Splitting Draft Pick 3

[JakovichScissorKick 771]

How about a draft night trade...

picks 3 and 8 to Gold Coast for pick 2 and a later pick

We draft Noah Anderson and all is well.

[Males 578]

2 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

How about a draft night trade...

picks 3 and 8 to Gold Coast for pick 2 and a later pick

We draft Noah Anderson and all is well.

I’d love Anderson, but considering GC’s main argument for being given pick 2 was to pick Anderson, who is good mates with Rowell, can’t see it happening.

[Clintosaurus 7,913]

I would not trade out of pick 3. [censored] GWS. Kemp at 3 and one of Flanders/Serong at 8. Kemp will not get past Sydney.

[rumpole 534]

The reality is that GWS has apparently  offered us Pick 6 and their 2020 first rounder for Pick 3.

This effectively gives them two top five selections while we go down three places in the draft order with Pick 6 and could possibly get a pick in the late teens in what looms as a highly compromised draft next year. 

If we were to accept that offer, we would be royally screwed over and our recruiting people would deserve our contempt.

GWS need to work a lot harder, otherwise we take 3 and 8 into the draft or simply split our picks with someone else.

[deebug 1,754]

Stuff, gws, why in the hell should we help them?

If our club caves into them, then they should be sacked.

I was all for splitting the pick if gws offered a player up in the trade, but they didn't, so case of bad luck.

If any one at the club reads this DO NOT GIVE UP OUR PICK 3.

[Fat Tony 5,291]

36 minutes ago, rumpole said:

The reality is that GWS has apparently  offered us Pick 6 and their 2020 first rounder for Pick 3.

This effectively gives them two top five selections while we go down three places in the draft order with Pick 6 and could possibly get a pick in the late teens in what looms as a highly compromised draft next year. 

If we were to accept that offer, we would be royally screwed over and our recruiting people would deserve our contempt.

GWS need to work a lot harder, otherwise we take 3 and 8 into the draft or simply split our picks with someone else.

What if we can get the same player we ideally want anyway at #6? Or if we don’t have a strong preference between the draft class?

[JakovichScissorKick 771]

We arent trading pick 3 for GWS and their 2020 1st rounder.

Mahoney has made it clear with the North trade he doesnt rate the 2020 draft, which is also the most compromised in history.

GWS 1st rounder in 2020 will be more like a pick 25-30 in a normal draft.

[Mach5 4,768]

With all the academy selections next year, teams with these selections will need to trade for later picks as points.

I say we take 6, the 1st rounder and a handful of later picks for next year, which we’ll be able to parlay into something of more substance.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Mach5

[deebug 1,754]

8 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

We arent trading pick 3 for GWS and their 2020 1st rounder.

Mahoney has made it clear with the North trade he doesnt rate the 2020 draft, which is also the most compromised in history.

GWS 1st rounder in 2020 will be more like a pick 25-30 in a normal draft.

Thank goodness?

[Colm 2,188]

I’ve changed my mind on splitting pick 3. Now think we should just take best available at pick 3.                                    Also think we should do full due dillegence on Freo academy player Henry for pick 8 and let out interest be known. He is rated as best small forward in most draft articles. He may be a good option for us but even if he’s not it would be no harm to have Freo concerned that we may take him before their pick 10 and in effect  cost them a top 10 pick. Freo will also be concerned Carlton may pick Henry  

Then come draft night, depending on how things fall we could always try to split pick 8 for pick 10 and 22 if we know we can get player we are after at 10. Perhaps a goal scoring mid or small forward. Which ever type we miss out on we can go for at 22. Which means we could get half back in Young at 3 handy midfielder like Stephens or Robertson at 10 and small forward like Taylor at 22  

If things don’t fall our way we just use pick 8 on player we want. 

 

[KingDingAling 3,758]

GWS need to get serious. Pick 6 and next years first rounder is a joke. We have pick 3 and they need it otherwise they are going to be using pick 6 on Greene. Our pick 3 is valuable and they will need to offer up a hell of a lot more than anything I have seen them offer so far. They need to convince us to part with pick 3 and so far they are doing a terrible job. But its in their best interests to get serious and offer overs. And they will.

[PaulRB 6,422]

32 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

GWS need to get serious. Pick 6 and next years first rounder is a joke. We have pick 3 and they need it otherwise they are going to be using pick 6 on Greene. Our pick 3 is valuable and they will need to offer up a hell of a lot more than anything I have seen them offer so far. They need to convince us to part with pick 3 and so far they are doing a terrible job. But its in their best interests to get serious and offer overs. And they will.

I don’t think GWS have the currency to do a deal that would sate us. Them getting Green and another top 10 this year won’t happen, as a result. 

And that’s only a good thing.

Edited October 20, 2019 by PaulRB

[KingDingAling 3,758]

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

I don’t think GWS have the currency to do a deal that would sate us. Them getting Green and another top 10 this year won’t happen, as a result. 

And that’s only a good thing.

They will have to live trade themselves into something that may tempt us then. Otherwise they will have to use their first round pick on Greene, which would only be down to laziness on their part not to come up with a tempting deal for us. I suspect they will. It would be a failure for them to have to use pick 6 on Greene.

[Demon3 2,541]

I heard not long ago that pick 3 will head west to Freo, leaving us with 7,8 & 10. 3 picks inside the top 10. 

Cue.. who's your source and all that, but thats from someone who would have a good idea. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Demon3

[adonski 12,610]

9 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

I heard not long ago that pick 3 will head west to Freo, leaving us with 7,8 & 10. 3 picks inside the top 10. 

Cue.. who's your source and all that, but thats from someone who would have a good idea. 

7 & 10 for 3 seems like massive overs, surely Big Bell wouldn’t allow that 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

1 minute ago, adonski said:

7 & 10 for 3 seems like massive overs, surely Big Bell wouldn’t allow that 

Not really when we indicate that we would bid on Henry at 8 (as the small fwd we are after) meaning they would loose 10 as a result. If freo did this they would get the pick of the players at 3 ( instead of whats left at 7) and Henry with later picks.

[Demon3 2,541]

4 minutes ago, adonski said:

7 & 10 for 3 seems like massive overs, surely Big Bell wouldn’t allow that 

yeah its good for us, but who knows what they might do with 3, they might then split it with GWS.. all i got told is that Freo are right in the mix to deal with us for pick 3. 

[Dees247 140]

1 hour ago, Demon3 said:

I heard not long ago that pick 3 will head west to Freo, leaving us with 7,8 & 10. 3 picks inside the top 10. 

Cue.. who's your source and all that, but thats from someone who would have a good idea. 

If true, this would be the ideal result for us. But I agree, I don't think that Bell would go for it, unless we threw in next years 2nd or similar, to make the trade look better on paper.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Dees247

[Dees247 140]

4 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

If true, this would be the ideal result for us. But I agree, I don't think that Bell would go for it, unless we threw in next years 2nd or similar, to make the trade look better on paper.

Also, I doubt this is true to start with, as I heard Henry will not be bid on till 10-15

Edited October 22, 2019 by Dees247

[daisycutter 29,797]

5 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

If true, this would be the ideal result for us. But I agree, I don't think that Bell would go for it, unless we threw in next years 2nd or similar, to make the trade look better on paper.

we can't trade next years 2nd because we don't have a 1st (unless we can get another 2nd before 2020 nd)

[Gawn's Beard 378]

1 hour ago, Demon3 said:

yeah its good for us, but who knows what they might do with 3, they might then split it with GWS.. all i got told is that Freo are right in the mix to deal with us for pick 3. 

Just tell them we’ll do it but only 30 seconds before deadline so they can’t ontrade. 

[Neitz the Great 555]

Would it be fair for all clubs if it went 

Melb: Out: 3 In: 7, 10

Freo: Out: 7, 10 In: 6, GWS future 1st

GWS: Out: 6, Future 1st In: 3 

If we are going to bid on Henry at 8 then Freo lose 10 anyway so they would be upgrading their First pick by 1, getting a future first and therefore not having to 'lose' a pick on Henry.

[Demon3 2,541]

3 minutes ago, Neitz the Great said:

Would it be fair for all clubs if it went 

Melb: Out: 3 In: 7, 10

Freo: Out: 7, 10 In: 6, GWS future 1st

GWS: Out: 6, Future 1st In: 3 

If we are going to bid on Henry at 8 then Freo lose 10 anyway so they would be upgrading their First pick by 1, getting a future first and therefore not having to 'lose' a pick on Henry.

Yep that is what i was thinking. having 3 picks inside the top 10 would be a wonderful result, keeping in mind we wouldn't have a 1st rounder next year, but a second rounder which after academy and FS selections, wouldn't be that much different.

[Dees247 140]

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we can't trade next years 2nd because we don't have a 1st (unless we can get another 2nd before 2020 nd)

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but is it ok to trade the 2nd, because it came from the Hawks?

[daisycutter 29,797]

2 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but is it ok to trade the 2nd, because it came from the Hawks?

yeah it's ok. do we have 2 2nds for 2020 now? if so can trade either one and still satisfy rules for no 1st