On 15/10/2015 at 11:40, olisik said:

If we somehow got 2 picks under 23, Essendon would just make there deal 18 and 23 instead. Or 15 and 23, or 15/18.

They got us on this one

[censored] essendon. After a horrible season Dodoro still does trade period wonders. Could of been us

Jeez you lot go to water easily. Essendon are going to the well in a big way - trading out experienced players and loading up on draft picks. Sure, they might look like geniuses in 5-8 years time, but they could also get very badly burned - MFC of all supporters should know the risks involved in going to the draft. Have a look at past drafts - there's always at least two and as many as four bust draft picks in the top 10. That's a 20-40% chance you'll pick a complete dud that won't play 50 games, and that's if you're generous and call picks like Richard Tambling a decent selection. Then there's a lot of just decent players; sure you might get Nick Riewoldt, but you're just as likely to get Mitch Thorp, and far more likely to get Lachie Hansen.

The MFC is continuing its strategy of incremental improvement. It's too early to say if it's a better or worse strategy, but what's certain is we're taking much less of a gamble. I just cannot understand why we are collectively throwing ourselves off a cliff over this.

Pick 6 + 20s for 7 and 8?

Is that a better deal then 18 and 23

  On 15/10/2015 at 11:44, Nasher said:

Jeez you lot go to water easily.

I used to find it really frustrating to see how stupid, reactionary and reflexively negative a lot of posters (generally the most prolific ones, but not all of them) on here are.

Now I just find it amusing and wonder how anyone could possibly live a happy life when they are so doggedly committed to trying to make themselves unhappy.

  On 15/10/2015 at 11:47, olisik said:

Pick 6 + 20s for 7 and 8?

Is that a better deal then 18 and 23

Nah

  On 15/10/2015 at 11:52, Axis of Bob said:

I used to find it really frustrating to see how stupid, reactionary and reflexively negative a lot of posters (generally the most prolific ones, but not all of them) on here are.

Now I just find it amusing and wonder how anyone could possibly live a happy life when they are so doggedly committed to trying to make themselves unhappy.

I used to love a good old whinge but I've finally come to the realisation that it is absolutely pointless. Nobody knows if Goodwin et al will turn Melksham into a good player, and nobody knows who we might have picked at 24 and whether that kid would have ever turned out to be any good. When Scully, Clarke and FRawley ditched us all those seemed like bad days at the trade table but none of them ultimately ended up hurting us in the long run. Nobody was doing cartwheels when we landed Bernie Vince but he ended up being one of the best recruits in ages. That was this footy department's call, as it was to engineer deals to get Hogan, Tyson and Salem to the club.

  On 15/10/2015 at 12:00, Curry & Beer said:

I used to love a good old whinge but I've finally come to the realisation that it is absolutely pointless. Nobody knows if Goodwin et al will turn Melksham into a good player, and nobody knows who we might have picked at 24 and whether that kid would have ever turned out to be any good. When Scully, Clarke and FRawley ditched us all those seemed like bad days at the trade table but none of them ultimately ended up hurting us in the long run. Nobody was doing cartwheels when we landed Bernie Vince but he ended up being one of the best recruits in ages. That was this footy department's call, as it was to engineer deals to get Hogan, Tyson and Salem to the club.

Welcome to the "This Might Turn Out Okay. Let's Wait and See First" club mate

  On 15/10/2015 at 12:04, Nasher said:

Welcome to the "This Might Turn Out Okay. Let's Wait and See First" club mate

Thanks, it's all comfy and warm in here.

This competition is so amateurish it is laughable.

If we cannot flip 6 and 3, who do we take at 6? Assuming (without academy players) that the top 5 will be Weitering, Schache, Parish, Curnow, Francis. Who do we take? Mathieson?Weidmam?

I would doubt the club wasn't on top of this...

...and if they weren't I would expect someone leaving for family reasons in the off season.

All I feel is confusion after reading this thread.

Gut feel is that we want pick 3 for Francis instead of Parish so I've swung. And I reckon that it's the Saints at 5 that are also into him and the threat...Not the Bombers who are reportedly into Parish.

My logical reasoning says that this is due to us wanting to find a side-kick for for the Hulk and that we are trading enough mids in already.

  On 15/10/2015 at 12:54, Roosy said:

Gut feel is that we want pick 3 for Francis instead of Parish so I've swung. And I reckon that it's the Saints at 5 that are also into him and the threat...Not the Bombers who are reportedly into Parish.

My logical reasoning says that this is due to us wanting to find a side-kick for for the Hulk and that we are trading enough mids in already.

I think Curnow. 14.5 in beep test. Will be a monster.

1-2. Scache/Weitering (Carl/Bris) - the best 2. Simply a matter of who Carlton rate more highly.

3. WILDCARD. If they lose Dixon and Smith, I can see them taking Weideman over Francis. This is highly dependent on other trades - but realistically they could go anywhere, given they've just lost Bennell, and are probably expecting to lose Prestia in the near future. (GCS)

4. Francis - if available. Otherwise? Probably Parish. (Ess)

5. Mathieson - They need to replace departing players. The best bet to replace Montagna. (StK)

The way I see it, Curnow will probably still be available. I'd wager we're trying to shake a few trees and see what drops.

Given the reliance on talls in the pointy end of this draft, I'd be very surprised if we were actually interested in keeping pick 3 in the mooted trade with GCS.

Edit: This was all over the place. Changed my mind mid-post and forgot to take out some of it.

Not a whole lot of gain for GWS, but I guess it is worth them doing it.

Meanwhile, to the spuds saying we should compare Melksham to pick 8, you did read the part about Essendon giving TWO picks, right? So at the very least the comparison should be -

Melksham.

v

Half of whatever Essendon manage to get with/for pick 8.

Eh, if they're doing it, I guess its a smart move by Essendon.

But not half the heist of Scully, Tyson, Hogan or Viney, all of which involved some 'creative diplomacy' with GWS, so I'm not crying.

  On 15/10/2015 at 13:40, Little Goffy said:

But not half the heist of Scully, Tyson, Hogan or Viney, all of which involved some 'creative diplomacy' with GWS, so I'm not crying.

To be fair, Hogan and Viney saw some with GCS as well.

They took Jaeger as pick 1, and also didn't bid on Viney.

We seem to have a very good relationship with GWS at trade time. Hopefully we can work something out with them to get pick 8 and they tell Essendope to pizz off

Dodoro is a genius for loading up on picks in the 2003 draft revisited?

Ok then...

If you don't think our recruiting staff haven't looked at these options then you are naive.

If some supporter thinks up these things, I guarantee the clubs would have thought of 10+ different scenarios as well.

It seems we have come with a direct plan and we are sticking to it….

  On 15/10/2015 at 19:43, Is Dom Is Good said:

If you don't think our recruiting staff haven't looked at these options then you are naive.

If some supporter thinks up these things, I guarantee the clubs would have thought of 10+ different scenarios as well.

It seems we have come with a direct plan and we are sticking to it….

Moloney stated yesterday on SEN that part of that plan was to improve upon the picks we have, and also to include blokes around the 23-25 year mark.

If GWS do swap pick 8 for 2 rnd rnd picks it is more likely to be with Carlton.

Carlton are looking to do a package trade to take 4 GWS players: Plowman, Lamb,Tomlinson and another (whose name I have forgotten).

GWS would deal with Carlton before Ess as they need to reduce overall player numbers and have a good relationship with SOS who will be easier to deal with.

Carlton don't have an extra 2nd rnd (yet) but they do have the first pick of rnd 2 and 3.

The (small) incentive for GWS is to reduce player numbers.

If they do it good luck to them.

Essentially, it is no different to us wanting a deal to get us pick 3 from GCS.

No need for a lot of angst. That's the system.

  On 15/10/2015 at 20:04, KingDingAling said:

Moloney stated yesterday on SEN that part of that plan was to improve upon the picks we have, and also to include blokes around the 23-25 year mark.

I didn't know Brent Moloney was now in our recruiting team?

I hate draft picks.

  On 15/10/2015 at 13:37, Dr. Mubutu said:

1-2. Scache/Weitering (Carl/Bris) - the best 2. Simply a matter of who Carlton rate more highly.

3. WILDCARD. If they lose Dixon and Smith, I can see them taking Weideman over Francis. This is highly dependent on other trades - but realistically they could go anywhere, given they've just lost Bennell, and are probably expecting to lose Prestia in the near future. (GCS)

4. Francis - if available. Otherwise? Probably Parish. (Ess)

5. Mathieson - They need to replace departing players. The best bet to replace Montagna. (StK)

The way I see it, Curnow will probably still be available. I'd wager we're trying to shake a few trees and see what drops.

Given the reliance on talls in the pointy end of this draft, I'd be very surprised if we were actually interested in keeping pick 3 in the mooted trade with GCS.

Edit: This was all over the place. Changed my mind mid-post and forgot to take out some of it.

Don't see Weidman in the top 5