Macca

[motorace_182]

For a #4 Draft Pick, Jared better show something this year or he will be shown the door, i feel. He looks skkillfull but unless there is a lot of time spent in the gym over the off-season, he will not go too far. Is he worth keeping if he doesnt progress much this year?? Any thoughts?

[Dpw]

What the hell!!!!!!, most youngsters at our club are normaly given atleast three years, give him time I know I would of preffered Schammer but Mcviegh weres the red and white and could be a champion so lets give him a chance to show his stuff.

So please lets not witch hunt just yet.

[monopoly19]

Re: Macca

Originally posted by motorace_182
Is he worth keeping if he doesnt progress much this year??

I don't know how far you're wanting him to progress, but the club would be utterly crazy to discard a 4th pick simply because he had not filled out enough (is this you main reason for wanting to let him go?).

[Bleed Red Blood]

Re: Re: Macca

Originally posted by monopoly19
because he had not filled out enough (is this you main reason for wanting to let him go?).

cause thats a poor reason McVeigh may not have proven himself yet but neither has Dempster and I dont see you calling for his head.

[motorace_182]

But for a number 4 pick he must show something next year to prove his worth. He did look good in the ressies and for Penno, but it is a big step up and hopefully he will take it. All im saying is that if there is no or minimal improvement next year from him, was he worth a number 4 pick??

[liz]

Originally posted by motorace_182
But for a number 4 pick he must show something next year to prove his worth. He did look good in the ressies and for Penno, but it is a big step up and hopefully he will take it. All im saying is that if there is no or minimal improvement next year from him, was he worth a number 4 pick??

Where players were picked in the draft becomes irrelevant the day they walk into the club - particularly in terms of assessing their progress and how long they get to prove themselves.

In any case, what has he done to upset you. The club stated that all four of last year's draftees progressed as expected during 2003. Pre-season training has barely started and you're calling for his head??

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by lizz
Where players were picked in the draft becomes irrelevant the day they walk into the club - particularly in terms of assessing their progress and how long they get to prove themselves.

I disagree. There is an opportunity cost to taking a high draft pick and I think they should prove themselves faster (and better) than lower draft picks.

[DST]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I disagree. There is an opportunity cost to taking a high draft pick and I think they should prove themselves faster (and better) than lower draft picks.

Yes and no on that one NMWBloods, you expect a higher draft pick to play sooner as generally they have stood out at underage level and are more mature physically than the rest.

But, not all players are alike. In McVeighs case he is not going to be the inside midfielder that Cooney is but he does have the skills, pace and stamania to play as an outside midfielder which may mean he takes a little longer to develop.

Ultimately, I don't think McVeigh really needs to put on too much bulk just some strength work. His value to us will be him using his stamina to get into space and using his skills to deliver up field.

DST

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I disagree. There is an opportunity cost to taking a high draft pick and I think they should prove themselves faster (and better) than lower draft picks.

There are two types of expectation here though. Of course a recruitment manager is going to be judged differently on how his early and late picks develop - more is expected of earlier ones. And it's reasonable for a club (and supporters) to expect that earlier picks have a higher chance of turning into a good player.

But it's a sunk cost. In terms of applying criteria to their progress, it doesn't make sense to say that if player 1 and player 2 are at the same stage in their development after a year in the system, you give player 2 more time just because they were picked later. Once they're in the club the only valid reference point is the standard required to "make it" at AFL level.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I disagree. There is an opportunity cost to taking a high draft pick and I think they should prove themselves faster (and better) than lower draft picks.

Err that certainly ain't the history of it - Headland and Fraser are just two No 1 picks who took years to really show much at AFL level.

[footyhead]

Headland played in his second year, Frazer in his first.

[sharpie]

Fraser won the rising star award, he certainly didnt take years

[NMWBloods]

I agree that it varies across players and the important thing is getting all the players to AFL standard.

However, with regard to it being a sunk cost, yes it is, but there has still been a cost that could have spent elsewhere. Ignoring the cost of getting that player is a mistake IMHO, akin to saying once you've bought an expensive product it should perform the same as a cheaper product because the amount spent is no longer relevant.

Of course players are ready at different times. The ideal outcome for a high draft pick is a top-flight player ready now (eg: Judd). I expect most high draft picks to be ready earlier, but some may still be developing. In the latter case though, I expect that when they reach their best they really are sensational. Otherwise there seems little point in expending your high draft pick on them. So we'll wait and see.

I can think of a number of our high draft picks that haven't quite reach those standards (yet a number of low ones who have outperformed expectations a lot).

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

However, with regard to it being a sunk cost, yes it is, but there has still been a cost that could have spent elsewhere. Ignoring the cost of getting that player is a mistake IMHO, akin to saying once you've bought an expensive product it should perform the same as a cheaper product because the amount spent is no longer relevant.

The implication of a couple of posts in this thread (not yours) was that McVeigh should get less time to prove himself because he was a high pick. That is where the "sunk cost" concept comes in - there is no point in making a decision for the future (ie whether to keep the faith in a player) based on what he cost in the past.

If, say, McVeigh and Malceski are considered to have equal chance of developing to the necessary standard, you would expect them to be treated the same. You wouldn't give up on McVeigh sooner just because he "cost" more initially.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by lizz
The implication of a couple of posts in this thread (not yours) was that McVeigh should get less time to prove himself because he was a high pick. That is where the "sunk cost" concept comes in - there is no point in making a decision for the future (ie whether to keep the faith in a player) based on what he cost in the past.

If, say, McVeigh and Malceski are considered to have equal chance of developing to the necessary standard, you would expect them to be treated the same. You wouldn't give up on McVeigh sooner just because he "cost" more initially.

Ah, yes - I agree in that case. Once you've 'spent' the cost on the players it is a waste to give up too early. However, naturally you would expect that once they do both develop McVeigh should theoretically be a much better player.