1 minute ago, rjay said:

 

Agree with you 'Wise'.

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

We're not getting two top 10 picks for pick 3, especially this year.

 

This is the most boring trade week ever

only consolation is the Bombers being in complete disarray. 

I'm holding onto 3 unless we can split it into at least 1 selection in the top 10 and one just outside. The whole point of splitting it was to use those picks for trading in ready-made talent, however its looking like there's relatively little of that available at the moment that would even warrant using those picks. Regardless, I'd like to think we can back ourselves to use pick 3 on an absolute gun rather than some players in that 12-18 range that might be good. I know we've f'd up previously with some of them, but given our last few ones with Oliver, Salem, Trac, these guys look like they know what they're doing.

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

We're not getting two top 10 picks for pick 3, especially this year.

 

Simple, then we keep pick 3...

That's what I'm saying.

If anyone doesn't read your posts and want to give us 2 picks then we take them.

...but as you say, it's not going to happen.

So...why should we trade down if we can't get what we want!!!

Makes no sense to me.

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

This is the most boring trade week ever

only consolation is the Bombers being in complete disarray. 

It's just the same thing over and over again, it's just boring. Add to that nothing getting done, makes this one of the worst trade period ever.

9 minutes ago, rjay said:

Simple, then we keep pick 3...

That's what I'm saying.

If anyone doesn't read your posts and want to give us 2 picks then we take them.

...but as you say, it's not going to happen.

So...why should we trade down if we can't get what we want!!!

Makes no sense to me.

Because, as we should know better than anyone, high picks don't always equal gun players.

So getting 2 first round picks for the price of 1 gives us a great chance of getting something good, particularly in what most people are saying is a fairly even first round after the top 2 picks.

 

It was said today on Trade Radio that GWS were still looking to trade up for a better pick. I still believe that they are after pick 3, to get the extra pick first. I suspect they are trying to upgrade picks, that involve 18, to turn it into a top 10 pick, to go with 12, to offer us. I would expect that they would be talking to us, whilst doing this, to make sure we would take the deal.

2 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

It was said today on Trade Radio that GWS were still looking to trade up for a better pick. I still believe that they are after pick 3, to get the extra pick first. I suspect they are trying to upgrade picks, that involve 18, to turn it into a top 10 pick, to go with 12, to offer us. I would expect that they would be talking to us, whilst doing this, to make sure we would take the deal.

Fully agree, they'd love an early pick then to take Green later on.

We're in the box seat on this one as GC of course won't bid

 

Do any other sports use this points system for picks?

Seems meaningless to me.  The worth of those picks would change from year to year based on how deep and talented the draft is.  Pick 20 might be a really handy pick one year and kinda average the next.  I'm surprised we do this to be honest.

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Do any other sports use this points system for picks?

Seems meaningless to me.  The worth of those picks would change from year to year based on how deep and talented the draft is.  Pick 20 might be a really handy pick one year and kinda average the next.  I'm surprised we do this to be honest.

Totally agree WB. I reckon we'll keep 3 unless its a really solid deal, i.e two first round picks and a player possibly.

Just saying with 3 we are in the box seat, lets see how desperate they are for it.

edit.* I don't think we are looking to trade it for later first round picks.

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by The Stigga

1 minute ago, The Stigga said:

Totally agree WB. I reckon we'll keep 3 unless its a really solid deal, i.e two first round picks and a player possibly.

Just saying with 3 we are in the box seat, lets see how desperate they are for it.

edit.* I don't think we are looking to trade it for later first round picks.

Yeah, I think we're more than happy to take it to the draft, but we're also happy to dangle it out there to see what bites we get.  If we get a big bite then we've got something to think about, otherwise we take our lot and select a gun kick who can play 200 games for the club.

I think we bid for Tom Green and make no secret about it.  If GWS want Green and a top pick, they'll try to trade to get ahead of us.

If they don't, they can either lose a pick or lose Green.

We’ve shown we’re happy to bid on academy players if they’re talented enough. We bid on both Heeney and Mills.

Hopefully the threat of that is a push for GWS to trade up and split our pick.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Do any other sports use this points system for picks?

Seems meaningless to me.  The worth of those picks would change from year to year based on how deep and talented the draft is.  Pick 20 might be a really handy pick one year and kinda average the next.  I'm surprised we do this to be honest.

Fair question Wise, but it obviously come down to what plan our recruiting team have. If the consensus is that we could get 2 players we rate v's 1 with pick 3, obvs it makes sense to "split the pick" (Quote marks as thats what most are calling it. I just consider it a pick swap, but either way it means the same thing)

Points are just an attempt to put a value on each pick so trades can be controlled by league HQ. If you couldnt trade, nobody would have wasted the effort to put points value on them imo. In this case, i get where the AFL is coming from. It rules out totally lopsided trades and other dodgy business (or stupid trades by desperate list managers)

Im ok if they swap it for 2 later first rounders because the whole recruiting team would already know what they want, and have some idea what will be available if we have those 2 later picks. Who knows, we may well be planning to trade at least one of those picks for a ready made gap-filler. With Tomlinson and Langdon we have already had a good trade period (although i also really want a good forward crumber) so anything else is cream on top imo.

 

2 minutes ago, ding said:

Fair question Wise, but it obviously come down to what plan our recruiting team have. If the consensus is that we could get 2 players we rate v's 1 with pick 3, obvs it makes sense to "split the pick" (Quote marks as thats what most are calling it. I just consider it a pick swap, but either way it means the same thing)

Points are just an attempt to put a value on each pick so trades can be controlled by league HQ. If you couldnt trade, nobody would have wasted the effort to put points value on them imo. In this case, i get where the AFL is coming from. It rules out totally lopsided trades and other dodgy business (or stupid trades by desperate list managers)

Im ok if they swap it for 2 later first rounders because the whole recruiting team would already know what they want, and have some idea what will be available if we have those 2 later picks. Who knows, we may well be planning to trade at least one of those picks for a ready made gap-filler. With Tomlinson and Langdon we have already had a good trade period (although i also really want a good forward crumber) so anything else is cream on top imo.

 

I just don't think the points would be of much importance to clubs as they seemingly are to the fan on the street.  I understand why they have done it, but it seems short sighted to me.

Let's say we are keen for a couple of players who we believe we fall in the last first round or early second, and they are players who we think are of high quality.  They would dangle that pick 3 for, say, picks 14 and 18 and possibly something else thrown in and feel like we're adding three quality players and people to our list as opposed to just one.  There is slight risk involved, as there always is when drafting kids, but I don't think the club would care re: the points and what the AFL says they are worth.  

18 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I just don't think the points would be of much importance to clubs as they seemingly are to the fan on the street.  I understand why they have done it, but it seems short sighted to me.

Let's say we are keen for a couple of players who we believe we fall in the last first round or early second, and they are players who we think are of high quality.  They would dangle that pick 3 for, say, picks 14 and 18 and possibly something else thrown in and feel like we're adding three quality players and people to our list as opposed to just one.  There is slight risk involved, as there always is when drafting kids, but I don't think the club would care re: the points and what the AFL says they are worth.  

Yep, the points values are just a rough way of comparing trade values, like we did with Lever. I thought it was a lop-sided trade at the time (still do based purely on Jakes output SO FAR but we clearly coudnt have known that at the time ). When it was explained that the points of the picks involved had us paying something like pick 6 (?) i calmed down a bit. 6 for a fully fit and in-form Lever wasnt so bad if he was consistently on the park, but like i said we couldnt know he would get injured......

Anyway, you are right that each draft will be different, and pick 10 points in this draft might be very different to the same points in a weaker (Or stronger) draft, but they had to start somewhere, and i think this system isnt the worst thing the AFL has ever come up with. We can all agree that the League could have easily found a worse way of doing things. 

As for the bolded part, i think it would have at least some value to clubs in negotiations as it gives a negotiating start-point for trades as the AFL has made rules regarding how close in points value trades have to be, to get ticked off. Stops weaker clubs constantly getting shafted by stronger clubs in negotiations.

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by ding

I'm now of the view we should keep 3 and nab Dylan Stephens.

Alternatively Serong, Taheny or Bergman for some goal kicking X factor.

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I think we bid for Tom Green and make no secret about it.  If GWS want Green and a top pick, they'll try to trade to get ahead of us.

If they don't, they can either lose a pick or lose Green.

Been thinking about this after listening to their list manager on trade radio this morning. He seemed to be saying they are sniffing around the Daniher trade. I assume for pick 5. Isnt Green an inside mid?! Giants will know we are stacked in that department.Not sure what Adelaide’s priorities are but maybe not an inside mid. 

If giants can get a hold of pick 5 and put it out there that they won’t give it up for Green then maybe we don’t have any real bargaining power with them for pick 3. 

Don't forget you can trade picks right up until draft night.  A pick split doesn't have to happen during trade period. So in theory if its just a picks for picks trade we could do it once we are on the clock.

19 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Don't forget you can trade picks right up until draft night.  A pick split doesn't have to happen during trade period. So in theory if its just a picks for picks trade we could do it once we are on the clock.

True, could give us some bargaining power on and leading into draft night pending other clubs intentions. Removes the element of getting a player from a deal though.

Geelong are looking to trade up the order.  Wells:  “There’s some players we would certainly be interested in trading up if we could be sure of picking them and I guess the best way to get that is to have pick three.”  cats-consider-options-with-newly-acquired-draft-picks/

Edited October 9, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Geelong are looking to trade up the order.  Wells:  “There’s some players we would certainly be interested in trading up if we could be sure of picking them and I guess the best way to get that is to have pick three.”  cats-consider-options-with-newly-acquired-draft-picks/

They can have it if the want to pay up. 

Can't see that they would have the picks to satisfy us, which could mean a player or two coming our way.

Maybe there's some truth in the Tom Hawkins "rumour", but can't say I'm keen on a bloke turning 32 next year.

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

They can have it if the want to pay up. 

honestly they have nothing i'd trade pick 3 for.

6 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Can't see that they would have the picks to satisfy us, which could mean a player or two coming our way.

Maybe there's some truth in the Tom Hawkins "rumour", but can't say I'm keen on a bloke turning 32 next year.

Couldn't bear the smug so and so prancing around in our red and blue.