Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

[GVGjr]

During the trade period it was acknowledged that Port made an offer to Melbourne to try and secure pick 2 in the draft by offering their own first round picks #8 and #9. Obviously the Power were trying to secure Jack Trengove but I'd be interested to hear if anyone would have been tempted by that offer?

If the offer had have been accepted (there might have been other sweeteners) it would have given them picks 1, 8, 9, 11 (McLean trade) and 18. 5 picks in the first 18.

A few things spring to mind for me.

- Melbourne are on a rebuilding phase and surely the extra first round pick would have helped them in the longer term.
- With compromised drafts in the next few seasons they won't get another chance to raid the drafts again in the near future.
- They have a few midfielders that missed a bit of footy last year and they have also set their sights on getting experienced midfielder Luke Ball in the PSD which will offset losing McLean anyway. In other words their midfield won't be bad next year.

My understanding is that Melbourne quickly rejected the offer Port made but whilst I'm not sure I would have accepted it I would have given it a fair bit of consideration.

Thoughts?

He's (Trengove) a quality player but Melbourne do have few areas that they need to address.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

I wonder if the offer was made in a draft year where the talent pool was deeper, if the Dee's might've taken a hard look at it.

From many of the draft write ups it seems as if the general consensus is that beyond Scully and Trengrove there is a a gap between the next group of 5-8 players.
I think Melbourne in their rebuilding phase have thought it too good a scenario to nab the best two prospects, knowing that they still have 2 more picks in the top 18 to try and draft for needs.

Even in drafts gone by with supposedly better depth of talent on offer, picks beyond the top 3-4 become a little more speculative. I think the Demon's might be thinking that in Scully and Trengrove they are both 'slam dunk' picks, and that if their other midfield prospects develop in 2010 and they find themselves 'stacked' with choices, they may be able to trade one or two of these for better picks or players at the end of the season.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Pick 2, Pick 8 and Pick 9:

2003: Andrew Walker - David Trotter and Raph Clarke
2004: Roughead - Messon and Russell
2005: Daisy Thomas - JON and Clarke
2006: Gumbleton - Ben Reid and Armitage
2007: Cotchin - Henderson and McEvoy.


Based on recent history, Melbourne did the right thing absolutely.

[RCRM]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Elite players are arguably the most critical ingredient to winning premierships and history shows top 5 selections give you a significantly higher probability of finding an elite player than a pick between 5-10.

Whether you would do the trade depends on how you assess the drop off and rise in potential and risk from 2 to 8-9 draft. If you look back at past drafts and apply hindsight, there seems to be a fairly even spread of years where you would do the trade, wouldn't do the trade or wouldn't be fussed with either option (although it's hard to fairly assess some cases where a player involved has had a career derailed or inhibited by injury - or have been picked by Richmond!).

Personally I think this is definitely one of those years where you wouldn't do the deal. IMHO Trengove is one of 2 players who have definite elite (top 20 AFL) potential and 'should' at least be very good. The guys that could potentially be taken by them around between at 8 and 9 (Rohan, Jetta, Butcher, Talia, Black, Lucas etc.) all have very good (but IMHO not elite) potential, but are far more 'risky' prospects than Trengove. So in my view, you'd be trading a low-risk potentially elite prospect for 2 medium-risk potentially very good AFL prospects.

[mighty_west]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Pick 2, Pick 8 and Pick 9:

2003: Andrew Walker - David Trotter and Raph Clarke
2004: Roughead - Messon and Russell
2005: Daisy Thomas - JON and Clarke
2006: Gumbleton - Ben Reid and Armitage
2007: Cotchin - Henderson and McEvoy.


Based on recent history, Melbourne did the right thing absolutely.

Whilst this draft is supposed to be quite shallow, and a few recruiters have said that you will get a very good player in the top 6 or 7, then it's anyones guess, and Trengrove would have to be in that elite group, that said...

2003 - Clarke & Walker are pretty even, Trotter has gone [EVEN]
2004 - Roughie by the length of the Flemington straight [WIN to No.2]
2005 - I'd take Mitch Clarke in a heartbeat over Daisyboy [WIN for the later picks]
2006 - Reid & Armitage have shown alot more than Gumby who is always injured [WIN for the later picks]
2007 - too early to call, Cotchin injured alot [supposed to be a gun], but a ruckman who has shown something & Henderson [KPF]..........

Not as clear cut going by those examples imo.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

What people forget is that having an extra pick early is a huge advantage in regards to the later picks.

For example, a club has 5 picks in the ND, and then trade their first rounder to another club for two later first round picks (as with Melbourne).

This means that their 5th rounder is upgraded to a 4th, their 4th to a 3rd and so on. The domino effect of acquiring a whole other pick cannot be forgotten or undervalued.

I would take 8, 9 for this reason.

[hujsh]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Whilst this draft is supposed to be quite shallow, and a few recruiters have said that you will get a very good player in the top 6 or 7, then it's anyones guess, and Trengrove would have to be in that elite group, that said...

2003 - Clarke & Walker are pretty even, Trotter has gone [EVEN]
2004 - Roughie by the length of the Flemington straight [WIN to No.2]
2005 - I'd take Mitch Clarke in a heartbeat over Daisyboy [WIN for the later picks]
2006 - Reid & Armitage have shown alot more than Gumby who is always injured [WIN for the later picks]
2007 - too early to call, Cotchin injured alot [supposed to be a gun], but a ruckman who has shown something & Henderson [KPF]..........

Not as clear cut going by those examples imo.

Walker is superior to Raph Clarke and if he wasn't injured this year there would be no doubt of that.

[GVGjr]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Melbourne will do very nicely with 4 picks in the top 18 but if I rephrase the question a bit would they have been better off with the extra mid range pick rather than pick 2?

I agree with RCRM assessment that elite players are critical but I would have thought that Melbourne could have really balanced their list with a mixture of talls and mids. They need a depth of talent at the moment and the extra pick might have given it to them.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Walker is superior to Raph Clarke and if he wasn't injured this year there would be no doubt of that.

Couldn't agree more.

[mjp]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Elite players are arguably the most critical ingredient to winning premierships and history shows top 5 selections give you a significantly higher probability of finding an elite player than a pick between 5-10.

OK. I agree that elite players are what you want...I am not necessarily convinced that more are available between 1-5 than later on, but that is a debate for another time.

Personally I think this is definitely one of those years where you wouldn't do the deal. IMHO Trengove is one of 2 players who have definite elite (top 20 AFL) potential and 'should' at least be very good. The guys that could potentially be taken by them around between at 8 and 9 (Rohan, Jetta, Butcher, Talia, Black, Lucas etc.) all have very good (but IMHO not elite) potential, but are far more 'risky' prospects than Trengove. So in my view, you'd be trading a low-risk potentially elite prospect for 2 medium-risk potentially very good AFL prospects.

So...if Trengove is one, then who is the other? I assume from your list that you think it is Scully. I disagree he will be a 'top-20' AFL talent though. He might be a top 20 mid...he might even end up as a top 10 mid (though I am betting against this) but definite top 20 in the whole comp? Ahead of forwards like Franklin, Riewoldt, Fevola, Brown etc etc, and then the key defenders who stop them? I dont see it.

I don't get the whole 'Scully is the clear stand-out number 1' thing. I am not convinced. Every year there are Vic Metro based mids talked up as the next big thing...I am a Trent Cotchin true believer, but dont see his elite decision making skills in Scully. My answer would have been take Trengove at #1 and take the picks at 8 and 9 and whatever else I could fleece PA for. Word is that they wanted Trengove - bad luck. He wouldn't have been there at 2. And I would have pushed for their 2nd rounder as well.

But then again, Melbourne have Chris Connolly - former Fremantle decision maker - running things for them now. How they are expecting to drag themselves out of the basement with his recruiting skills I have no idea (but then again, he did manage to offload Brock Maclean and get a first round pick in return which was very smart).

[RCRM]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

OK. I agree that elite players are what you want...I am not necessarily convinced that more are available between 1-5 than later on, but that is a debate for another time.

So...if Trengove is one, then who is the other? I assume from your list that you think it is Scully. I disagree he will be a 'top-20' AFL talent though. He might be a top 20 mid...he might even end up as a top 10 mid (though I am betting against this) but definite top 20 in the whole comp? Ahead of forwards like Franklin, Riewoldt, Fevola, Brown etc etc, and then the key defenders who stop them? I dont see it.

I don't get the whole 'Scully is the clear stand-out number 1' thing. I am not convinced. Every year there are Vic Metro based mids talked up as the next big thing...I am a Trent Cotchin true believer, but dont see his elite decision making skills in Scully.

Not necessarily more available, but a higher probability of snaring an elite player than a mid first round pick.

RE: Scully, fair enough - as before it is a prediction based on opinion and everyone will have a different take. I do agree he isn't the standout no. 1 and would also rate Trengove above him.

[mjp]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Not necessarily more available, but a higher probability of snaring an elite player than a mid first round pick.

Really? Based on what?

The draft is filled with early round flops and late round/rookie success stories. What I will say is if Melbourne are fixed (fixated?) on a player that they know wont last until 8...they did the right thing. If it is someone who they aren't completely in love with - they have made a massive mistake.

[RCRM]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

It's a subjective view - 7 top 5 picks that would be in my top 20: Riewoldt, Judd, Franklin, Pavlich, Hodge, Cooney, Goddard - proportions could be inflated further when 3/20 are F/S picks (Ablett Jnr, Brown, Scarlett) - vs 2 mid first round (8-12) Hayes and Bartel.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

Very interesting thread.

From Melbourne's perspective I can see why they did not want the deal, but the fact is that at 8 and 9 there should still be some pretty good players available who should be 150 - 200 game players. The fact that Melbourne are very well positioned with 2 more picks in the top 18, they can address their needs with the later picks. The top 4 or so are probably that much closer to certain performers at AFL level though, so I can understand why that want that 'security'.

Yes, anything can happen, but Trengove has already shown it in finals pressure and league level, as close to a dead set certainty as you can get, and with Brock moving on and a few more outside guys like Morton, a Scully type should suit them well. I honestly haven't seen much of Scully so I can't really comment on him, he's been the #1 pick and a foregone conclusion for a while so for an amateur draft observer like myself, wI haven't bothered much with Scully.


From a Port Power perspective, I think they would have been almost foolish to go through with the deal. They added a good mid last year in Hartlett, and although they have lost Burgoyne, and a ready made player such as Trengove would be fantastic, they should be able to secure 2 good players with picks 8 and 9. They need another mid, and probably a key forward too and at 8 and 9 there should still be some pretty good options on the table for both areas. This will allow them to address a couple of needs, rather than just grabbing 1 'lock' midfielder.

It's all very interesting though. I think little deals like this may become more common, especially once the trading for future years ND picks comes into vogue.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Melbournes approach to the draft and trade period

(but then again, he did manage to offload Brock Maclean and get a first round pick in return which was very smart).

What's the issue with Maclean?

Too big a gap between his best and worst?

Wont get himself fit enough to get to enough contests?

Not quick enough?

How would you rate him against somebody like Cross?