Difficult one...the flip side to that argument is -- BULLET IN BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:12 22/09/24 Sun
Author: Two-Bob Man
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 110.144.28.91
Subject: Difficult one...the flip side to that argument is
In reply to: Jack 's message, "How much blame does Hine get for Henry" on 00:37 22/09/24 Sun

If you get a good player at the draft, even if you know their tenure with you might be limited, it might still be worth getting them because they potentially have some inherent "market" value that could be utilised if they need to be traded.

Henry - which cost us pick 17 in the 2020 draft - netted us Mitchell and pick 25 in the 2022 draft so, while many of us might suggest it was a it lower than we would have liked, it wasn't a "disastrous" trade.

It was not like the train wrecks that surreounded the Treloar and Grundy deals, for example.

As an additional case in point, should North Melbourne have avoided drafting Horne-Francis because of the possibility that he would want to depart and go home to SA?

Or, for that matter, should any club avoid drafting an interstater because that is the outcome that seems to be "likely" for that type of player.

Most boys who get to be on an AFL list will go to play anywhere and be happy with their lot - because they know that the odds of forging an AFL career are long.

But if the player quickly becomes a "gun", all of a sudden, they have options because clubs will approach them with offers.

It was always "suspected" that JHF was probably not really sold on the idea of playing for North Melbourne....but they selected him as the best player of that draft crop regardless.

While they did lose a year later, they could turn their #1 draft pick (and the talented JHF) into picks #2 and #3 (Sheezel and Wardlaw) in a multiclub trade.

The point is, the player you draft has some intrinsic value down the track - the question is what value that player would have.

Looking at the guys taken AFTER Henry in the 2020 draft, which ones would have given us value as a player and/or as a potential for returning value on a trade? Holmes? Bowey? perhaps another that wasn't tied up in an NGA arrangement?

Not sure what any recruiter can do in those circumstances.

The question was aksed even after Allan was drafted - given that he was from WA and his dad had close links to Freo.

If Allan DOES establish himself as a good AFL player and then expresses his desire to be traded back to WA, don't we get better return than if he is NOT a good established player at senior level?

TBM

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Forum timezone: GMT+9
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.