Dees hope to tighten draft range

[The Lobster Effect 845]

Comments from Tim Harrington...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...82/default.aspx

[ChannellingHopgoodAgro 4]

Just saw this in the AFL website.

Dees hope to tighten draft range

Is the club focussing too much on draft selections and improving our position?

Surely 4 picks in the first round is enough to build on what we have - unless we're trading also ran + higher pick for another teams lower pick.

Excuse if this has already been covered...

[Daz's Dee's 113]

Not quite sure how they expect to do this maybe Bell, Newton or co for our 4th round and upgrade to a third round or something to that effect as i think we need to free up 2 more spots on our list

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

unless we're trading also ran + higher pick for another teams lower pick.

That's exactly what we will be trying to do.

We need some space, Carlton have shown a liking to some of our players and are said to be interested in Bell, so why not try give them him and pick 34 for pick 27?

Can't hurt to try...

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,385]

Now that we have picks 1,2 and 11 (which are off limits) I reckon we should do the opposite. We should target players instead of draft picks.

Pick 18 should be on the table.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Now that we have picks 1,2 and 11 (which are off limits) I reckon we should do the opposite. We should target players instead of draft picks.

Pick 18 should be on the table.

Absolutely. My read on that article was not that we're trying to get MORE draft picks. More that we're trying to improve the selections we already have.

Let's say we use the 5 picks up to 34, then a big fish in the PSD... that's six picks. Barry Hall just went for pick 47, which I would think WILL be used, which means our pick 50 just might have some currency to a club looking for quantity, not quality.

Since the league has temporarily legalised the trading of picks for picks, why not say to, say the Swans or Eagles, picks 11 and 18 for their pick 6 or 7? That would almost certainly get us one of Carlisle, Butcher or Talia, along with the musts of Scully and Trengove. That's probably hopelessly ambitious, but you get the idea.

Maybe 18 and 34 to the Dogs for 15? Or 50 and 34 to any of the top 8 sides (maybe one that has dealt away their first or second rounders already) for their pick 26-33? We're probably not going to use pick 50 anyway. Again... just theory.

Personally I'd prefer to see less picks, more quality.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Dappa Dan

[Guest hangon007]

Now that we have picks 1,2 and 11 (which are off limits) I reckon we should do the opposite. We should target players instead of draft picks.

Pick 18 should be on the table.

Depends if your a long or a short term thinker.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Pick 18 should be on the table.

For whom?

[drdrake 3,049]

From this comment we will be offering picks 34 and 50 plus players to try and get a couple more picks in th 20's. We need to create 3 more spots on our list, the club is trying to trade away players for picks to avoid delistings.

[H_T 2,941]

From this comment we will be offering picks 34 and 50 plus players to try and get a couple more picks in th 20's. We need to create 3 more spots on our list, the club is trying to trade away players for picks to avoid delistings.

Apparently will not get done until the big deals are done - Harrington. Thurs or Fri.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

From this comment we will be offering picks 34 and 50 plus players to try and get a couple more picks in th 20's. We need to create 3 more spots on our list, the club is trying to trade away players for picks to avoid delistings.

That's a big aspect too. Robbo, Whelan and Wheatley gone. Brock traded out. Maybe Jamar or Buckley too. No more mandatory delistings, we could keep the entire list as is, besides either 1 or 2 delistings, depending on how everything pans out.

I'm all for that. Looking at delistings this year has been tough, there's fewer obvious ones than the last couple of years.

[Demon16 69]

For whom?

we might not be in the position to take risks, but what about a high risk/high reward player such as Mitch Thorp?

[Akum 2,660]

Absolutely. My read on that article was not that we're trying to get MORE draft picks. More that we're trying to improve the selections we already have.

...

I'd prefer to see less picks, more quality.

This is the crux of it.

We'll get our 4 quality picks in ND & that'll be plenty. We only need to use pick 34 if there's someone still there who's worth more to us than, say, Valenti or Bartram. Almost certainly there won't be. No point in using pick 34 if it's not going to improve our list.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

we might not be in the position to take risks, but what about a high risk/high reward player such as Mitch Thorp?

Melbourne would be unbelievably stupid to offer up this trade proposal.

[hillie 41]

This is the crux of it.

We'll get our 4 quality picks in ND & that'll be plenty. We only need to use pick 34 if there's someone still there who's worth more to us than, say, Valenti or Bartram. Almost certainly there won't be. No point in using pick 34 if it's not going to improve our list.

dylan grimes maybe?

or temel possibly if we only pick up one of black or butcher

gees i'd love both.

get that pick off port and get jetta with 8, butcher with 11 and black with 18. grimes jnr with 34. dealing done

don't think it'll happen with the dogs and dons havin picks before 18

[Binmans PA 26,468]

Surely you'd go Butcher before Jetta? Particularly, as Essendon would probably take him at 10, considering their ordinary key position forward stocks.

[Demon16 69]

Melbourne would be unbelievably stupid to offer up this trade proposal.

man you obviously know something about him that i don't given the lack of quality K.P's likely to be available with that pick. attitude? injuries? or both?

[hillie 41]

Surely you'd go Butcher before Jetta? Particularly, as Essendon would probably take him at 10, considering their ordinary key position forward stocks.

maybe. i'd not be upset if we were forced to take black to strengthen our KPF stocks.

[tess 19]

This is the crux of it.

We'll get our 4 quality picks in ND & that'll be plenty. We only need to use pick 34 if there's someone still there who's worth more to us than, say, Valenti or Bartram. Almost certainly there won't be.

How the hell would you know that?

How much Tac Cup, SANFL and WAFL football have you seen this year?

What mature age players in the SANFL and WAFL do you, and dont you rate?

Jeez, I hate reading posts from un-educated people such as yourself.

[Adzman 2,085]

In short: We are trading some fringe players and picks 34 & 50 to gain a few spots in the draft. The dees will be hunting in that #10-30 type area. This means most of our fringe players are being shopped for next to nothing. Jamar/Bell/Bucks/Miller/Dunn would be names one the table along with picks 18-50 depending on what we can get in return.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

man you obviously know something about him that i don't given the lack of quality K.P's likely to be available with that pick. attitude? injuries? or both?

Both attitude and injuries.

Mitch Thorp is not well liked amoungst his peers at Hawthorn and has a strange relationship with the coaches.

He initially lied to them during the Draft Camp of 2006 to conceal a pretty serious pelvis injury, which has held him back so far but will continue to plague him into an early retirement.

In addition to this - he seems to have this inbuilt mentality that he is supreme with absolutely nothing to back it up.

/rant lol

[Swampfox 190]

Now that we have picks 1,2 and 11 (which are off limits) I reckon we should do the opposite. We should target players instead of draft picks.

Pick 18 should be on the table.

I would doubt we would give up pick 18 except to make it 17 and under

we already hold the ace in the PSD