1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

You think Bell -end would do that trade?

Unlikely

I went on to say he wouldn't even tho it could work well for them.  Ego is his problem.

40 minutes ago, olisik said:

We could look at alternative splits like with Freo or Gold Coast. We could also look to split pick 8 instead. Fair few options still.

Propose something Oli, because how I see the draft order/what clubs have, nothing looks appealing to me at all.

And please don't give me anything to do with next year's first round.  It's so highly compromised that we are either playing with teams that need their top selections for academy/father-son picks, or are going to finish higher up the ladder meaning their first round pick will blow out significantly.

We must go in to this year with Pick 3 and 8.  Convince me otherwise.

45 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Still think it will be Pick 6 and Future first round pick from GWS for pick 3, it gets us back into the first round next year most likely between 8-15, really we could take either  Young, Serong, Flanders, Ash at 4 and you should be getting a quality player.  Then you look at either  Kemp, McAsey(tall Forward), Weightman at pick 8 or one of the first 4 mentioned slip through

I believe that was offered & knocked back yesterday

3 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

I believe that was offered & knocked back yesterday

Not sure that's right though GTB ... it's what we were hearing but I don't reckon there's any incentive for GWS to obtain pick 3 unless they want a player other than Green. 

It's my reckoning that the existing picks they have are there to match a bid for Green anyway

Right now they've got picks 6,  40 then 59,  60,  80 & 94.

 

18 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

From what others have posted Henry isn't on our radar as a small forward.  Not sure 'threats' are a good way to negotiate.  Would prefer to keep it amicable and slide our 8 to their 10 + +.

Also if Henry goes top 5 they may not match the bid.  Was touted as a low teens bid until Carlton missed out on Papley.

Agree that threats aren't the way to negotiate (and not Mahoney's style).  It only works if we rate Henry and are genuinely prepared to take him.  Given we have another top 10 pick and we need a small forward (and have suggested this is what we'll target in the draft) I think he might be on our radar. 

I'd love to get him as he seems like a very good prospect - but there's lots of draft experts that follow it closer than me.

11 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Propose something Oli, because how I see the draft order/what clubs have, nothing looks appealing to me at all.

And please don't give me anything to do with next year's first round.  It's so highly compromised that we are either playing with teams that need their top selections for academy/father-son picks, or are going to finish higher up the ladder meaning their first round pick will blow out significantly.

We must go in to this year with Pick 3 and 8.  Convince me otherwise.

Hopefully our list management team share the same attitude as you Chazz. All signs are indicating they do. Our default position should be exactly what you said "we must go into this year with Pick 3 and 8". It will therefore be up to GWS and others to put a very strong case forward to us, as to why we should part with Pick 3, or even pick 8 (possibly in relation to Freo and Henry). A fair deal is not going to convince us to part with pick 3 this year. It will need to be massive overs for us to part with pick 3, and GWS are not in a position to offer anything other than overs to us. Because we will bid on Greene, and they will have to pay overs anyway when we do. This is why we are in such a great position at the moment. The cards really have fallen our way. We are even in the box seat for Jack Martin should we wish to take him, regardless of the price on his head we could get something out of Carlton believing we will take him.

56 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Propose something Oli, because how I see the draft order/what clubs have, nothing looks appealing to me at all.

And please don't give me anything to do with next year's first round.  It's so highly compromised that we are either playing with teams that need their top selections for academy/father-son picks, or are going to finish higher up the ladder meaning their first round pick will blow out significantly.

We must go in to this year with Pick 3 and 8.  Convince me otherwise.

Yes next years draft have a lot of top end NGA and Father son picks, with so many clubs looking to cash in, doesn't seem though the MFC is one of these so we still need picks to get access to the talent outside the priority access picks.  I'm the opposite thinking, we need to get back into the first round next year, unless we do have a kid in our NGA or a Father son that we consider a first round pick .

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I went on to say he wouldn't even tho it could work well for them.  Ego is his problem.

if they are only moving 2 places up the (10 for 8)draft we'd need to trade the 2020 second rounder we acquired for their 2020 first round selection 

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

Propose something Oli, because how I see the draft order/what clubs have, nothing looks appealing to me at all.

And please don't give me anything to do with next year's first round.  It's so highly compromised that we are either playing with teams that need their top selections for academy/father-son picks, or are going to finish higher up the ladder meaning their first round pick will blow out significantly.

We must go in to this year with Pick 3 and 8.  Convince me otherwise.

8 to cats for 14 and 17. We are looking at over drafting a player at 8 who could potentially be available at 14.

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by olisik

5 minutes ago, olisik said:

8 to cats for 14 and 17. We are looking at over drafting a player at 8 who could potentially be available at 14.

We'd risk missing out on that player if we do that, Oli. I say stay with 8 and be certain of drafting said player.

Bird in the hand and all. 

51 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

if they are only moving 2 places up the (10 for 8)draft we'd need to trade the 2020 second rounder we acquired for their 2020 first round selection 

I would do that.  Back ourselves to have a good year.

But I suspect Bell just can't get his head around two first rounders for one despite the clear benefits for them.

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I would do that.  Back ourselves to have a good year.

But I suspect Bell just can't get his head around two first rounders for one despite the clear benefits for them.

We have the Hawks future second so no need to back ourselves to have a good year.

giants-still-hunting-for-topfive-pick-despite-trade-period-lockout 

"There have been offers made for it {pick 3}, but at the moment we haven't had anything that's satisfied us," Melbourne footy boss Josh Mahoney said on Wednesday.  "Have we been offered two first-round picks for it? No."

Its been stated several times on DL that Mahoney rejected that offer.  Does anyone have a quote where he actually said we have been offered and have rejected GWS's two first-rounders (pick 6 and their 2020 first round)?  Or has that just been media speculation?

I'm a bit worried that we may consider that deal if it is offered ?.  Definitely wouldn't like to see that trade.  Pick 3 to the Draft!

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Not sure that's right though GTB ... it's what we were hearing but I don't reckon there's any incentive for GWS to obtain pick 3 unless they want a player other than Green. 

It's my reckoning that the existing picks they have are there to match a bid for Green anyway

Right now they've got picks 6,  40 then 59,  60,  80 & 94.

 

Not sure that is right. They traded away 12 and 18 to obtain 6. 12 and 18 are worth more points than 6

See post below (forgot to do the quote bit)

 

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Macca

22 minutes ago, whelan45 said:

Not sure that is right. They traded away 12 and 18 to obtain 6. 12 and 18 are worth more points than 6

Yeah they can get Green with pick 6 if Green has been bid on earlier (picks 3, 4 or 5) but that's it.

The scenario put forward was they trade up to pick 3 and then double-dip. (i.e ... pick another prospect at pick 3 and then use the points from their remaining picks to claim Green if Green is bid on after they've had their pick 3)

The trouble with that is that picks 40,  59,  60,  80 & 94 doesn't carry enough points to end up being 80% of say pick 4.  Those picks add up to 743 points.

Pick 4 is worth 2034 point.  Pick 5 1878 points & Pick 6 1751 points.

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yeah they can get Green with pick 6 if Green has been bid on earlier (picks 3, 4 or 5) but that's it.

The scenario put forward was they trade up to pick 3 and then double-dip. (i.e ... pick another prospect at pick 3 and then use the points from their remaining picks to claim Green if Green is bid on after they've had their pick 3)

The trouble with that is that picks 40,  59,  60,  80 & 94 doesn't carry enough points to end up being 80% of say pick 4.  Those picks add up to 743 points.

Pick 4 is worth 2034 point.  Pick 5 1878 points & Pick 6 1751 points.

I can't be bothered working out GWS' exact deficit limit but they have it covered

AFL.com (2015): "The introduction of the ability to trade future draft picks has seen the AFL look more closely at its points-based bidding system for father-son and academy players and iron out some anomalies. 

It has led to the AFL setting a points deficit limit for clubs bidding on father-son and academy players.

The limit will be set at 1723 points, which is the equivalent of the group of picks that will be assigned to the premiership team each year: selections No.18, 36, 54 and 72.

If a team trades future draft picks in or out, their deficit limit will be altered according to how many selections they hold.

For instance, if a team acquires an extra first-round pick for the following year they have a deficit limit of 2708 points (the standard 1723 plus 985 points, the value for pick No.18).

Conversely if a club trades out its future second-round pick, it will have a deficit limit of 1221 points (1723 minus 502 points, the value for pick No.36)."

49 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I can't be bothered working out GWS' exact deficit limit but they have it covered

AFL.com (2015): "The introduction of the ability to trade future draft picks has seen the AFL look more closely at its points-based bidding system for father-son and academy players and iron out some anomalies. 

It has led to the AFL setting a points deficit limit for clubs bidding on father-son and academy players.

The limit will be set at 1723 points, which is the equivalent of the group of picks that will be assigned to the premiership team each year: selections No.18, 36, 54 and 72.

If a team trades future draft picks in or out, their deficit limit will be altered according to how many selections they hold.

For instance, if a team acquires an extra first-round pick for the following year they have a deficit limit of 2708 points (the standard 1723 plus 985 points, the value for pick No.18).

Conversely if a club trades out its future second-round pick, it will have a deficit limit of 1221 points (1723 minus 502 points, the value for pick No.36)."

Example form might work best for those not up to par with the workings

Let's just say that no club bids on Tom Green before GWS's pick 6.  And then GWS then pick another player from the draft using pick 6 (not an academy player (Green for instance) or father/son player)

And then a club bids on Green at pick 7.  How does GWS then secure Green?  At the moment they hold picks 40,  59,  60,  80 & 94 and that adds up to 743 points.  Can they get points from elsewhere or by some other means?

 

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Example form might work best for those not up to par with the workings

Let's just say that no club bids on Tom Green before GWS's pick 6.  And then GWS then pick another player from the draft using pick 6 (not an academy player (Green for instance) or father/son player)

And then a club bids on Green at pick 7.  How does GWS then secure Green?  At the moment they hold picks 40,  59,  60,  80 & 94 and that adds up to 743 points.  Can they get points from elsewhere or by some other means?

 

They can go into deficit for next year. 

Just now, Skuit said:

They can go into deficit for next year. 

Now I get it ... thanks Skuit. 

But I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by it all but their 'deficit' could be quite hefty,  all the same. 

As an example the difference between pick 4 (less 20% discount) and picks 40, 59, 60,  80 & 94 is 875 points ... 1628 versus 743. 

Which is the equivalent of about pick 21.

So they can secure another player and then Green if they got hold of pick 3.  As it stands,  they are almost certainly going to have to use pick 6 on Green.  A club higher up in the order will probably bid on him

And because of that,  the swapping of picks involving our pick 3 is still on the agenda.  It's back to the point where they (GWS) won't want to use pick 6 on Green. 

And again,  if we've knocked back pick 6 and next year's 1st round pick then what's it going to take? And can a deal even be reached?

 

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Melbourne or GWS say that an offer of 6 & 2020 1st was actually made. I know it was in the media a lot, but I haven't actually heard it from the clubs themselves. I suspect we would like to balance our draft hand, going into next years draft, for many reasons, for example, if we want to trade in a player for 2 first rounders. For that reason, I suspect we will take the offer, unless we get a better one from another club.

13 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Melbourne or GWS say that an offer of 6 & 2020 1st was actually made. I know it was in the media a lot, but I haven't actually heard it from the clubs themselves. I suspect we would like to balance our draft hand, going into next years draft, for many reasons, for example, if we want to trade in a player for 2 first rounders. For that reason, I suspect we will take the offer, unless we get a better one from another club.

Next years first rounder won't have the value to help with a trade as most teams are unlikely to want a first round pick which will effectively be a 2nd round pick after academy and F/S selections.

Essentially we would be trading for a swap of 3 to 6 and a second round pick. It's not really worth it when you consider if we were to do the trade it helps GWS more than it helps us. They get 2 top 5 players in a draft and we dilute our draft hand and get effectively a 2nd round pick next year. Who wins that deal? It's not us.

Unless the player we want at 3 is there at 6. Then we get a free 1st/second round pick in next years draft. E.g. Young might be the logical pick 3, and say we want serong or another.. makes it interesting.

2 hours ago, Bonkers said:

Next years first rounder won't have the value to help with a trade as most teams are unlikely to want a first round pick which will effectively be a 2nd round pick after academy and F/S selections.

Essentially we would be trading for a swap of 3 to 6 and a second round pick. It's not really worth it when you consider if we were to do the trade it helps GWS more than it helps us. They get 2 top 5 players in a draft and we dilute our draft hand and get effectively a 2nd round pick next year. Who wins that deal? It's not us.

Hallelujah. Finally common sense! There is a God 

17 hours ago, drdrake said:

Still think it will be Pick 6 and Future first round pick from GWS for pick 3, it gets us back into the first round next year most likely between 8-15, really we could take either  Young, Serong, Flanders, Ash at 4 and you should be getting a quality player.  Then you look at either  Kemp, McAsey(tall Forward), Weightman at pick 8 or one of the first 4 mentioned slip through

Future first is likely to be in the 20's  Just not enough!