Jump to content

NATIONAL DRAFT PICKS 3 & 7

Featured Replies

Demonland Podcast LIVE @ 8:00PM with Jeff White
 

If we were able to snare both Curnow and Weideman come draft time, i'd be over the moon (moreso than if it were one of those 2 and Parish).

I think we'll be lucky indeed, if either Weideman or Curnow are available by P-10

I was pleased with the Melksham trade and at the time very displeased with the Kennedy trade. However it makes much more sense after this move. Add Bugg, and I'm personally very happy with this trade period.

 

I think we'll be lucky indeed, if either Weideman or Curnow are available by P-10

All the evidence is NO.

Why do you think we are were busting to get get pick 3?

All the evidence is NO.

Why do you think we are were busting to get get pick 3?

Yep. There's only one thing that can be concluded which is that the club KNEW that the Bombers would take whoever it is WE want with their 4th or 5th pick, so they have pulled this swifty


Ummmmmm...that is clearly incorrect

In gaining these selections, the Demons handed the Suns picks No.6, No.29 and a future first round draft selection.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-10-21/dees-secure-picks-no3-and-no10

How is it clearly incorrect?

Edit: I may be wrong but I have not read anything that states that the future trades must be the first round selection.

Yep. There's only one thing that can be concluded which is that the club KNEW that the Bombers would take whoever it is WE want with their 4th or 5th pick, so they have pulled this swifty

And to me that seems Parish.

One of Weideman or Curnow would've been available at 6.

 

In gaining these selections, the Demons handed the Suns picks No.6, No.29 and a future first round draft selection.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-10-21/dees-secure-picks-no3-and-no10

How is it clearly incorrect?

Edit: I may be wrong but I have not read anything that states that the future trades must be the first round selection.

lol

All the evidence is NO.

Why do you think we are were busting to get get pick 3?

Because Parish wouldn't be available.

Wiedman or Curnow would 100% be available at 6, one of them at least. Half a chance to slip to 10 dependent on clubs opinions. But the move to me seems like a move to select Parish


Mate, it is our pick from 2016.

The AFL hasn't stipulated it properly because they don't know what they are doing - but it is our pick.

If the AFL have poorly worded it I think my suggestion could be tried.

Edit: Anyhow we will will the flag and it will be pick 18 anyway. Go Dees.

Not too sure why we were so keen of pick 3?

Seems like Curnow and Weid would have been available at pick 6

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-18/phantom-form-guide-update

Seems like?

Perhaps they want more of an assurance than 'seems like'...

They have one particular player in mind for that pick and the last bloke these guys singled out from a long way out was Angus Brayshaw.

I am excited about who they have targeted.

Because Parish wouldn't be available.

Wiedman or Curnow would 100% be available at 6, one of them at least. Half a chance to slip to 10 dependent on clubs opinions. But the move to me seems like a move to select Parish

Yep, that's how it appears to me too.

In gaining these selections, the Demons handed the Suns picks No.6, No.29 and a future first round draft selection.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-10-21/dees-secure-picks-no3-and-no10

How is it clearly incorrect?

Edit: I may be wrong but I have not read anything that states that the future trades must be the first round selection.

I don't know if you are right or not, but surely you can't be.

Mate, it is our pick from 2016.

The AFL hasn't stipulated it properly because they don't know what they are doing - but it is our pick.

he's saying 'what if we have TWO first round picks as a result of trading for a second one - which do we have to give to GC?'


In gaining these selections, the Demons handed the Suns picks No.6, No.29 and a future first round draft selection.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-10-21/dees-secure-picks-no3-and-no10

How is it clearly incorrect?

Edit: I may be wrong but I have not read anything that states that the future trades must be the first round selection.

GC get our first round draft selection next year.

We do not get the opportunity to trade it down for another first round pick and then give that to GC, because we will never receive next year's first rounder. It goes straight to GC

Not too sure why we were so keen of pick 3?

Seems like Curnow and Weid would have been available at pick 6

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-18/phantom-form-guide-update

Don't take too much stock in the placement of the players on the form guide, it's Twomey's personal ranking of players at this stage, not where he thinks they will go. Milera is likely to be top 10 now, and Essendon are (IMO) highly likely to take one of Curnow or Weideman. Think GC have strong interest in both Milera and Weideman.

Also, from the Age trade blog:

On the subject of draft value, lets look at Gold Coast's deal with Melbourne.

picks 3, 10 and 43 = 4007 points

picks 6 and 29 = 2404 points

So on the face of it, Melbourne have won big. But they've also traded a future first-rounder to Gold Coast.

So, on a points basis - if Melbourne finish above 11th, they win the trade. If they finish below 11, they lose it.

I like our chances to finish 11th or better next year.

Don't take too much stock in the placement of the players on the form guide, it's Twomey's personal ranking of players at this stage, not where he thinks they will go. Milera is likely to be top 10 now, and Essendon are (IMO) highly likely to take one of Curnow or Weideman. Think GC have strong interest in both Milera and Weideman.

Also, from the Age trade blog:

On the subject of draft value, lets look at Gold Coast's deal with Melbourne.

picks 3, 10 and 43 = 4007 points

picks 6 and 29 = 2404 points

So on the face of it, Melbourne have won big. But they've also traded a future first-rounder to Gold Coast.

So, on a points basis - if Melbourne finish above 11th, they win the trade. If they finish below 11, they lose it.

Correct but it does not take into account the player we pick up at 3 this year.

He could be our next Brownlow medalist?

So, on a points basis - if Melbourne finish above 11th, they win the trade. If they finish below 11, they lose it.

I like our chances to finish 11th or better next year.

I think it's reasonable to suggest the both GC and MFC agreed the most probable outcome is for us to finish around there and therefore called it an equitable agreement

11th is only 2 spots higher but it's an extra 4 wins plus % compared to last year

he's saying 'what if we have TWO first round picks as a result of trading for a second one - which do we have to give to GC?'

Yeah. And it's a patently stupid question.


GC get our first round draft selection next year.

We do not get the opportunity to trade it down for another first round pick and then give that to GC, because we will never receive next year's first rounder. It goes straight to GC

Thanks MC that makes sense.

he's saying 'what if we have TWO first round picks as a result of trading for a second one - which do we have to give to GC?'

???

the 1st round pick for 2016 allocated by the afl based on our ladder position is no longer ours. it has already got a new owner. finito, dead, gorn, deceased, fallen off the perch

Parish sounds and looks like a name that someone would be a great player.. I can just picture myself looking at Footy Live app and seeing Parish, D.. Lets get excited fellas!

Demonland Podcast LIVE @ 8:00PM with Jeff White
 

Is it too early for the club to go with a Parish/Curnow interview wearing red and blue while signing the paperwork next to gf?


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 2 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 120 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 35 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 299 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 31 replies
  • GAMEDAY: St. Kilda

    It's Game Day and the Demons have traveled to Alice Springs to take on the Saints and they have a massive opportunity to build on the momentum of two big wins in a row and keep their finals hopes well and truly alive.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 907 replies