he has no impact on Pick 2.

And for all your posturing, you (nor I) don't know the specifics of our cap space. We're interested in Weid so presumably have some wriggle room given what he is on and what he'd be asking as KPF.

And if you don't like Pick 2 for Dawson / Stephens, we could have offered to Geel for Krueger, Narkle and Constable.

The point for about the 10th time and I'll go slowly here is... that... there.... would... have.... been... many.... options.... to use it so its effectively a free hit. If we didn't trade it out and it got used for Daicos, it means we could have used Pick 20 and our 3rd rounders for more draft picks. Not to get you too excited but imagine another 3 or 4 Poulters and McMahons from this years draft.

 

[sr36]

This is the one the gets me. Effectively we traded pick 21 (after Daicos, Darcy) for pick 23 less 20% discount. I sense we done it to offset an earlier bid on McInnes, but that didn't come and ultimately we would have had almost enough points without the deal. Any deficit would have only pushed our 2021 second back a couple of places if at all. Without the Hawthorn deal we still could have drafted all of our 2020 group too.

This one hurts in retrospect, but I can accept it more than the price we got for our first, as my assumption is that we must have had other deals set up with our two first rounders - if McInnes got an early bid. We might not have had time to do those deals as well as the one with Hawthorn? BUt like the first rounder, the price was crap, as last year, picks in their 40s were end of the draft picks.

 

[barrackers]

This one hurts in retrospect, but I can accept it more than the price we got for our first, as my assumption is that we must have had other deals set up with our two first rounders - if McInnes got an early bid. We might not have had time to do those deals as well as the one with Hawthorn?

Could well be the case. The AFL closed a loophole in 2019 to stop sides trading with a club once a bid was made and re-trading wiht the same club after the bid was matched. Perhaps doing this trade early was a workaround and there was a second branch to the Hawthorn deal that wasn't required?

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[sr36]

Could well be the case. The AFL closed a loophole in 2019 to stop sides trading with a club once a bid was made and re-trading wiht the same club after the bid was matched. Perhaps doing this trade early was a workaround and there was a second branch to the Hawthorn deal that wasn't required?

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

www.foxsports.com.au

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if we'd lined up our two first rounders for Hawthorn's future first and then another deal to trade that back into the 2020 draft.

 

[Ugene41]

You've asked for an example of an end-game scenario and what we could have done with Pick 2 so there it is. Dawson is younger than Parker so I'd absolutely take him / Stephens first. Parker by the way is neither here nor there in this discussion anyhow as he has no impact on Pick 2.

And for all your posturing, you (nor I) don't know the specifics of our cap space. We're interested in Weid so presumably have some wriggle room given what he is on and what he'd be asking as KPF.

And if you don't like Pick 2 for Dawson / Stephens, we could have offered to Geel for Krueger, Narkle and Constable.

The point for about the 10th time and I'll go slowly here is... that... there.... would... have.... been... many.... options.... to use it so its effectively a free hit. If we didn't trade it out and it got used for Daicos, it means we could have used Pick 20 and our 3rd rounders for more draft picks. Not to get you too excited but imagine another 3 or 4 Poulters and McMahons from this years draft.

And Poulter and McMahon are younger than both Dawson and Stephens. Plus we can get Parker as a RFA with the salary we would otherwise have had to offer a Dawson and Stephens. So we get a much better player than those two you mentioned plus have 2 younger prospects to develop. The fact that you don't think that the ability to acquire Parker via RFA is linked to offering big salaries to players we look to attract with pick 2 shows that you're operating in a fantasy world with no real life practical restraints. Sure there might be wiggle room in our salary cap and none of us know how much. But I do know that if you spend that spare salary cap on attracting a big name player in a trade, it's salary cap that you no longer have to attract a big name player via free agency. Opportunity cost.

You basically only seem to be able to comprehend one step ahead instead of being able to think several steps ahead and contemplate the end game. I would love to play chess against you as it seems like you simply like to optimise for the next step rather than trying to get the best end game outcome. "Ohhh why would I sacrifice my knight to take their pawn if it gets me closer to a checkmate if I can take their queen or their castle or their rook. Knight for Queen > Knight for Pawn. Think of all the options!".

Stop thinking of the trade in isolation.

Also we don't have pick 20 this year as that was used to match Reef. We have pick 33 and our third rounder if we didn't trade pick 2. We use pick 2 to match Daicos and we're left with pick 33 and our pick 39. How is that a free hit and better than our draft hand of pick 30/31 last year?

 

[Trickster]

And Poulter and McMahon are younger than both Dawson and Stephens. Plus we can get Parker as a RFA with the salary we would otherwise have had to offer a Dawson and Stephens. So we get a much better player than those two you mentioned plus have 2 younger prospects to develop. The fact that you don't think that the ability to acquire Parker via RFA is linked to offering big salaries to players we look to attract with pick 2 shows that you're operating in a fantasy world with no real life practical restraints. Sure there might be wiggle room in our salary cap and none of us know how much. But I do know that if you spend that spare salary cap on attracting a big name player in a trade, it's salary cap that you no longer have to attract a big name player via free agency. Opportunity cost.

You basically only seem to be able to comprehend one step ahead instead of being able to think several steps ahead and contemplate the end game. I would love to play chess against you as it seems like you simply like to optimise for the next step rather than trying to get the best end game outcome. "Ohhh why would I sacrifice my knight to take their pawn if it gets me closer to a checkmate if I can take their queen or their castle or their rook. Knight for Queen > Knight for Pawn. Think of all the options!".

Stop thinking of the trade in isolation.

Also we don't have pick 20 this year as that was used to match Reef. We have pick 33 and our third rounder if we didn't trade pick 2. We use pick 2 to match Daicos and we're left with pick 33 and our pick 39. How is that a free hit and better than our draft hand of pick 30/31 last year?

You do also realise that the salary to get Parker would be more than the salary required for Dawson and Stephen combined, as well as some left over.

And a tip on list sizes, if you got Parker rather than Dawson / Stephens (usual caveat for you.. as an example), you'd also need someone else so in total you're looking at $1m for Parker and ? as opposed to $750k-$800k for Dawson / Stephens. So substantial difference there

Thanks for the chess example Karpov. Such a strategist. But you're the one who is fixated on needing to trade out our Pick 2 and you are happy with Poulter and McMahon. Enjoy wearing their badges.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to you anymore given you just don't acknowledge, ask for end game examples and then disregard them - so please feel free to respond, but that's it from my end.

 

[CasuallyDressed]

When you trade a future draft pick you're betting on yourself to be good, most of us probably expected that pick to be 10 at the lowest.

We bet on ourselves and we stunk. It is what is it... the risk you take. I didn't think it was a bad trade when we did it because I thought we'd be at least fighting for a final 8 spot.

 

[pugsville]

We could have traded it for just about any player in the league and got change. We could have also traded it for a future first rounder and then traded back into this years draft if we needed.

I like the positive side you’re putting forward, I know most punters on here were happy with our draft takings from last season so it’s definitely not all bad. Our timing to bottom out definitely sucks.

Delusional. Get a grip. This ideal of jsut vecause collingwood wants a deal that other clubs will fail over themsalves to oblidge,

Traded it for any player in the league.
(a) No, most good players are not aviable,
(b) And how would we pay teh salary cap of getting a good player in.

Trading for Future 1st Rounder traded readed back into this years draft,
(a) that is a leap of justified faith, a plan the relies on two trades going very smoothly,
(b) you'll lose a bit on each of those trades, if collingwod is driving these deals otehr clubs will wantycollingwood bears the risk, future pick trading is always with risk,
(c) why? If next years drfat is stronger might be well better off stauingin that drfat rather than trading.