Draft review

[Young Blood]

Chambers deal was fine - we needed the ruckman.
I think we paid a little over the odds for Richards, but only a little.
Saddo was worth more than what we got for him.
We were lucky to get anything for Powell.

Overall, this doesn't represent 'worst trading ever'. If we'd got a better pick for Saddo, I'd be very happy.

I'm glad that they've had a go at improving the list. Previous years (esp. the latter Eade years) where they sat on their hands, refused to compromise to get a result were more frustrating.

[Sanecow]

If first round draft picks are the way to win flags, perhaps we are attempting to tank next year ala footyhead by trading early picks for players with recent AFL seniors experience.

[Xie Shan]

Barham better have another 'smoky' hidden away somewhere (or 2 or 3, judging by our taste for 4th-round picks!!)

Were they going to get someone F/S? Or pick up this Podsiadly ahead of someone in the draft maybe?

[midaro]

Looking at the deals individually, IMO:

1. We gave too much for Richards. In years to come, this will be held up as another example of why you don't trade with Sheedy--nothing is more certain. This guy is just Saddo three years ago. Make him reserves captain now and be done with it.

2. Chambers for Pick 35 is fine in principle, but a three year contract for a nobody is madness. This guy is a hard worker but he's Goodes size not Ball size and you won't find a Geelong supporter upset about this trade. He will be the next Rohan Warfe. That contract will be cursed sooner than later.

3. We got too little for Saddo (but the threat of the PSD excuses that one).

4. I know Powell wanted to go, but at the price we got for him, it's a loss.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by gazza
well if picks after 20 don't matter then all we have lost is 2 reserve graders with little future and pick 19.
gained 2 promising types for positions where we needed them.

my calculations are 5 retirees,2 drafted away,2 drafted in plus 3 mandatory national draft selections leaves 2 spaces to be filled from our exciting rookie list.

i hope vogel and campbell get the call,but worry where that leaves potter,because i think he is a talent.

Not my calculations, though. Nicks was a veteran and so isn't a "real" loss to the list (particularly with no-one to take his place on the veteran's list). Sorry I missed Schauble in the list I posted elsewhere.

So that means no-one to be chopped if only Vogels gets promoted, one to be chopped if Grundy gets a go, and 2 to be chopped in the fairly unlikely event that they get even more generous with the rookies.

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by gazza
my calculations are 5 retirees,2 drafted away,2 drafted in plus 3 mandatory national draft selections leaves 2 spaces to be filled from our exciting rookie list.

Nicks was on the veterans list, so we lose a spot on the senior list with his retirement. (Unless we have a new vet this year? Micky O?)
So five retirements creates 4 places on the list. As you say, 2 in and 2 out in trade period. That means we've got room to elevate Vogels and take our minimum 3 at the draft.

Unless we want to promote another rookie, take a fourth late pick in the draft, or grab someone in the PSD, then there's no need to delist anyone.

[midaro]

Originally posted by SimonH
Not my calculations, though. Nicks was a veteran and so isn't a "real" loss to the list (particularly with no-one to take his place on the veteran's list). Sorry I missed Schauble in the list I posted elsewhere.

So that means no-one to be chopped if only Vogels gets promoted, one to be chopped if Grundy gets a go, and 2 to be chopped in the fairly unlikely event that they get even more generous with the rookies.

This is correct.
If Grundy is promoted, someone else must be delisted.

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by midaro


3. We got too little for Saddo (but the threat of the PSD excuses that one).

I remember i saw a replay of rd 1 2003 against Carlton and KB said that we signed up our 2 'upcoming stars' and mentioned Saddo was till 2006.

[barry]

Any way you look at it:
Richards and Chambers > Powell and Saddo. Especially in our team. So, on paper our team has improved.

We've lost all our draft picks doing it.

This is top-up trading if ever I saw it. But the good thing is we didnt get old hacks, so top-ups with a future.

If we'd got a pick 30-40 for Saddo I'd be content.

[Newbie]

Originally posted by midaro
This is correct.
If Grundy is promoted, someone else must be delisted.

Can we nominate Micky as a veteran???

[liz]

My two major question marks are:

a) length of contract given to Chambers. He's never going to be an AA ruck - nor is Jolly for that matter. I figure the club was trying to buy some time to allow Shaw and/or Erikson to mature. Three years seems like a long time.

b) The price we got for Saddo. A late second round or early third round pick is the minimum that I think he is worth. I know he has come in for a lot of bashing on here but he is a decent AFL player. I think that the club's "soft heart" came to the fore here, worrying more about Saddo than about itself.

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by Newbie
Can we nominate Micky as a veteran???

Not till 2007 i think.

[liz]

Originally posted by Newbie
Can we nominate Micky as a veteran???

Not til next year.

[midaro]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
I remember i saw a replay of rd 1 2003 against Carlton and KB said that we signed up our 2 'upcoming stars' and mentioned Saddo was till 2006.

If that's true--ie that Saddo was contracted for next year and we just let him go for virtually nothing when we didn't have to--than it was really poor.
I choose to beleive he was uncontracted.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by midaro
If that's true--ie that Saddo was contracted for next year and we just let him go for virtually nothing when we didn't have to--than it was really poor.
I choose to beleive he was uncontracted.

You choose to delude yourself.

We stuffed up with Saddo. We should have told him that unless we could get a sub-40 pick, he was staying another year.