Trade and Draft - 2009

[Gershwin]

Chose a year and do an assessment. I'll start with 2009.

Trades
Pick No. 16 for Andrew Lovett
Pick No. 48 for Brett Peake
Xavier Clarke for pick 60

Draft
Pick 32 - Nicholas Winmar
Pick 60 - Jesse W Smith
Pick 64 - Adam Pattison
Pick 77 - Will Johnson
Pick 87 - Zac Dawson (promoted rookie)
Pick 93 - Luke Miles

Rookie Draft
Pick 20 - Mark Hutchings
Pick 36 - Daniel Archer
Pick 49 - Jarryd Allen
Pick 60 - Leigh Fisher
Pick 69 - Tommy Walsh


Overall Rating = 0/10

[whiskers3614]

did you forget Luke Ball?

[ausfatcat]

What a terrible period Peake was ok for a season apart from that Dawson did ok

[Gershwin]

did you forget Luke Ball?

Yes I did. Luke Ball walked out for no compensation.

[Enrico_Misso]

Aaaah, good old Bevo.
What a genious!

[skeptic]

With threads like this, you need to put it into the context of the whole draft, and the reality for us is that whilst there were certainly potential hits for our picks, they were few and far between.

And to be honest... that's the story of this draft period.

Top 15 - Martin is the obvious stand out at #3, Cunnington was great #5... Scully is still playing but wasn't what they hoped he would be... Trengrove fizzled, Morabito had injuries ++.

The travesty for us is actually the trade. Andrew Lovett was seemingly absolutely the player we needed but we freakin paid way overs for him... was never NEVER, remotely worth a first round pick.
Bad attitude, inconsistent talent that was lazy. That said... if what happened didn't happen then he pbly would have been in the team on GF day ahead of Eddy and we pbly would have one.
That's why you don't risk your first rounder on a guy like that. Was never worth more than our second.

Between 16-32 there are 3 total players that are worth anything and the first one at #20 is the one that stings: Nat Fyfe.
After that you have Carlisle and Gunston who are great in their own right but don't raise the same kind of what if scenarios.

All of that said... it's a 3 of 16 chance that we take any of them and not Luke Tapscott or Gerrick Weedon

After that, really one could have snagged Max Gawn with the pick we used on Winmar... or Roberton was there at #49...

To be honest, that's the draft and I think it was a mediocre one at that

The ideal version of this period was that we keep Luke Ball for a start, take Fyfe at 16 (or use the pick to lure Gibson to us perhaps?), I don't mind Gawn at #32 or trying to use the rest of our picks to wrangle the Josh Kennedy trade to our favour.

The rookie draft saw Michael Barlow, Henry Playfair and James Podsiadly come through


Yeah we did poorly but there wasn't a ton of opportunity to do better IMO

[saintspremiers]

skeptic as you said, we were only about 1 maybe 2 players off a flag in 2010

Mind you, Pies should’ve had us cleaned up by half time and we shouldn’t have been in the contest in the last quarter. We were actually lucky to get the draw looking at the game as a whole

[Gershwin]

With threads like this, you need to put it into the context of the whole draft, and the reality for us is that whilst there were certainly potential hits for our picks, they were few and far between.

And to be honest... that's the story of this draft period.

Top 15 - Martin is the obvious stand out at #3, Cunnington was great #5... Scully is still playing but wasn't what they hoped he would be... Trengrove fizzled, Morabito had injuries ++.

The travesty for us is actually the trade. Andrew Lovett was seemingly absolutely the player we needed but we freakin paid way overs for him... was never NEVER, remotely worth a first round pick.
Bad attitude, inconsistent talent that was lazy. That said... if what happened didn't happen then he pbly would have been in the team on GF day ahead of Eddy and we pbly would have one.
That's why you don't risk your first rounder on a guy like that. Was never worth more than our second.

Between 16-32 there are 3 total players that are worth anything and the first one at #20 is the one that stings: Nat Fyfe.
After that you have Carlisle and Gunston who are great in their own right but don't raise the same kind of what if scenarios.

All of that said... it's a 3 of 16 chance that we take any of them and not Luke Tapscott or Gerrick Weedon

After that, really one could have snagged Max Gawn with the pick we used on Winmar... or Roberton was there at #49...

To be honest, that's the draft and I think it was a mediocre one at that

The ideal version of this period was that we keep Luke Ball for a start, take Fyfe at 16 (or use the pick to lure Gibson to us perhaps?), I don't mind Gawn at #32 or trying to use the rest of our picks to wrangle the Josh Kennedy trade to our favour.

The rookie draft saw Michael Barlow, Henry Playfair and James Podsiadly come through


Yeah we did poorly but there wasn't a ton of opportunity to do better IMO

Nicely thought out post skeptic. Agree with all that you say. We desperately needed a player with pace who could break the lines in the GF loss to Geelong. Although we had a very strong team, guys like Ball, Hayes, Clint Jones, Goddard, Gram etc. are not lightning quick. When Lovett became available I guess it just seemed we had to sell the farm and get him as an immediate fix. But a poor decision.
I have often wondered who do you blame when a draftee fails. The recruiting staff or the development staff? All picks after 30 are speculative and Winmar probably more than most. A phantom draft at the time certainly had Gawn going after our pick 32.
I'll take a look at other drafts shortly since I have the time and judge them with the aid of hindsight.

[CURLY]

skeptic as you said, we were only about 1 maybe 2 players off a flag in 2010

Mind you, Pies should’ve had us cleaned up by half time and we shouldn’t have been in the contest in the last quarter. We were actually lucky to get the draw looking at the game as a whole

2010 we went in with Roo at bout 50% fitness and we lost Gardner early dragging Kosi out of the forward line leaving Roo stand alone. Collinwood were lucky to escape with a draw.