On 8/31/2019 at 4:50 PM, Fifty-5 said:

I'll assume GC get pick 2 and we are serious about splitting pick 3 (2234).

The talk is that GWS will trade 12 (1268) and 14 (1161) = (2429) which looks like equitable value.  This is so they can take pick 3 before they have to match a bid on Tom Green who may be bid on as early as pick 4 (2034 with a 20% discount = 1627).  The problem with this theory is that GWS doesn't have 2nd or 4th rounders and its next picks are 49 (287), 75 (0) and 85 (0).  That leaves them a long way short of 1627 and would put them in a big deficit of 1340 in 2020 - equivalent to pick 11 (1329) - likely to be around their 1st pick next year. 

GWS will be desperate to trade in some mid range picks this year to make up the shortfall on Green.  We could be in a strong position to bundle in some later picks for a good GWS player that we fancy.

Pick 3 and pick 38

for

Picks 12, 14 and Patton

Then send pick 14 to Freo for Brad Hill

Send pick 21 to Freo for Ed Langdon

Use pick 12 on best available 18yo at draft 

Out: Picks 3, 21 38

In: Patton, Langdon, Hill, pick 12

All problems solved. Thank your old lady for the bunny.

On 8/30/2019 at 11:40 PM, GetJonnoPatton said:

Patton. No question.

If that’s not possible then one of their young small forwards - either Brent Daniels or Bobby Hill.

Harry Himmelbergg just re-signed, but he's a player i'd love to have in the forward line.

If we do split the pick 3 ( assuming GC get handed pick 1 and 2) with GWS into two mid first rounders. I think alot of the real top rated draft prospects may be gone by that stage. 

The lowest picks we would receive would be pick 13 and 15 as GC get pick 2 and GWS essentially get picks 3 and 4 (assuming early bid for Tom Green ) already our mid first rounders from GWS would be pushed down 2 places each. 

Also it is possible that GWS and Essendon progress past week one in the finals, so would we do that deal if say we got pick 15 and 17

where is the point that we say those picks are too late for us to split the pick ? 

We would hopefully push for a valuable player to go along with those picks ( eg Tomlinson, Daniels, Bonar, Caldwell, Patton perhaps ?) 

If we ended up with picks 13 and 15, people talk about Kemp, Stephens, McCasey or Flanders as possible mid round prospects but i fear they may be gone by that stage of the draft 

1. GC- Rowell

2. GC- Anderson 

3. GWS - Ash 

4. GWS - Green 

5. Adel - Stephens

6. Stk - Young 

7. Syd - Serong  

8. Frem - Robertson 

9. NM - Kemp 

10. Carl - Flanders

11. Port - Gould 

12 . Haw - McCasey 

13- 15 Melb - ( Luke Jackson, Dylan Williams, Cody Weightman, Elijah Taylor, Trent Rivers, Trent Bianco, Cameron Taheny, Josh Worrell, Will Day, Mitch O'Neill, Harry Shoenberg) 

 

For people that keep an eye on draft prospects , would you be happy with the talent potentially available at our picks if we down grade?  

4 hours ago, JMDemon said:

If we do split the pick 3 ( assuming GC get handed pick 1 and 2) with GWS into two mid first rounders. I think alot of the real top rated draft prospects may be gone by that stage. 

The lowest picks we would receive would be pick 13 and 15 as GC get pick 2 and GWS essentially get picks 3 and 4 (assuming early bid for Tom Green ) already our mid first rounders from GWS would be pushed down 2 places each. 

Also it is possible that GWS and Essendon progress past week one in the finals, so would we do that deal if say we got pick 15 and 17

where is the point that we say those picks are too late for us to split the pick ? 

We would hopefully push for a valuable player to go along with those picks ( eg Tomlinson, Daniels, Bonar, Caldwell, Patton perhaps ?) 

If we ended up with picks 13 and 15, people talk about Kemp, Stephens, McCasey or Flanders as possible mid round prospects but i fear they may be gone by that stage of the draft 

1. GC- Rowell

2. GC- Anderson 

3. GWS - Ash 

4. GWS - Green 

5. Adel - Stephens

6. Stk - Young 

7. Syd - Serong  

8. Frem - Robertson 

9. NM - Kemp 

10. Carl - Flanders

11. Port - Gould 

12 . Haw - McCasey 

13- 15 Melb - ( Luke Jackson, Dylan Williams, Cody Weightman, Elijah Taylor, Trent Rivers, Trent Bianco, Cameron Taheny, Josh Worrell, Will Day, Mitch O'Neill, Harry Shoenberg) 

 

For people that keep an eye on draft prospects , would you be happy with the talent potentially available at our picks if we down grade?  

NOT really. But Goodwin and Co are protecting their jobs, they’ll split the picks and better hope like hell we land something from another club that improves our list.

36 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

But Goodwin and Co are protecting their jobs, they’ll split the picks and better hope like hell we land something from another club that improves our list.

If that is the case, and i don't have any reason to doubt it, the board should nut up and give him the flick now. I'm all for short-term gain, but not at the expense of medium-longterm success.

We need to get in as much top line class as we can, here's a reasonably equitable 3-way that's win-win-win and benefits each club:

MFC:

• Give 3, 38 
• Get 12, Langdon, Caldwell (was GWS 1st 2018 pick at 11)
• First 3 picks: 12, 20, 56

Freo:

• Give: Langdon, 24
• Get: 14, 38 
• First 3 picks: 7, 14, 38 (14 gives them a nice pick for Tim Kelly without having to use 7)

GWS:

• Give: 12, 14, Caldwell
• Get: 3, 24
• First 3 picks: 3, 24, 49 (3 for use before Green is bid on, 24 for points for Green)

Don't know why GWS would do that trade. Get rid of last year's pick 11? Can't see it.

49 minutes ago, billyblanks35 said:

Don't know why GWS would do that trade. Get rid of last year's pick 11? Can't see it.

Because they get pick 3 and Green who will go at pick 4 for 11 (2018), 12 and 14.

every scenario disgusts me. i want to keep our first pick, not split it for two meh players.. much rather bank on a player like ash/young than two other kids. i sense this being our most frustrating trade period for half a decade. ugh.

36 minutes ago, Rocky said:

every scenario disgusts me. i want to keep our first pick, not split it for two meh players.. much rather bank on a player like ash/young than two other kids. i sense this being our most frustrating trade period for half a decade. ugh.

Yeah. Nothing is turning me off more than this talk of pick 12 and 14 or whatever it is. We should be looking to go into the draft with pick 5-10 AND acquiring 12 and 14. If we're wanting to 'rebuild our elite youth quota' - Port's rising star near miss and only elite draftee was Rozee who was pick 5. They didn't think Dursma & Butters would suffice, nor should we with our equivalent 12/14. Which means we might want to trade out a player as well as splitting pick 3, to acquire that high a series of picks.

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by John Demonic

8 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

Yeah. Nothing is turning me off more than this talk of pick 12 and 14 or whatever it is. We should be looking to go into the draft with pick 5-10 AND acquiring 12 and 14. If we're wanting to 'rebuild our elite youth quota' - Port's rising star near miss and only elite draftee was Rozee who was pick 5. They didn't think Dursma & Butters would suffice, nor should we with our equivalent 12/14. Which means we might want to trade out a player as well as splitting pick 3, to acquire that high a series of picks.

Good post, I agree. Only problem here is Goodwins job is on the line so he won’t be thinking long-term this trade period. He will be putting on the pressure for another Tyson/Salem for Kelly trade rather then opt for the long term gun who may take a bit of time to develop. 

I'm no draft expert, but all the commentary I've read and heard about this year is that it's not considered a very good draft outside of the clear top 2. That's one of the main reasons industry people more in the know than us have suggested teams will look to split their picks this year. The GWS option to work with their academy pick is one, but let's not also discount the chance that we look to get a future pick as part of the split.

Of all the club fans to not be too obsessed with a few spots higher, Melbourne ones should understand the most.

This draft is not the 2018 draft, and it's not the 2013 draft. Strange that those examples are brought up when you could just as easily bring up all our failures that were top 4 draft picks.

So, how about:

We land Tomlinson as a F/A

We land Langdon with 20

We split the pick 2/3 with GWS, they get a gun plus Green.  We get 2 teen picks plus a player.

We take 2 small forwards in the draft with the picks.

Chandler is moved back to understudy Nev.

Take a spekky selection with the third and last pick that we have to make at about 40.  

Close the books and hit the rookie draft or PSD.

If we could get Brodie Kemp with one of the GWS picks I would be making the trade. Assuming Anderson goes to GCS with the PP.

I know we need speed and skill off the back-line/midfield, but if we could bring in Langdon for pick 20(ish), Tomlinson via FA and then go after either Young @ 3 or Ben King, i'd much rather that than 'splitting' the pick.

3 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

I know we need speed and skill off the back-line/midfield, but if we could bring in Langdon for pick 20(ish), Tomlinson via FA and then go after either Young @ 3 or Ben King, i'd much rather that than 'splitting' the pick.

 

I’d be more happy to split the pick and get 2 kids like Weightman and Stephens.

Don’t forget the potential bargaining power it might give us for “live trading” options, still getting the kid we want and gaining extra later or future picks. We could be a big player on draft day.

18 hours ago, Mach5 said:

 

I’d be more happy to split the pick and get 2 kids like Weightman and Stephens.

Don’t forget the potential bargaining power it might give us for “live trading” options, still getting the kid we want and gaining extra later or future picks. We could be a big player on draft day.

Big fan of Stephens, fits the outside run need perfectly. and weightman does some insane things. 

Sadly i see both being drafted before the two picks. it really depends on who the club thinks is likely to be there to what value the trade has. 

I think Lachie Ash for example would be a great get at pick 3 

GWS winning again makes this option less appealing now. We’d wind up with picks 12 and 16 at this stage. I’d rather just keep pick 2/3 and head to the draft.

11 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

GWS winning again makes this option less appealing now. We’d wind up with picks 12 and 16 at this stage. I’d rather just keep pick 2/3 and head to the draft.

The only positive is that, if they're still really keen on our pick, that it might force them to give up a better player than first thought.  No idea who that might be, but we might be able to pry someone of quality out of their list than just getting someone like Bonar.

34 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

The only positive is that, if they're still really keen on our pick, that it might force them to give up a better player than first thought.  No idea who that might be, but we might be able to pry someone of quality out of their list than just getting someone like Bonar.

Even if it's not a player coming to us, they might then consider future picks, for instance 3 plus next years 2nd for 13, 17 & their 1st next year. Might all depend on what other academy kids they have coming through in the future.

IMO.. Bonar is not the player we need if this deal goes ahead.

1 minute ago, Demon3 said:

IMO.. Bonar is not the player we need if this deal goes ahead.

Agreed. I don’t rate him and he has none of the attributes we’re lacking. 

3 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Agreed. I don’t rate him and he has none of the attributes we’re lacking. 

Interested in hearing the reasoning, I know he hasn't set the world on fire in his limited senior games, but have you observed his NEAFL or junior games? I think he'll be one to be thrown up that's all. 

Assuming GC get priority pick 2 and our first pick is pick 3.

GWS really have to deal with us if they want to do get ahead of any bid for Green because we can bid for him at 3, but they would need to really want the player they can get with pick 3 to do a split deal.

Assuming GWS get a 2nd round compo for Tomlinson at around say pick 35 that gives them (to be confirmed):

12 (1268), 16 (1067), 35 (522), 52 (259), 76 (0)

If GWS do nothing

MFC bid on Green at 3 (2234), GWS have to pay 80% of that with the discount = 1787

That means they'll need to give 12 and 16 and get a pick back in change:
12 + 16 = 1268 + 1067 = 2335
And get change:
2335 - 1787 = 548 which is pick 34

If they do nothing they get:
Green, 34, 36, 53, 76

So to get Green they give up 12 and 16 but get 34 back.

If GWS do the pick split

They get their man at 3 and then Green is bid on at 4 (2034) they still need to find 1627 points to pay for him.

35 + 52 only give them 522 + 259 = 781
They need to find 1627 - 781 = 846 more points which is equivalent to pick 22

So in reality to make the pick split pay they need both pick 3 AND pick 21 off us.  They are going to have to give big time to get both those picks of us.  That's why I've been suggested about 12 + 16 + Caldwell for 3 + 21. 

This pick split deal would give GWS:
3, Green, 76
because they need to use 21 + 35 + 52 on Green

So to get pick 3 and Green they would give up 12, 16, Caldwell, 35 and 52 - like I said - they'd need to really want pick 3

 

Edited September 16, 20195 yr by Fifty-5

41 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Assuming GC get priority pick 2 and our first pick is pick 3.

GWS really have to deal with us if they want to do get ahead of any bid for Green because we can bid for him at 3, but they would need to really want the player they can get with pick 3 to do a split deal.

Assuming GWS get a 2nd round compo for Tomlinson at around say pick 35 that gives them (to be confirmed):

12 (1268), 16 (1067), 35 (522), 52 (259), 76 (0)

If GWS do nothing

MFC bid on Green at 3 (2234), GWS have to pay 80% of that with the discount = 1787

That means they'll need to give 12 and 16 and get a pick back in change:
12 + 16 = 1268 + 1067 = 2335
And get change:
2335 - 1787 = 548 which is pick 34

If they do nothing they get:
Green, 34, 36, 53, 76

So to get Green they give up 12 and 16 but get 34 back.

If GWS do the pick split

They get their man at 3 and then Green is bid on at 4 (2034) they still need to find 1627 points to pay for him.

35 + 52 only give them 522 + 259 = 781
They need to find 1627 - 781 = 846 more points which is equivalent to pick 22

So in reality to make the pick split pay they need both pick 3 AND pick 21 off us.  They are going to have to give big time to get both those picks of us.  That's why I've been suggested about 12 + 16 + Caldwell for 3 + 21. 

This pick split deal would give GWS:
3, Green, 76
because they need to use 21 + 35 + 52 on Green

So to get pick 3 and Green they would give up 12, 16, Caldwell, 35 and 52 - like I said - they'd need to really want pick 3

 

If they want Green then it's going to push their picks back even further, so pick 12 becomes 13 etc. Plus there's also the Freo, Hawks and Port potential early bids as well (Henry, Maginness and Mead), so getting a 2nd round for Tomlinson blows out to 38 and 52 to 56. Dosen't seem like much but points wise 38 & 56 equal 659 so they'd need to find closer to pick 18 than 22. But remember they'll get picks for Patton and whoever else leaves as well.

This shouldn't weaken our hand - pick 3 for 13, 17/18 and a player, but actually strengthen it - the same with Freo, they've got a kid who might get a bid in the late teens, so they might prefer we hand over one of the 1st rounders we get from GWS, plus our 3rd for Langdon and their 2nd coming back to us. 

So we could give up 3 & 60 to GWS for 13, 17 & Caldwell/Hately/Bonar/O'Halloran/Cumming/Perryman/ZLangdon (the most likely IMO to be able to be obtained from the GWS list).

Then we give 17 & 42 to Freo for Langdon and 28. 

We'd go to the draft with 13, 23, 28, while picking up Langdon, one GWS traded and Tomilinson, and possibly Elliot as well. 4 ready to go players and 3 picks under 30, all for our 1st, 3rd and 4th round picks.