17 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Im hearing pick 3 for 6 and 11 and swaps of later picks

 

Would be happy with a Stephens and Weightman combo. The two paragraphs I've read and the zero footage I've seen of them sounds promising.

19 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not sure Hawks will give up 11 for just the two they are known to want:  Patton and Bonar.  They will want something/someone back.

Unless they are going to compensate GWS for the steal involving HWSNBN last year.

yep does seem a bit high for 2 blokes with about 5 knee recons between them.

Maybe GWS can throw in a future pick to the Hawks

11 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not sure Hawks will give up 11 for just the two they are known to want:  Patton and Bonar.  They will want something/someone back.

Unless they are going to compensate GWS for the steal involving HWSNBN last year.

Yeah I agree. Not sure how that gets done.

Time will tell.

Happy to take pick 3 to the draft but also would be over the moon to split and have two picks in the top 15.

5 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not sure Hawks will give up 11 for just the two they are known to want:  Patton and Bonar.  They will want something/someone back.

Unless they are going to compensate GWS for the steal involving HWSNBN last year.

Agree, not a hope of that happening. There'd have to be another club involved... But then again, that club could be us

Giants also need picks between 3 and their next pick at 40 to pay for Green. No sense getting to pick 3 if they don't have points after. Currently their other picks all add up to 733 points. Well short of the 1500+ needed if he goes top 5. 

29 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Im hearing pick 3 for 6 and 11 and swaps of later picks

Where did you “hear” this?

8 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Agree, not a hope of that happening. There'd have to be another club involved... But then again, that club could be us

Giants also need picks between 3 and their next pick at 40 to pay for Green. No sense getting to pick 3 if they don't have points after. Currently their other picks all add up to 733 points. Well short of the 1500+ needed if he goes top 5. 

Agreed it could us.  Hence the suggestion of including one of our future picks with 3. It may dilute the value of picks 6 and 11 a little but it helps GWS get the deal done.

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

36 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Im hearing pick 3 for 6 and 11 and swaps of later picks

That’s prob as good a deal as we can hope for. If we can hold on to 26 as well gives us a very nice hand going to the draft. 

26 minutes ago, Demon Dude said:

yep does seem a bit high for 2 blokes with about 5 knee recons between them.

Hawthorn having pick 11 doesnt help hawks with macguiness if other clubs rate him prior to pick 11. Could be the reason why hawks want to use a pick on him later on in the draft

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by Demon Forever

19 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Agree, not a hope of that happening. There'd have to be another club involved... But then again, that club could be us

Giants also need picks between 3 and their next pick at 40 to pay for Green. No sense getting to pick 3 if they don't have points after. Currently their other picks all add up to 733 points. Well short of the 1500+ needed if he goes top 5. 

Why do Giants need picks after 3 if we deal that pick to them (which I've taken you're implying here) Gold Coast for sure wont be placing a bid on Tom Green. Once they get to 3 they're in the box seat to land him. What I can't see is the Hawks giving up 11 which they'll use on McGinness. Despite that, the most logical scenario I can see is:

Hawthorn out: 11

GWS out: 6, Bonar, Patton

Melb out: 3, 26

Hawthorn in: Bonar, Patton, 26

GWS in: 3, 42

Melb in: 6, 11

Later pick swaps would have to come into it to balance it out, but at the base of it I reckon that's pretty fair

15 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Hawthorn having pick 11 doesnt help hawks with macguiness if other clubs rate him prior to pick 11. Could be the reason why hawks want to use a pick on him later on in the draft

Ahhhh good point.

It's probably a 50/50 that Maginness isn't bid on by pick 11.

This now makes a lot more sense.

22 minutes ago, Colm said:

That’s prob as good a deal as we can hope for. If we can hold on to 26 as well gives us a very nice hand going to the draft. 

It would also give us greater flexibility into the future as we would use 2 first rounders this year, meaning we can trade future first rounders in more drafts. If we are actually entering our "window" this makes sense.

Go for it Josh.

1 hour ago, Demon Forever said:

Im hearing pick 3 for 6 and 11 and swaps of later picks

Who are you hearing it from?

If we are swapping picks and not players, this can be done later on, up to draft night.

51 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Why do Giants need picks after 3 if we deal that pick to them (which I've taken you're implying here) Gold Coast for sure wont be placing a bid on Tom Green. Once they get to 3 they're in the box seat to land him. What I can't see is the Hawks giving up 11 which they'll use on McGinness. Despite that, the most logical scenario I can see is:

Hawthorn out: 11

GWS out: 6, Bonar, Patton

Melb out: 3, 26

Hawthorn in: Bonar, Patton, 26

GWS in: 3, 42

Melb in: 6, 11

Later pick swaps would have to come into it to balance it out, but at the base of it I reckon that's pretty fair

Who do GWS get 42 from?  Hawks hold it.  Doubt they will give it up to GWS as well as 11.

The core trade would be around 3, 6, 11, Patton, Bonar plus whatever is needed for Hawks to give up 11. 

As I noted earlier, I think it is up to us to sweeten the deal to GWS to pass on to Hawks to get 11.  It might be #26 this year but a future 2nd or 3rd would be better (for us). 

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

Hawks hold pick 42.  Doubt they will give it up to GWS as well as 11.

As I noted earlier, I think it is up to us to sweeten the deal to GWS to enable them to get 11.  It might be #26 this year but a future 2nd or 3rd would be better (for us). 

If I were the Giants I would be laughing at Hawthorn if they seriously came for Bonar (previously a pick 11), Patton (previously pick 1) and only had to pay pick 11 for all that plus other picks coming from us. It seems that Hawthorn seem to be trying to get away with blue murder each trade period and I hope GWS play hardball with them.

1 hour ago, Demon Forever said:

Im hearing pick 3 for 6 and 11 and swaps of later picks

Happy to keep 3. 

Happy to trade for 6 and 11, which could get us Kemp and Stephens/Weightman.

4 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

If I were the Giants I would be laughing at Hawthorn if they seriously came for Bonar (previously a pick 11), Patton (previously pick 1) and only had to pay pick 11 for all that plus other picks coming from us. It seems that Hawthorn seem to be trying to get away with blue murder each trade period and I hope GWS play hardball with them.

Laugh you might but media talk is GWS would let Bonar go for around pick #30 and want 2nd round pick for Patton. 

Original draft pick status is fairly meaningless.  eg HWSNBN was pick 1 and traded last year for 4th round pick.  Papley drafted as a rookie just a few years ago now looks to be traded for #9+/-

If Hawks do give up 11 they will want more value than those two players.

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

Laugh you might but media talk is GWS would let Bonar go for around pick #30 and want 2nd round pick for Patton. 

Original draft pick status is fairly meaningless.  eg HWSNBN was pick 1 and traded last year for 4th round pick.  Papley drafted as a rookie just a few years ago now looks to be traded for #9+/-

I don't think you can lump HWSNBN into the same basket as Bonar who was drafted only 2 years ago and hasnt suffered a nearly career ending leg injury

19 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Why do Giants need picks after 3 if we deal that pick to them (which I've taken you're implying here) Gold Coast for sure wont be placing a bid on Tom Green. Once they get to 3 they're in the box seat to land him. What I can't see is the Hawks giving up 11 which they'll use on McGinness. Despite that, the most logical scenario I can see is:

Hawthorn out: 11

GWS out: 6, Bonar, Patton

Melb out: 3, 26

Hawthorn in: Bonar, Patton, 26

GWS in: 3, 42

Melb in: 6, 11

Later pick swaps would have to come into it to balance it out, but at the base of it I reckon that's pretty fair

Because the Giants won't use pick 3 on him, the whole purpose of trading for a pick before a bid is so they can add another young talent (Young, Serong, whoever) and Tom Green. Most likely if we do trade pick 3, Adelaide will bid for Green at 4. Giants then need to come up with 80% of  2034 which equals 1627 point or the rough equivalent of pick 7.

They only have 40, 59 and 60 at the moment that is worth any points and that only equals 733. They roughly need another 900 points (approx pick 20) to get the required points to match the bid for Green. In summary, Giants still need to acquire more picks/points to achieve this.

31 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Why do Giants need picks after 3 if we deal that pick to them (which I've taken you're implying here) Gold Coast for sure wont be placing a bid on Tom Green. Once they get to 3 they're in the box seat to land him

On that point specifically. The reason the Giants want pick 3 is so they can get a top 5 draftee in and then match any bid that follows for green. Effectively 2 top 5 picks for 1. But to do that they need either pick 3 or 4 as well as a suite of picks possibly in the 2nd and 3rd round after that give them enough points to match any bid

If that's not what their doing then I have no idea why they even bothered to get pick 6. 12 and 18 would have covered the bids easy

Edit: It would appear @Nascent has beat me by a minute

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by ArtificialWisdom

10 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

On that point specifically. The reason the Giants want pick 3 is so they can get a top 5 draftee in and then match any bid that follows for green. Effectively 2 top 5 picks for 1. But to do that they need either pick 3 or 4 as well as a suite of picks possibly in the 2nd and 3rd round after that give them enough points to match any bid

If that's not what their doing then I have no idea why they even bothered to get pick 6. 12 and 18 would have covered the bids easy

Edit: It would appear @Nascent has beat me by a minute

12 & 18 are worth more than 6, so GWS must be after our pick. Also, if they don’t have enough points for Green as well, they just loose points next year, & can still take Green & a player at 3

what do we do if we get 6 and 11?

i would happily give up one of these for Papley 

4 minutes ago, Lord Neville X Flash said:

what do we do if we get 6 and 11?

i would happily give up one of these for Papley 

We want to draft Cody Weightman (I also believe he will become a gun)

25 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

On that point specifically. The reason the Giants want pick 3 is so they can get a top 5 draftee in and then match any bid that follows for green. Effectively 2 top 5 picks for 1. But to do that they need either pick 3 or 4 as well as a suite of picks possibly in the 2nd and 3rd round after that give them enough points to match any bid

If that's not what their doing then I have no idea why they even bothered to get pick 6. 12 and 18 would have covered the bids easy

That's a good point. They could be up to exactly what you're thinking and trying to get as many picks as they can in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (hence the hold up with trades around Patton and Bonar) in order to grab a high end pick and Green. However, whoever holds 3 will undoubtedly bid on Green, so with 6 and later picks they get that done, but I'm not sure what that pick after slides down to? If that's the case, I doubt what they end up with in the trade period in terms of picks will be enough to take a player in the top 10 AND match any bid for Tom Green. For reference Sydney had to use up picks 18, 37, 38 and 57 just to match our bid on Heeney. I also don't know why they gave up 12 and 18 which equate to about 400 or so points above what is required to match our bid for Tom Green.

GWS will likely have 6, 30 and 42 and maybe another 3rd-4th round pick for Patton. Hypothetically we bid on Green at 3, GWS have to use up their pick 6 instantly, and use 37 points worth of pick 30 to match that out bid. Pick 30 slides to about pick 31/32. On that, I really think the reason they did that move with St Kilda was to package up 6 and possibly other picks/players to send our way so they can 100% guarantee having Tom Green at their club. The ball is firmly in our court on this one and we should be driving a hard bargain over it.

EDIT: have seen the replies and appears we're all on the same page with it

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey