I heard on trade radio yesterday that next years draft is meant to be poor, anybody else hear this from other sources? If it’s true hope we really go hard to split pick and get a couple of good players from this draft. 

4 hours ago, Colm said:

I heard on trade radio yesterday that next years draft is meant to be poor, anybody else hear this from other sources? If it’s true hope we really go hard to split pick and get a couple of good players from this draft. 

Not poor per se, but many of the good quality players' are already aligned to clubs via either F/S, NGA, or academies, leaving what is left for 'live' picks to have the quality severely diminished.

It's gonna occur more frequently with the number of academies that the AFL has now instituted, almost like how their was regional zoning prior to the introduction of the draft all those years ago.

We need to abolish all academies, IMV, to return the draft to its original purpose acting as a method of aiding the evenness of the competition.

5 hours ago, Colm said:

I heard on trade radio yesterday that next years draft is meant to be poor, anybody else hear this from other sources? If it’s true hope we really go hard to split pick and get a couple of good players from this draft. 

Yes, I have heard this every year that the draft has been going, except for the years where next year is going to be a super draft. 

With the Tim Kelly deal going ahead, would the Cats be an option of a team we could split Pick 3 with?  They are getting #14 from the Eagles to go with their current pick of #17.  They would have to add something more to that to get our pick, but they provide another option outside of a GWS or a GC.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

With the Tim Kelly deal going ahead, would the Cats be an option of a team we could split Pick 3 with?  They are getting #14 from the Eagles to go with their current pick of #17.  They would have to add something more to that to get our pick, but they provide another option outside of a GWS or a GC.

Wouldn't need much more probably.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Wouldn't need much more probably.

 

Putting points aside, how would you feel about giving up Pick 3 for those two much later in the first round on their own?  I know that we overrate picks at times, but I still feel as though there needs to be more to it than that.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Putting points aside, how would you feel about giving up Pick 3 for those two much later in the first round on their own?  I know that we overrate picks at times, but I still feel as though there needs to be more to it than that.

I'm definitely in the 'split the pick' camp this year. Haven't followed the draft as closely this year as I didn't expect our year to be SO bad, but all the things I've read have said it's fairly even in the first round after the clear top 2. Maybe I'm over-worrying about our list, but I just feel like we need to stock up on 18 year old talent so to me it seems a good move. Added to that is the chance we'll lose pick 22 this year (Langdon), so gives us a bit more of a hit at the top end.

 

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Putting points aside, how would you feel about giving up Pick 3 for those two much later in the first round on their own?  I know that we overrate picks at times, but I still feel as though there needs to be more to it than that.

I agree WB. Media saying the Cats are the winners of the Kelly trade due to two first rounders and 24. but to me getting Kelly and not giving up a pick in top 13 is a steal.  Assuming WC finish top 4 it will be 14, 16, 24 for Kelly.  I would do that for sure.  chance are one of those 3 picks will be a good player and most likely not nearly as good as Kelly

Pointy end draft picks are more likely to provide the gun players or at least top 10.

I would certainly not swap pick 3 for 14 and 17

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

I would certainly not swap pick 3 for 14 and 17

This is the stumbling block for me.  I know others might feel it is fair, but swapping 3 for 14 and 17 just doesn't feel right.  A top 3 pick is a valuable commodity and if we're going to deal it then you expect a pretty darn good return for it, and 14 and 17 isn't it for me.

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

This is the stumbling block for me.  I know others might feel it is fair, but swapping 3 for 14 and 17 just doesn't feel right.  A top 3 pick is a valuable commodity and if we're going to deal it then you expect a pretty darn good return for it, and 14 and 17 isn't it for me.

Agree. Would not accept any deal for Pick 3, unless one of the 2 picks we receive were still in the top 10. For example. I would be open to Pick 3 and next years 2nd round, this years second round, for Pick 6, 7, and Langdon from Freo (Something like this. I know my example is probably overs, but Freo may be enticed because of Academy players next year).

Personally i feel there's a bit of a gap between the top 12 (approx) and the rest.  3 down to 14 is a big drop before you get a first look.  Would want something 10 or under on the first pick.

7 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

Agree. Would not accept any deal for Pick 3, unless one of the 2 picks we receive were still in the top 10. For example. I would be open to Pick 3 and next years 2nd round, this years second round, for Pick 6, 7, and Langdon from Freo (Something like this. I know my example is probably overs, but Freo may be enticed because of Academy players next year).

I like this. Thought it was overs but tried it in the draft calculator and pick 3+22+ future 3 is same points as 6+7. Would stil be able to trade future 2nd round for Langdon and we still have our first round pick next year. 

Freo get pick 3 and and 22 plus picks for their academy players next year

Don’t worry guys and gals, I've got this. Splitting the pick isn't too hard. 

Our whole trade period:

Tomlinson FA. Done

Langdon for 22. Seems fair for everyone

Frost & 42 to Hawks for 30 & 50.

Pick 30 will be useful in the following monster 4-way trade:

Ess OUT:  Daniher  IN: Picks 3, 25

Syd OUT:  Papley, Picks 5, 25 IN: Daniher, Fut 1st (Melb)   

Carl OUT:  Pick 9 IN: Papley, Pick 30

Melb OUT: Pick 3, Fut 1st, pick 30 In Pick 5, 9

With us only taking 3 picks to the draft that leaves us with 5 9 and 50. As opposed to 3 42 and 61

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Melb OUT: Pick 3, Fut 1st, pick 30 In Pick 5, 9

What? Let's say our first pick next year is 9, we lose out massively in this deal.

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

What? Let's say our first pick next year is 9, we lose out massively in this deal.

 

It's risky, yes. But the way I see it, if we don't make the 8 next year we won't need to worry because week have plenty of players ready to walk out on our club to make up for any missing picks. If we make the 8 then nobody will care about a hand full of draft points here or there.

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

It's risky, yes. But the way I see it, if we don't make the 8 next year we won't need to worry because week have plenty of players ready to walk out on our club to make up for any missing picks. If we make the 8 then nobody will care about a hand full of draft points here or there.

It's not just risky, it's a flat out bad deal.

We'd be basically giving away a pick somewhere between pick 7 and pick 30, depending on where we finish.

If we do have another poor year, not only will we lose players, but we will also have sacrificed a much needed top pick.

Crazy.

No giving up pick 3 unless we can fill our needs, with players, deal with gws or maybe gc.

6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It's not just risky, it's a flat out bad deal.

We'd be basically giving away a pick somewhere between pick 7 and pick 30, depending on where we finish.

If we do have another poor year, not only will we lose players, but we will also have sacrificed a much needed top pick.

Crazy.

Could also just get pick 50 from the Hawks for Frost and give pick 42 in the 4 way trade. That would make your calculator look nicer but the ins and outs for the club would remain the same

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Could also just get pick 50 from the Hawks for Frost and give pick 42 in the 4 way trade. That would make your calculator look nicer but the ins and outs for the club would remain the same

It doesn't. It still means we lose a decent pick for absolutely no reason.

 

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by Lord Nev

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It doesn't. It still means we lose a (probable) first round pick for nothing.

 

Pick 30 belongs to the Hawks. So it can't be included in our trade outs. Still a fair price but make 8th and pick 9 jumps to 12 and the value goes from 38 to 50

 

 

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by ArtificialWisdom
Hit enter too early

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Pick 30 belongs to the Hawks. So it can't be included in our trade outs

 

 

Yeah apologies, I realized after I posted and then edited my post.

We're still giving up a decent pick for no good reason though.

Also worth noting in that scenario Frost is not assigned any points, so we're giving up Frost AND a decent pick.

 

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by Lord Nev

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah apologies, I realized after I posted and then edited my post.

We're still giving up a decent pick for no good reason though.

Ah My bad I didn't see your change. I get the concerns but I also think that we are in the position to back ourselves with 2 top 10 picks now. Next trade period we can work on getting back up the draft, that's what good clubs do. There's every chance it back fires horribly, but I think we have to eventually take that risk to get to success. 

5 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Ah My bad I didn't see your change. I get the concerns but I also think that we are in the position to back ourselves with 2 top 10 picks now. Next trade period we can work on getting back up the draft, that's what good clubs do. There's every chance it back fires horribly, but I think we have to eventually take that risk to get to success. 

I get where you're coming from, I just think it's a no win for us.

Even if we win the flag next year, we're still giving away Frost for nothing in that scenario.

 

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

This is the stumbling block for me.  I know others might feel it is fair, but swapping 3 for 14 and 17 just doesn't feel right.  A top 3 pick is a valuable commodity and if we're going to deal it then you expect a pretty darn good return for it, and 14 and 17 isn't it for me.

 

Agree with you 'Wise'.

I think we keep pick 3 unless we can deal 2 picks in the top 10.

On average this is where most talent comes, yep you get some exceptional players in the teens but for every Lynch you get a Cook.

...and as for those quoting points.

Points don't play footy for you, it's a nice little side line to keep people with too much time on their hands busy.

The only time they are of value is if you can trade into a good deal (player).