Pick Upgrade

[Guest hangon007]

Baring in mind what CS said a few days ago in ustream ie "we will probably be using 3 draft picks"

I was wondering who our targets would be for an attempt at a pick upgrade.

Our picks are

1/ 1st Round 12

2/ 2nd Round 32 (approx)

3/ 3rd Round 49 (approx)

Plus 1-2 more players to go. Assuming we also get a pick for those players.

a/ We use our 7th Round on McKenzie (Rookie Upgrade)

b/ We use our 8th Round on Spencer (Rookie Upgrade)

---------------------------

That leaves these picks available

1/ 4th Round 66 (approx)

2/ 5th Round 83 (approx)

3/ 6th Round 100 (approx)

-----------------------------------

Wonder if we target GC 17 with this type of offer

Melbourne get Picks 7 & 26 yet we give up to GC Picks 12,32,66,83,100

[e25 5]

I'm sorry, how does that possibly make sense?

Why would GC17 upgrade our picks for us in return for a few extra late draft picks, in a draft that they already own?

Why dilute the talent they are able to bring to their club for a couple of extra longshots?

It makes no sense to me.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I'm sorry, how does that possibly make sense?

Why would GC17 upgrade our picks for us in return for a few extra late draft picks, in a draft that they already own?

Why dilute the talent they are able to bring to their club for a couple of extra longshots?

It makes no sense to me.

Yup.

Pick 12 + 32 in exchange for 15 + 26. They get an extra earlier pick, we get two inside 26? It's minor, but it could happen particularly there's a Bennell (Jamie not Harley) that they don't think will last to pick 32.

[45HG 1,539]

Crazy pills!

[No16 1]

Yeah.... No....

[Summer Blease 0]

Can't see GC wasting their time, as has been said they hold all the aces already.. only dealings we're likely to have with this mob is if they rip an uncontracted player from under our noses, and if that happens we are just going to have to 'suck that up'

Do we want to be trading for higher draft picks, or perhaps an experienced mature AFL body? If we loose Jones we are loosing even more experience and toughness.. like Dappa dan? said- If we do make finals next year i'd hate for us to be 'rag-dolled' out of the first round

[Daz's Dee's 113]

Baring in mind what CS said a few days ago in ustream ie "we will probably be using 3 draft picks"

I was wondering who our targets would be for an attempt at a pick upgrade.

Our picks are

1/ 1st Round 12

2/ 2nd Round 32 (approx)

3/ 3rd Round 49 (approx)

Plus 1-2 more players to go. Assuming we also get a pick for those players.

a/ We use our 7th Round on McKenzie (Rookie Upgrade)

b/ We use our 8th Round on Spencer (Rookie Upgrade)

---------------------------

That leaves these picks available

1/ 4th Round 66 (approx)

2/ 5th Round 83 (approx)

3/ 6th Round 100 (approx)

-----------------------------------

Wonder if we target GC 17 with this type of offer

Melbourne get Picks 7 & 26 yet we give up to GC Picks 12,32,66,83,100

Are you for real?

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Ha. Once again people spewing out deluded ideas that we can offer up basically nothing in return for something. Talk, about trying to sell ice to eskimos.

Get real.

I would bank on very little trading or upgrading from Melbourne this year. I think the FD now wants to put time and games into the players we have to see who will make it and who will not.

They will upgrade McKenzie and Spencer. Delist a couple and draft in maybe 3 more. Short of being offered something ridiculous for the like of Warnock or Jones (and i don't want either to go at this stage) then trade week will be pretty boring from an MFC perspective.

[rpfc 28,430]

Hang on...

Nah, let go...

[Guest hangon007]

All depends if you think GC 17 will still be taking players in the 7th, 8th, 9th round of this draft. (this is the real question)

Very important - Dont forget that have the facility to put up to 48 players on their list ... this year. (real question is will they use that facility)

So far they have picks 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,2nd Round,3rd round,4th round,5th round,6th round = 14 picks

Lets say they take 10 un-contracted players ... that = 24 players so far.

So that leaves their current list ... which is made up mainly from Queenslanders & last year rookies. (Very Dubious how many will make AFL standard)

However, you would assume they will retain some ... lets say for argument sake they retain 16 ... thats 40 in total!!!

I just have this feeling they might be on the hunt for more draft picks in this draft ... I reckon somebody will have a crack at them.

But I could be wrong.

Edited September 11, 2010 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

They will upgrade McKenzie and Spencer. Delist a couple and draft in maybe 3 more. Short of being offered something ridiculous for the like of Warnock or Jones (and i don't want either to go at this stage) then trade week will be pretty boring from an MFC perspective.

Ok ... if you are going to only use 3 draft picks. What do you intend to do with our 4th, 5th & 6th Round picks?

Baring in mind we can still upgrade McKenzie & Spencer with our 7th & 8th Round picks.

[e25 5]

*bearing

We will not use those picks.

Obvious, I'd have thought.

Your theory on the Suns wanting more draft picks holds no weight.

[Guest hangon007]

*bearing

We will not use those picks.

Obvious, I'd have thought.

Your theory on the Suns wanting more draft picks holds no weight.

Its not just wanting more ... its getting the chance to further improve the ones they already have. All clubs want to do that.

Your theory on the Suns wanting more draft picks holds no weight. - How are they going to fill their list then?

Edited September 12, 2010 by hangon007

[e25 5]

By trading down in quality in the early stages of the draft, to get a few spots earlier in the late longshot stages, when most other teams will be passing anyway?

I hope for their sake they don't follow your fuzzy logic.

Why trade down from a Dal Santo to a Tom Hislop early in the draft, for a slightly better late pick where it is such a raffle?

How will they fill all 48 available spots? They won't.

Nor should they or are they required to.

They have stated as much publicly.

[jayceebee31 761]

Stupidity --will not happen.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Ok ... if you are going to only use 3 draft picks. What do you intend to do with our 4th, 5th & 6th Round picks?

Baring in mind we can still upgrade McKenzie & Spencer with our 7th & 8th Round picks.

They will draft say 3 new players with their first 3 picks. Use the next two to do rookie upgrades and then pass on the rest.

*bearing

We will not use those picks.

Obvious, I'd have thought.

Your theory on the Suns wanting more draft picks holds no weight.

What he said!

[Guest hangon007]

They will draft say 3 new players with their first 3 picks. Use the next two to do rookie upgrades and then pass on the rest.

Ok then ... I'm tipping we will try and succeed in upgrading our picks.

Wheather its GC or not ... maybe some other club.

If we do what your suggesting ... we have done nothing. I reckon we are better than that.

Suppose we will just have to see.

[jayceebee31 761]

Ok then ... I'm tipping we will try and succeed in upgrading our picks.

Wheather its GC or not ... maybe some other club.

If we do what your suggesting ... we have done nothing. I reckon we are better than that.

Suppose we will just have to see.

I think that is obvious that we will just have to wait and see.

[Guest hangon007]

By trading down in quality in the early stages of the draft, to get a few spots earlier in the late longshot stages, when most other teams will be passing anyway?

I hope for their sake they don't follow your fuzzy logic.

Why trade down from a Dal Santo to a Tom Hislop early in the draft, for a slightly better late pick where it is such a raffle?

How will they fill all 48 available spots? They won't.

Nor should they or are they required to.

They have stated as much publicly.

Ok ... lets just sit back watch and see what they do. I will now watch with interest what draft picks they are left with after the trading period. If they increase or decrease the number of picks they have.

I reckon they will "horse trade" ... everyone else reckons they wont.

I reckon they could be a great target for a draft pick exchange only ... everyone else reckons they wont.

I reckon its worth us giving it a crack ... everyone else reckons we wont.

But I could easily be wrong.

[rpfc 28,430]

Stupidity --will not happen.

That wouldn't be JCB belittling a poster, would it?

Didn't think so.

[Guest hangon007]

That wouldn't be JCB belittling a poster, would it?

Didn't think so.

RPFC .. I somewhat accept this is a counter intuitive strategy & not one I would normally suggest. However, this is not a "normal" draft & one that poses unique opportunities, especially in respects to a few of the teams that finished below us and the birth of GC17. This strategy although not new, may on reflection by me ... been poorly expressed. So you would have to expect others to "belittle" the poster.

Research is a powerful tool, ultimately if we are going to the drafting table, to derive maximum benefits you have to determine .... "where you are in the drafting cycle combined with where your current weakness & strengths have evolved. Plus if you are truly committed to re-building via the draft.". Of course, neither are without risk, contrary to what many will tell you.

"Funny" thing is normally if I was GC17 or a few of the teams that finished below us I would look exactly for a deal like this. However, are we in a position to benefit from helping them ... and by extension helping ourselves? (Baring in mind its appears at this stage we many have a few "surplus draft picks" in hand)

Ultimately what is more valuable ... and is there ever any exceptional circumstances to help you massage the probabilities in your favour?

I hereby apologise for my alternative way of thinking.

[rpfc 28,430]

RPFC .. I somewhat accept this is a counter intuitive strategy & not one I would normally suggest. However, this is not a "normal" draft & one that poses unique opportunities, especially in respects to a few of the teams that finished below us and the birth of GC17. This strategy although not new, may on reflection by me ... been poorly expressed. So you would have to expect others to "belittle" the poster.

Research is a powerful tool, ultimately if we are going to the drafting table, to derive maximum benefits you have to determine .... "where you are in the drafting cycle combined with where your current weakness & strengths have evolved. Plus if you are truly committed to re-building via the draft.". Of course, neither are without risk, contrary to what many will tell you.

"Funny" thing is normally if I was GC17 or a few of the teams that finished below us I would look exactly for a deal like this. However, are we in a position to benefit from helping them ... and by extension helping ourselves? (Baring in mind its appears at this stage we many have a few "surplus draft picks" in hand)

Ultimately what is more valuable ... and is there ever any exceptional circumstances to help you massage the probabilities in your favour?

I hereby apologise for my alternative way of thinking.

I don't think they will be up for it, really. I just don't think they will be happy to go back a bit at the pointy end of draft to see a few higher 'lottery' picks later on.

And I hope you weren't reading into my post too much. Wasn't having a go at you.

Just didn't think you needed to be called stupid for your idea.

[Guest hangon007]

I don't think they will be up for it, really. I just don't think they will be happy to go back a bit at the pointy end of draft to see a few higher 'lottery' picks later on.

And I hope you weren't reading into my post too much. Wasn't having a go at you.

Just didn't think you needed to be called stupid for your idea.

Yip .. No problems. As I said I could be wrong.

Yip .. I understand you where not having a go at me. Thank-you

Yip .. I accept people call others stupid and dismiss their topics and ideas for discussion for multiple reasons. I except my inability to express my self properly was my fault.

[jayceebee31 761]

That wouldn't be JCB belittling a poster, would it?

Didn't think so.

Not the poster- just the statement-some dummies would not realise that. I attacked the statement,made comment on it - not the posterer unlike many have done to me.If hangon 007 thought I was attacking him personally-I am sorry -we all have an opinion-that was mine.

Edited September 14, 2010 by jayceebee31

[Guest hangon007]

Not the poster- just the statement-some dummies would not realise that. I attacked the statement,made comment on it - not the posterer unlike many have done to me.If hangon 007 thought I was attacking him personally-I am sorry -we all have an opinion-that was mine.

No problems 'jayceebee31' .. Thank-you for your reply. I just think ... maybe my points ... I made them badly.

I didn't want or intend the conversation to head solely to GC, although I still think they could be a prime target but not the only target.

If I was at GC17 I would be seeking "depth" or "multiple chances to address needs" through out my list. They have essentially only got 1 opportunity to do this in an "compromised" draft where they hold all the cards. Last thing I would want is have say 22 AFL ready players, or players I thought I could "develop" into AFL players then this massive gap to my 23rd. (my numbers dont hold me to them as exacts) However, there is one "caveat" unless I thought I had many, many more AFL ready players.

Suppose that comes down to list evaluation. Now traditionally some clubs have been very poor at this.

IMHO you accumulate your ability to use picks when your are building "depth" or want "multiple chances to address needs". Are we building depth? Do we have the facility to have "multiple chances to address needs" (Well no .. if you are not going to be using your draft pick your not.)

Anyway as I said I could be wrong. (Kinda hope I am now ... hehehe.)

Edited September 14, 2010 by hangon007