-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Trade Week - Richmond Only
- Thread starter Smoking Aces
- Start date
I've just realised that all of this arguing is about a future third.
Whether we could have used our picks in the sixties and seventies (which we couldn't because Brisbane didn't want them) instead of 32 is irrelevant because we traded our picks in the sixties and seventies as part of the Rioli deal.
So, the logic would follow that we would have used 32 as part of the Rioli deal instead of the sixties and seventies and not had to use a future third.
Basically, people are sooking that we should have fought through the whole trade period, held up all other deals, to pin Brisbane to a deal they didn't want, and who could have negotiated with other clubs, for the absolutely maximum benefit of retaining a future 3rd.
Which could easily be a pick in the 50's.
Seriously?
Whether we could have used our picks in the sixties and seventies (which we couldn't because Brisbane didn't want them) instead of 32 is irrelevant because we traded our picks in the sixties and seventies as part of the Rioli deal.
So, the logic would follow that we would have used 32 as part of the Rioli deal instead of the sixties and seventies and not had to use a future third.
Basically, people are sooking that we should have fought through the whole trade period, held up all other deals, to pin Brisbane to a deal they didn't want, and who could have negotiated with other clubs, for the absolutely maximum benefit of retaining a future 3rd.
Which could easily be a pick in the 50's.
Seriously?
But then we have the arguments if we trade picks leading up to and on draft night, the players we pick/don't pick, and then seeing players we thought were good picks but then turn out to be duds.
This is just the warm up act.
Pretty sure we're not winning next years flag so F3 will be around 40 not 60
But only after we threw in extra sweeteners.
That's one way to rewrite history. Pretty sure we had pick 14 in the hand already for Bakes, so ending up with 18 was taking the long road to end up going backwards.
32 and lots of other freebies stuff to assist the reigning premier strengthen their list even more by enabling them to easily get the best kid in the draft. Pick 20 good for us but expensive.
Blair did a decent job, not spectacular, overall under trying circumstances. But then again, that's his job.
Not getting into Pick32gate, but one thing I do know is that whoever gets picked at 32 will be the most monitored pick 32 in the history of PRE.
Me: Spends $32 on a ozlotto ticket
Them: Disgusting deal, you got bent over you didn't need to spend that much, you just helped ozlotto get richer!
Me: Just wait until the draw and we'll see how it plays out.
Them: Just admit you stuffed up, you could have spent that $32 elsewhere, maybe tickets in a home lottery on the gold coast.
Me: *wins 4million dollars in ozlotto*
Them: B+ at best. Anyone could have won that ozlotto it was a lay down misère. Powerball was 10 million you should have entered that. How about the prize home? That could be worth more than 4 mill, I would have done that
Me: yeah but I have 4 million dollars and spent $32???
Them: Just talking facts, you could have done better, the only person getting upset about it is you, I've explained why you're wrong a million times, why can't someone have a different opinion?
Them: Disgusting deal, you got bent over you didn't need to spend that much, you just helped ozlotto get richer!
Me: Just wait until the draw and we'll see how it plays out.
Them: Just admit you stuffed up, you could have spent that $32 elsewhere, maybe tickets in a home lottery on the gold coast.
Me: *wins 4million dollars in ozlotto*
Them: B+ at best. Anyone could have won that ozlotto it was a lay down misère. Powerball was 10 million you should have entered that. How about the prize home? That could be worth more than 4 mill, I would have done that
Me: yeah but I have 4 million dollars and spent $32???
Them: Just talking facts, you could have done better, the only person getting upset about it is you, I've explained why you're wrong a million times, why can't someone have a different opinion?
Dont worry, im sure the bitchfights will continue long after the draft.
Wow, still going round in circles on this trade.
So if we'd have given up Pick 51 as part of the Brisbane trade, how do we get Pick 23 without giving up said 32? Ie. whats the difference? What are people arguing that we would have gained.
Anyway for context, the only thing we can really gauge premium paid for picks based on similar trades during 2024 as it factors in the strength of this years draft etc.
So there were only 3 straight out pick swaps.
Richmond - Brisbane - Buying Pick 20 - Premium paid = 792 points
Melbourne - Essendon - Buying Pick 9 and F Pick 45 (based on 2024 ladder position) - premium paid 1571 points (with Melbournes F1 also based on 2024 ladder position - Pick 8)
Brisbane - Saints - Buying Pick 27 - premium paid 228 points
Taking a lineal scale we certainly aren't out of the park as others seem to reference.
Tiger-Pi55 reckons we could have got away with replacing 32 with 51 and only paying a premium of 467 points. Thats largely outside of the lineal scale above and suggests the premium paid would drop away far quicker from Pick 9 compared to the gap between 20 and 27. With what we know in this draft, thats probably not really accurate, its more likely that the premium paid would be significantly higher than what he has suggested.
So again - what are we actually arguing over? 792 points is too high, but then 467 points is too low, so we are arguing over being somewhere in the middle and squabling over a couple hundred points that probably would have meant we might have struggled to get Pick 23, which probably would have been rolled into the Houston deal in that instance, and then we would have got 29 instead.
So many not looking about what the overall outcome was, and the ability to drive that because we had access to those picks at the time, but just focusing on 1 trade in isolation, which again no-one can prove either way, but probability and maths, would indicate that those naysayers on the Brisbane trade probably are undervaluing the premium we had to pay, perhaps we overpaid a touch but we are talking a couple hundred points here.
Same people arguing that we'd have had 14 instead of 18 as we could have traded for Bolton with 32, assuming thats what Freo were even after. I suspect looking at their previous trading of 1sts, they wanted a 1st back because it helps normalise their trading of 1sts for the 2 in 4 scenario that the AFL force on clubs for trading of 1sts, but of course, ignore the desires of other clubs and why they might be making trades, to live in some fantasy world where you know everything about whats going on in the trade period, you know what other clubs wanted from us better than the guy thats been directly negotiating with them.
So if we'd have given up Pick 51 as part of the Brisbane trade, how do we get Pick 23 without giving up said 32? Ie. whats the difference? What are people arguing that we would have gained.
Anyway for context, the only thing we can really gauge premium paid for picks based on similar trades during 2024 as it factors in the strength of this years draft etc.
So there were only 3 straight out pick swaps.
Richmond - Brisbane - Buying Pick 20 - Premium paid = 792 points
Melbourne - Essendon - Buying Pick 9 and F Pick 45 (based on 2024 ladder position) - premium paid 1571 points (with Melbournes F1 also based on 2024 ladder position - Pick 8)
Brisbane - Saints - Buying Pick 27 - premium paid 228 points
Taking a lineal scale we certainly aren't out of the park as others seem to reference.
Tiger-Pi55 reckons we could have got away with replacing 32 with 51 and only paying a premium of 467 points. Thats largely outside of the lineal scale above and suggests the premium paid would drop away far quicker from Pick 9 compared to the gap between 20 and 27. With what we know in this draft, thats probably not really accurate, its more likely that the premium paid would be significantly higher than what he has suggested.
So again - what are we actually arguing over? 792 points is too high, but then 467 points is too low, so we are arguing over being somewhere in the middle and squabling over a couple hundred points that probably would have meant we might have struggled to get Pick 23, which probably would have been rolled into the Houston deal in that instance, and then we would have got 29 instead.
So many not looking about what the overall outcome was, and the ability to drive that because we had access to those picks at the time, but just focusing on 1 trade in isolation, which again no-one can prove either way, but probability and maths, would indicate that those naysayers on the Brisbane trade probably are undervaluing the premium we had to pay, perhaps we overpaid a touch but we are talking a couple hundred points here.
Same people arguing that we'd have had 14 instead of 18 as we could have traded for Bolton with 32, assuming thats what Freo were even after. I suspect looking at their previous trading of 1sts, they wanted a 1st back because it helps normalise their trading of 1sts for the 2 in 4 scenario that the AFL force on clubs for trading of 1sts, but of course, ignore the desires of other clubs and why they might be making trades, to live in some fantasy world where you know everything about whats going on in the trade period, you know what other clubs wanted from us better than the guy thats been directly negotiating with them.
Not being a good football team anymore drives a lot of the angst.
That may be true but I still can’t understand why if Brisbane needed to get so many points from us then gave some away to stkilda for pick 27. For them it’s all about points so losing some in a trade makes no sense to me. Happy for any rationale explanation
Freon didn’t need to get 14 to normalise their trading as they could of just used 18 which they already had
Only they can provide that explanation. I don't know what it is, unless they needed to "lose" a pick as they wouldn't have enough spots on their list. I haven't looked into what their list numbers look like.
I think we need a dedicated pick 32 thread just for those that are passionate about it.
How is commenting on the clubs performance in the trade peiod on the trade period Richmond only thread ruining it. Asking for a friend
Not concerned about the pick swap with Brisbane but the Bolton trade is a different matter altogether.
Putting to one side my belief that he was our best but focusing on what he is worth to Fremantle.
Even at 10 and 11 he was cheap.
Putting to one side my belief that he was our best but focusing on what he is worth to Fremantle.
Even at 10 and 11 he was cheap.
