VFL Rd 7 Sandringham Vs Werribee

[bergholt]

I agre that if you look at the whole deal, incorporating Wright and Murdoch, then it looks reasonable. But to trade down 12 places (pick 12 to 24?) for Lee alone is paying overs.

How did we "trade down 12 places"? Before the trade we had one pick, after the trade we had two. You can't possibly look at the single pick downgrade in isolation.

[St Ick]

I agre that if you look at the whole deal, incorporating Wright and Murdoch, then it looks reasonable. But to trade down 12 places (pick 12 to 24?) for Lee alone is paying overs.

How did we "trade down 12 places"? Before the trade we had one pick, after the trade we had two. You can't possibly look at the single pick downgrade in isolation.

Not trying to be a prick about it, but I'd advise you to check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_AFL_Draft

I was wrong too, we actually got pick 43, which was Josh Saunders. But we didn't trade down 12 places. Before the trade, we had pick 12, after the trade we had pick 24, 43 AND Tom Lee. We didn't upgrade or downgrade any other picks in that trade.

I remember at the time someone on Big Footy who analyses draft picks actually said Saints would've been in front on the trade based simply on getting pick 24 & 43 in return, without even including Lee. Having said that, Lee is/was highly rated and some (Shifter) had him sitting around the pick 12 mark anyway. Interesting to note that I've read that we wouldn't have 'just' traded pick 12 for Lee, one of the recruiters has said we didn't rate him around that mark alone.

Anyway, now that's cleared up, but on topic.

Gee I really like Ross' form, he deserves a game. Markworth looks like he is consistently around that 15-20 disposal mark, I'd take 20 from him as he is so damaging with it. I hope Lee gets his body sorted, showed last year he can play.

[Old Mate]

Have a look at pick 12 and beyond in the 2012 draft. Grundy the only player I would select ahead of Wright who we got for 24. Not sure we lost much trading 12 for Lee when you include the rest of the trade and the lack of depth in the 2012 draft.

[remboy]

I agre that if you look at the whole deal, incorporating Wright and Murdoch, then it looks reasonable. But to trade down 12 places (pick 12 to 24?) for Lee alone is paying overs. You can't say that getting it right on Wright justifies the outlay on Lee. To that end, we overpaid. Happy with Wright though and I think Murdoch will be ok too.

You've also got to keep in mind that the draft was compromised by the GC and GWS concessions. It was probably the equivalent to trading down from pick 25 to 35 in a normal year.

[suss]

I agre that if you look at the whole deal, incorporating Wright and Murdoch, then it looks reasonable. But to trade down 12 places (pick 12 to 24?) for Lee alone is paying overs.

How did we "trade down 12 places"? Before the trade we had one pick, after the trade we had two. You can't possibly look at the single pick downgrade in isolation.

Not trying to be a prick about it, but I'd advise you to check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_AFL_Draft

I was wrong too, we actually got pick 43, which was Josh Saunders. But we didn't trade down 12 places. Before the trade, we had pick 12, after the trade we had pick 24, 43 AND Tom Lee. We didn't upgrade or downgrade any other picks in that trade.

I remember at the time someone on Big Footy who analyses draft picks actually said Saints would've been in front on the trade based simply on getting pick 24 & 43 in return, without even including Lee. Having said that, Lee is/was highly rated and some (Shifter) had him sitting around the pick 12 mark anyway. Interesting to note that I've read that we wouldn't have 'just' traded pick 12 for Lee, one of the recruiters has said we didn't rate him around that mark alone.

Anyway, now that's cleared up, but on topic.

Gee I really like Ross' form, he deserves a game. Markworth looks like he is consistently around that 15-20 disposal mark, I'd take 20 from him as he is so damaging with it. I hope Lee gets his body sorted, showed last year he can play.

You're not being a prick ... I just want to make it clear that I get the counter-argument.

Clearly, from a mathmatical perspective (and I'm completely hopeless that math but) Tom Lee MUST equal the difference bewteen:

a) what we had before the trade - i.e. pick 12; and
b) what we ended up with after the trade - i.e. pick 24 and 43.

That MUST be the case, right? And there must necessarily be some degree of downgrade between what we had before and what we received in return unless we got him completely for free.

Without being affected by hindsight (i.e. without considering that we got Wright and Murdoch with those picks) and looking at the raw picks alone, the question is: is Tom Lee worth the trading down from pick 12 to picks 24 and 43? I think that, on the basis of the raw picks, we paid overs.

It's very easy to look at Wright and Murdoch and say we've done well (because you're looking in hindsight - we could have equally picked up the next Ablett and Judd but equally could've picked players who never play a game), but question remains - was Lee worth the exchange?

I'm very happy that Nathan Wright looks like he'll be a 150+ game player. I also think Murdoch will play 50+ games maybe even more. But I don't rate Lee and I don't think he'll amount to much at all. Happy for him to prove me wrong.

Finally, just as an aside - I like having these debates. They are what football forums are all about.

[saintbrat]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/west ... 6921836712

[bergholt]

Suss, I can't quote your post because I'm on my phone with a sleeping baby on me.

You're right that there's a downgrade, but now you're talking about a downgrade from one pick to two and that's closer to being accurate. What you then also have to take into account is the relative value of the picks, as St Ick showed.

There's a point in every draft after which picks are essentially equal. Usually it's in the 20 to 40 range somewhere. The argument is that in that draft, given it was compromised, that point was earlier than usual. If it was 20 then picks 24 and 43 were basically equal and individually worth not a lot less than pick 12. This is upheld when you look at the calibre of player chosen after about pick 10. It was a shallow draft, Grundy aside. (And Viney but obviously he was f/s.)

So then trading pick 12 for two picks each worth not a lot less than pick 12? Bargain! Throw in a potential future key forward and it's a no-brainer.

I agree that we should look at the raw picks and not consider who we got for those picks. And I think that shows how favourable the outcome was for us.

[St Ick]

Bergholt, agree with what you say - you just articulate it better. In addition to that, you would have to look at the state of our list too that year. It was in desperate need of reguvination (spelling?). So to get three relative kids onto the list for the price of one was important also.

Im not so sure about Lee, but I'm comfortable with the trade, in a weak draft our chances rose significantly.

By the way, its nice to discuss without it turning ugly!

[arpstk]

Nice to see a reasonable discussion without it descending into trash talk.

Lee will start to look better once our younger brigade start to provide the service any forward needs to look good at AFL or VFL level.

[stkildathunda]

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_pag ... D=29702094
Sandringham has now lost two games in a row after being undefeated in the first five games.

Ross was the best despite being tagged, Brodie Murdoch (14 disposals) was damaging at times and Josh Saunders (21 disposals, one goal) finished the game off well.

Myke Cook and James Munro both finished with 21 disposals off half back and first gamer Lachie Ritchie (six disposals) showed some promising signs when moved onto Warren in the last term.

Sandringham has a bye next round while Werribee host Richmond on Saturday in the ABC telecasted game from 1pm

Just out of curiosity, where was this written? The link takes me to VFL website with their Saturday Wrap-Up but it doesnt match the text... But this is exactly what Nick wrote in our match report http://www.truezebras.com/round-7-match ... -werribee/

Or did you just post wrong link? Just curious cos we've had issues with people copying our work & not crediting it.

[stkildathunda]

Saints In VFL: Round 7 - Nick Ciantar takes look at every St Kilda player that played in VFL on weekend, including all the updated stats from weekends game - http://www.truezebras.com/saints-in-vfl-round-7/

[saintbrat]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-05-1 ... fl-round-7

[saintbrat]

Just out of curiosity, where was this written? The link takes me to VFL website with their Saturday Wrap-Up but it doesnt match the text... But this is exactly what Nick wrote in our match report http://www.truezebras.com/round-7-match ... -werribee/

Or did you just post wrong link? Just curious cos we've had issues with people copying our work & not crediting it.

one of two options. Link I 'copied' did not copy and the previous link went in- and I didn't check before copying the quote (probable)
or I found it elsewhere and that was 48 hours ago and much has happend since-

[Con Gorozidis]

Seb Ross
33 disposals, 2 goals
Seb was best on ground I thought. Obviously 33 touches, 6 tackles and two goals is a great return. One of his goals was especially good and he kicked it on his right foot.

I think Sebby has the right attitude and you can see by the way he's playing that he's really pressing for a return to the seniors which is pleasing.