Pick activation - both picks activated

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

I think that since we're *hopefully* on an ascent up the ladder while the Bulldogs are on their way down, and in addition to that more compensation picks being at play next season due to GWS having another season to poach players, we should activate them as soon as possible so the players are ready to go ASAP.

[dee-luded 2,959]

What I think may work in our favour, is that GWS hold so many of the compensation picks.

As they have so many young players on their list already, the value of a kid now would appear less than one they can get in 3 or 4 years time.

Current value vs future value.

GWS may decide they are better off making sure they have a high end talent injection in a few years time, rather than just a few months.

Yep, Possible...

What/Who would you be prepared to give for they're (GaryAblettJnr) Pick?

Or, would you bid for a 17 Yr Old Kid, in the mini draft?

* where do you perceive our List Weaknesses are, projecting forward 3 Years, to 2014 & onwards?

[Striker475 696]

I'm genuinely up for bidding for the #1 17-year-old with our first two picks. Seriously - that's big bucks, to be sure, but it's also a #1 draft pick. A constant view of many of us on these forums is the need of one more out-and-out class act in the midfield. The #1 17-year-old gets us that class act. Admittedly, it's in 2014 - but, well....consider this

B: Strauss Frawley Garland

HB: Grimes Sellar McDonald

C: Blease McKenzie Stretch

HF: Petterd Watts Howe

F: Jurrah Clark (Crumber)

R: Gawn Jones Trengove

Bench: 17yo Martin Gysberts Tynan

With guys like Tapscott, Taggert, Cook and such challenging. We may even have Cook at FF and Clark in the ruck by that point.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,102]

I think we're going to activate both picks. Whether we use them or trade them I have no idea. The next draft is rated as strong, so it makes sense to grab a few kids early with our picks (obviously Viney being one of those). I also think that after a year of coaching Neeld will be ready to clear out some excess baggage around the club. I suspect that there will be a number of players either traded for upgrading picks or simply de-listed at the end of the year. Don't be surprised if we use our late picks to upgrade several rookies as well. We could very well see us using three first round picks and possibly a second to get some good talent then upgrading three rookies with our later rounds.

[leucopogon 1,519]

nominate at least one maybe both this year because they'll be high picks if my predictions for bottom 2 or 3 come true

[Arsene Wenger 72]

D-Day is tomorrow, no?

[Demon Disciple 12,452]

D-Day is tomorrow, no?

That is correct and i hope we nominate both, too. Good top end players, with good quality depth. Make the most of it.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Wondering if someone can clear up my Father/Son query. If we have a stinker this year and finish say 16th, that would make our first round pick #3 and second round pick around #21. We then nominate our intention to take Jack, and the teams that have picks 1 and 2 don't bid their first round pick for Jack and say whoever has pick 4 (or anyone lower) bids that pick for him, do we then have to use #3 on Jack, or does he slide down #21 because the highest bid on him by another club was after our pick 3. Hope this makes sense and sorry if it has been asked elsewhere.

[Striker475 696]

Wondering if someone can clear up my Father/Son query. If we have a stinker this year and finish say 16th, that would make our first round pick #3 and second round pick around #21. We then nominate our intention to take Jack, and the teams that have picks 1 and 2 don't bid their first round pick for Jack and say whoever has pick 4 (or anyone lower) bids that pick for him, do we then have to use #3 on Jack, or does he slide down #21 because the highest bid on him by another club was after our pick 3. Hope this makes sense and sorry if it has been asked elsewhere.

He slides to #21. If we were to finish that badly, we could genuinely have (assuming 16th and both GC and Port don't get priority awarded) pick #3, pick #4, a pick at around #12, and pick #23 or so for JV (due to other compos).

Best result out of the draft, but I don't think I could deal with that.

[Hells Gates 505]

If any team below us bid for jack we must use that first pick, correct. It would be dream for him to slide through to the second round but sheedy will bid for him no doubt as he hates us. Here's hoping

[Eittocs12 32]

As I understand it, if a team bids of Jack we have to select him with our next pick after their bid.

Therefore in your scenario if #1 & #2 do not bid and we have pick#3 and pick #4 is bid, we can pick whoever with Pick #3 and he would have to be selected with our next pick, in your example Pick#21

[daisycutter 29,892]

Wondering if someone can clear up my Father/Son query. If we have a stinker this year and finish say 16th, that would make our first round pick #3 and second round pick around #21. We then nominate our intention to take Jack, and the teams that have picks 1 and 2 don't bid their first round pick for Jack and say whoever has pick 4 (or anyone lower) bids that pick for him, do we then have to use #3 on Jack, or does he slide down #21 because the highest bid on him by another club was after our pick 3. Hope this makes sense and sorry if it has been asked elsewhere.

he slides

but why wouldn't team 17 and 18 bid their first round pick? It's no skin off their nose, they still don't get JV, we still get JV but have to use pick#3

do you think sheeds (or any other club) would do us that sort of favour?

[Macca 17,113]

Stand corrected but there a number (4?) of clubs that can activate their compo picks this season .

Tanking could raise it's ugly head again . For instance , (and I'm not saying we tanked) if we'd beaten Port Adelaide in the last round , last season , we would have ended up with pick 16 instead of pick 12 .

1 or 2 "convenient" losses near the end of this season could place a club with compo picks in a much better position . 2 of these such "losses" could mean that club could get picks 6 and 7 instead of picks 11 and 12 .

Not forgetting of course , that "There's no such thing as tanking" according to 1 or 2 in high places .

Cheers

[old dee 24,001]

Stand corrected but there a number (4?) of clubs that can activate their compo picks this season .

Tanking could raise it's ugly head again . For instance , (and I'm not saying we tanked) if we'd beaten Port Adelaide in the last round , last season , we would have ended up with pick 16 instead of pick 12 .

1 or 2 "convenient" losses near the end of this season could place a club with compo picks in a much better position . 2 of these such "losses" could mean that club could get picks 6 and 7 instead of picks 11 and 12 .

Not forgetting of course , that "There's no such thing as tanking" according to 1 or 2 in high places .

Cheers

I seriously doubt we will have to tank Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

Stand corrected but there a number (4?) of clubs that can activate their compo picks this season .

Tanking could raise it's ugly head again . For instance , (and I'm not saying we tanked) if we'd beaten Port Adelaide in the last round , last season , we would have ended up with pick 16 instead of pick 12 .

1 or 2 "convenient" losses near the end of this season could place a club with compo picks in a much better position . 2 of these such "losses" could mean that club could get picks 6 and 7 instead of picks 11 and 12 .

Not forgetting of course , that "There's no such thing as tanking" according to 1 or 2 in high places .

Cheers

Only the GAblett jnr pick in the hands of GWS, trumps Ours. IF, GWS finishes as expected below us.

[Macca 17,113]

I seriously doubt we will have to tank Macca

Ha ha ha , and I know if we do well you'll be pleased .

Cheers

[Dr. Mubutu 867]

Only the GAblett jnr pick in the hands of GWS, trumps Ours. IF, GWS finishes as expected below us.

No, only if GEELONG finish below us. The draft order of the pick remains dependent on the original owner of the pick.

[Pennant St Dee 13,389]

To add one of the main missing links to the list whatever it takes with these picks and trades, they are out of contract as we speak so start speaking with their agents now, Dangerfield and/or Boak whatever it takes barring Trengove, Frawley, Jones, Clark, Jamar make it happen or players of similar ilk

[dee-luded 2,959]

No, only if GEELONG finish below us. The draft order of the pick remains dependent on the original owner of the pick.

Oh, geez, I think your right Dr... I had completely over looked that fact, I guess mesmerized by the fact it's GAblett jnr...But yeah, OK...

[Arsene Wenger 72]

According to Footy Classified, we activated them.

And Rendell was raving about how good the draft will be - "best ever draft" he said.

The reason why he signed on for another 3 years as a recruiter, even though he was sick of the role.

Now all we need to do is make sure we have a bloody good head of recruiting!

Happy days

[Hells Gates 505]

According to Footy Classified, we activated them.

And Rendell was raving about how good the draft will be - "best ever draft" he said.

The reason why he signed on for another 3 years as a recruiter, even though he was sick of the role.

Now all we need to do is make sure we have a bloody good head of recruiting!

Happy days

Good to hear they're activated. Now let's get them right. Thanks for the update Arsene

[Tex 68]

Should we get Matt Rendell as our head recruiter?

[Striker475 696]

Should we get Matt Rendell as our head recruiter?

Another thread on the board talking about it.

[Guest Dr Who]

I disagree if we think he'll be a star - I'd trade 2 mid 1st rounders for a top 3 pick in a heartbeat - but apparently the FD feel differently or felt too uncertain about his development.

or some of us new the next draft (this years) draft was the "best draft ever" as Matt Rendell confirmed on footy classified tonight. In his opinion. So it was nothing to do with Crouches development - he will be fine.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/compo-picks-triggered-20120319-1vfug.html

Looks like we could still go either way.