32 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

How's Nancy?

Nancy’s pretty rotten at the moment and quiet frankly, I’m not much better.

 Thanks for asking though.

I wonder if it’s possible to trade our picks 97 and 115 for GWS pick 60 and our agreement not to pick Tom Green at 3?

This would enable GWS to do a trade with Adelaide involving a trade of picks 4 and 6 and give us a better third pick down the line for what amounts to no cost.

I still think this is a big change of happening.

GWS have, in terms of 2020 picks:

- GWS 1st round pick

- GWS 2nd round pick 

- GWS 3rd round pick

- North 3rd round pick

I think to satisfy us, it’d have to be pick 6, 1st and 2nd round picks at a minimum. Maybe even a third too. In a very weak & compromised draft, GWS should be content to trade out, just as we’d expect more in return than you normally would.

The other possibility is that we’re simply keeping pick 3, but want to prime GWS for us to bid on Green, to solidify our reputation as straight-shooters and ensure we have more options at 8.

I’d be bloody happy with Green, but they’ll never allow it to happen.

I think GWS have tried to be too cute, not working hard enough to complete a trade using players, or acquiring good enough assets before the end of the trade period, with the assumption that we’ll eventually trade as it gets the best net result for us.

The fly in the ointment is that I’m not sure we’re willing to give a competitor such an advantage without significantly benefitting ourselves (and bringing their position back into line).

Interesting times.

FWIW, someone on a different Melbourne forum is claiming that our initial request from GWS in exchange for pick 3 was:

Pick 6 + 2x further first rounders 

Also says the players we’re mainly interested in are:

Young, Serong, Weightman, Gould, Kemp, Ash in that order 

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

I still think this is a big change of happening.

GWS have, in terms of 2020 picks:

- GWS 1st round pick

- GWS 2nd round pick 

- GWS 3rd round pick

- North 3rd round pick

I think to satisfy us, it’d have to be pick 6, 1st and 2nd round picks at a minimum. Maybe even a third too. In a very weak & compromised draft, GWS should be content to trade out, just as we’d expect more in return than you normally would.

The other possibility is that we’re simply keeping pick 3, but want to prime GWS for us to bid on Green, to solidify our reputation as straight-shooters and ensure we have more options at 8.

I’d be bloody happy with Green, but they’ll never allow it to happen.

I think GWS have tried to be too cute, not working hard enough to complete a trade using players, or acquiring good enough assets before the end of the trade period, with the assumption that we’ll eventually trade as it gets the best net result for us.

The fly in the ointment is that I’m not sure we’re willing to give a competitor such an advantage without significantly benefitting ourselves (and bringing their position back into line).

Interesting times.

I could be wrong, but isn’t there a rule that, if you trade out your future 1st, you can’t trade out picks from any other rounds (unless you have more than one pick in a round)? If this is right, it would mean the best we could hope for is their 1st & a 3rd?

If we do split Pick 3. It has to be with Freo for 7 & 10. 3 Young is a lot to give up!

7 ?????, 8 Stephens & 10 Weightman

If we pass up on Young. Salem needs to take his kicking and daring to another level. He is to Vanilla for me and should be a game breaker from half back. Should be looking at moulding his game on Bachar Houli from the Tigers!

2 hours ago, Dee tention said:

He is to Vanilla for me and should be a game breaker from half back. Should be looking at moulding his game on Bachar Houli from the Tigers!

Agree he is too safe with his kicking.

6 hours ago, adonski said:

FWIW, someone on a different Melbourne forum is claiming that our initial request from GWS in exchange for pick 3 was:

Pick 6 + 2x further first rounders 

Also says the players we’re mainly interested in are:

Young, Serong, Weightman, Gould, Kemp, Ash in that order 

I hope he’s a nuffy who has no idea what he’s talking about then. ?

10 hours ago, Males said:

I hope he’s a nuffy who has no idea what he’s talking about then. ?

I think @adonski is referring to Devastating Boris on Big Footy. He seems to have solid sources/info (well he doesn't get shot down) but would appreciate feedback on his form from Big Footy lurkers. According to D Boris:

Just some bits and pieces I heard yesterday.

Sounds like we’re confident of potentially turning 3&8 into two top 10s and a 15-20, or just 3 into another top 10 and two future firsts. Haven’t got specifics, that’s just the talk.

GWS desperate to get 3. Sounds like they want Jackson and Green. There is no scenario that Green is not matched. Suns could call him first and GWS would match, ignore the inevitable bluffing.

We’re right into Young, Serong, Weightman & Gould. Ash and Kemp are looked at as contingencies apparently. 8 is most likely going on Weightman if we have it.

Crows likely taking Flanders. Swans likely Serong or Young. Both crows and swans will nominate green (depending on GWS trades)

Do we think JT is trying to get into Freos head. 

Freo want Jackson and Robertson at 7 and 10 and use pick 22 plus change to match on a bid for Henry. 
 

Seems Dees could trade 8 for 10 and 22. 
 

Hmmm. Amazingly Freo might be tempted. 
 

 

I think Freo might do it if it guaranteed them another choice on top of Henry.

People need to actually get their head around the fact that maybe JT is actually genuinely interested in Jackson. This whole thing that he's playing games with Freo is just laughable.

Go back to the podcast with Jason Taylor and it actually makes sense why we are targeting Jackson. They see him starting his career as a key forward which is exactly a big need for us as there are still question marks over Weideman.

 

38 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

People need to actually get their head around the fact that maybe JT is actually genuinely interested in Jackson. This whole thing that he's playing games with Freo is just laughable.

Go back to the podcast with Jason Taylor and it actually makes sense why we are targeting Jackson. They see him starting his career as a key forward which is exactly a big need for us as there are still question marks over Weideman.

 

I agree, and think he could legit go at 3, even though I would rather others (same at 8 too)

On 10/26/2019 at 2:26 PM, Elwood 3184 said:

I wonder if it’s possible to trade our picks 97 and 115 for GWS pick 60 and our agreement not to pick Tom Green at 3?

This would enable GWS to do a trade with Adelaide involving a trade of picks 4 and 6 and give us a better third pick down the line for what amounts to no cost.

Yep let's do some draft tampering after our history of tanking... FMD

9 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Do we think JT is trying to get into Freos head. 

Freo want Jackson and Robertson at 7 and 10 and use pick 22 plus change to match on a bid for Henry. 
 

Seems Dees could trade 8 for 10 and 22. 
 

Hmmm. Amazingly Freo might be tempted. 
 

 

Why would we give up so much for 8 to then downgrade it? 3 I can see us maybe doing something with 3 if the offer is good enough, but we payed overs for 8 for a reason.

Young is a lock at 3 with a fair margin between him and the rest.  They wont be splitting it and only a fool would give up Young.

The FD (with a huge shove from Macca) backed their other 2nd KF horse (Weid) years ago and made it known they were all in it together on his re-signing till 2021 and, barring a repeat of 2019 (from Weid), need to live with that call and build the team around him and T-mac as the two KFs until his contract is up.

Edited November 5, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

12 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Young is a lock at 3 with a fair margin between him and the rest.  They wont be splitting it and only a fool would give up Young.

The FD (with a huge shove from Macca) backed their other 2nd KF horse (Weid) years ago and made it known they were all in it together on his re-signing till 2021 and, barring a repeat of 2019 (from Weid), need to live with that call and build the team around him and T-mac as the two KFs until his contract is up.

I think most of us agree we go young at 3. But Im not sure we have to stick with a formula til 2021because a key forward seems to have been sadly  over estimated. Weid will get his chance this year and I hope Im surprised, but aside from ONE game I havent seen him look like a key forward. Not in the air and not on the ground.  I just cant see him being a key in a premiership. 

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Young is a lock at 3 with a fair margin between him and the rest.  They wont be splitting it and only a fool would give up Young.

So you're absolutely guaranteeing Young will be the best player in this draft after Rowell and Anderson?  Big early call.

50 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

So you're absolutely guaranteeing Young will be the best player in this draft after Rowell and Anderson?  Big early call.

He could well end up better...who knows.

I think we will keep 3 now and take Young, it makes sense to me anyway.

I'm not sure what could be on offer that would make us split it...

1 hour ago, rjay said:

He could well end up better...who knows.

I think we will keep 3 now and take Young, it makes sense to me anyway.

I'm not sure what could be on offer that would make us split it...

7 & 10.

1 hour ago, Dees247 said:

7 & 10.

Depends on how you rate the player at 3...

One great player v 2 average players.

It could be so even that we end up with 2 good players v one good player.

Hope we make the right call.

Honestly I'd split both picks and get 4 high quality top 20 kids in. Maybe you end up with 1 star, 2 solid players and 1 bust.

But....

If you can get 1 elite player then you have to do that. 

Young's kicking is special
Jackson's movement at his size is special
Kemp's movement and skills for his size are special (bearing in mind the ACL)
Tom Green's clearance work is off the charts.

The argument against trading pick 3 is to get a great player with rare abilities. 

Pick 8 I'm more for trading as I'm not sure there will be a special player left on the board for us to pick, but again it's a matter of how deep the list of high quality players on our board goes.

On today’s Road to the Draft Podcast, they said that the Dees were keen to split pick 8, and suggested we might do it with the Cats, for 14 & 17. Also suggested Weightman might still be there at those picks. Went on to say that we weren’t going to risk loosing the player we want at 8 though. So I’d assume if we (somehow) knew we would get Weightman at 14, we would trade 8, take Weightman at 14, and take 17 to the draft.

4 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

So you're absolutely guaranteeing Young will be the best player in this draft after Rowell and Anderson?  Big early call.

Going by the history of the draft, it's highly likely Rowell and/or Anderson will not be the best player/s in the draft.

6 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Going by the history of the draft, it's highly likely Rowell and/or Anderson will not be the best player/s in the draft.

Exactly.