Splitting Draft Pick 3

[Dees247 140]

43 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

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.

I forgot to mention that they also said that Kemp may be there at 14 and 17 too. If we could get Kemp and Weightman (for pick 8) it would be a no brainer

Edited November 6, 2019 by Dees247

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

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.

[Colm 2,190]

18 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. 
 

 

Yeah I’m saying this a few weeks now. Just listened to JT interview again and I’m even more convinced we will do this deal with Freo it just makes sense for all parties. Think we will bid on Green at 3 and then take either Young or Jackson. Take best mid available at 10 and best small forward available at 22. 

[old55 23,833]

2 hours 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.

Yes so it's pretty rash to say:

"Young is a lock at 3 with a fair margin between him and the rest.  "

[Lucifers Hero 40,516]

3 hours ago, Dees247 said:

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.

I take that was with Wells from Geelong?  I reckon that deal is wishful thinking on their part. 

Why would we trade out pick 26, 50 (which will come back in to the low 40's) and 2020 first round pick (possibly 8 to 10 if we miss finals or pick 10-14 by making finals) for North's pick 8, to then trade it out for 14 and 17 (likely to be 16 and 20 after F/S and Academy picks), to Geelong?  Rolling the dice and hoping that Weightman (or whoever) is there at 16 is sheer folly.

A few clubs want to trade up into the top 10.  GCS is one.  Competition means if a club wants pick 8 they need to pay up for it.  People might make a case for a Geelong deal based on draft points but if a pick is in demand the market sets the price.  Two late 1st round picks just doesn't cut it.

[JakovichScissorKick 771]

17 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I take that was with Wells from Geelong?  I reckon that deal is wishful thinking on their part. 

Why would we trade out pick 26, 50 (which will come back in to the low 40's) and 2020 first round pick (possibly 8 to 10 if we miss finals or pick 10-14 by making finals) for North's pick 8, to then trade it out for 14 and 17 (likely to be 16 and 20 after F/S and Academy picks), to Geelong?  Rolling the dice and hoping that Weightman (or whoever) is there at 16 is sheer folly.

A few clubs want to trade up into the top 10.  GCS is one.  Competition means if a club wants pick 8 they need to pay up for it.  People might make a case for a Geelong deal based on draft points but if a pick is in demand the market sets the price.  Two late 1st round picks just doesn't cut it.

I bet Geelong are trying to trade into the top 10 to get their filthy paws on Brodie Kemp.  Would be a nice succession plan for Selwood.

God I hope we dont trade with them.

[spirit of norm smith 16,615]

Yes tell Cats to take a long walk off a short pier

[Dees247 140]

This is from the Pickett thread:

"Cal Twomey said he wouldn't be surprised if we split pick 8 for two picks in the teen to really zero in and select Pickett."

[Damo 3,437]

What about trading pick 3 and 8 for Pick 2 from the Suns?

[Demon Forever 219]

2 hours ago, Damo said:

What about trading pick 3 and 8 for Pick 2 from the Suns?

No damo. Just NO

[adonski 12,907]

3 hours ago, Dees247 said:

This is from the Pickett thread:

"Cal Twomey said he wouldn't be surprised if we split pick 8 for two picks in the teen to really zero in and select Pickett."

Don’t mind it if it resulted in getting Weightman & Pickett with those picks. 

[Mach5 4,768]

3 for 7 & 10 would be a great result.

Not sure any other options seem quite good enough. Geelong’s picks don’t really excite me.

Having 7, 8 & 10 does.

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

Observation: if an 18 YO Charlie Spargo was available in this draft, how many posters would be calling for us to split 8 so we could have a shot at drafting him?

Much better off taking 3 and 8 to the draft IMO, unless a ridiculous deal presents itself. Nail them both, and fingers crossed we won't be discussing top 10 picks for a while (and hopefully not just because we traded next year's pick).

 

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

3 for 7 & 10 would be a great result.

Not sure any other options seem quite good enough. Geelong’s picks don’t really excite me.

Having 7, 8 & 10 does.

Always worth looking at those deals from the other side: would you trade 7 & 10 for pick 3? Ambitious to say the least.

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

3 for 7 & 10 would be a great result.

Not sure any other options seem quite good enough. Geelong’s picks don’t really excite me.

Having 7, 8 & 10 does.

That depends on how badly we want first pick after GCS. If we have a player in mind for our first pick and we really want him and know he won't be there after pick 3, then no way would you trade.

If the club aren't sure that there is a clear third choice, then they may consider it. Free probably have 3 Players in their sights and having two picks almost guarantee at least 2 and maybe all three of their choices.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

24 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Observation: if an 18 YO Charlie Spargo was available in this draft, how many posters would be calling for us to split 8 so we could have a shot at drafting him?

Much better off taking 3 and 8 to the draft IMO, unless a ridiculous deal presents itself. Nail them both, and fingers crossed we won't be discussing top 10 picks for a while (and hopefully not just because we traded next year's pick).

 

That's a random question and if you changed Spargo to Frisch I am sure the answers you would get would change substantially.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Watts the matter

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

 

23 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

That's a random question and if you changed Spargo to Frisch I am sure the answers you would get would change substantially.

Not really a valid comparison - completely different players. My point is, there are a lot of calls for us to split a top ten pick - in part, to give us a shot at a small forward expected to be taken mid-draft (much like Spargo was). 

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

"Young and Jacksons" have a truckload of my money on them already........

[Mach5 4,768]

7 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

 

Not really a valid comparison - completely different players. My point is, there are a lot of calls for us to split a top ten pick - in part, to give us a shot at a small forward expected to be taken mid-draft (much like Spargo was). 

Yeah, nah.

[Mickey 4,756]

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

3 for 7 & 10 would be a great result.

Not sure any other options seem quite good enough. Geelong’s picks don’t really excite me.

Having 7, 8 & 10 does.

It would be great for us, but I just don't see Freo doing it.

They will be keen on Jackson and Robertson. At least one of them will still be there at 7, maybe both.

No one will bid on Henry before 7. At worst, they pick at 7 and pay 10 for Henry. At best, they get players at 7 and 10, and pay for Henry with later picks.

If they trade 3, at best the get a player at 3 (who might be there at 7), and pay for Henry with later picks. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do they trade unless they really, really rate someone.

[Mach5 4,768]

2 hours ago, Good Lord George said:

It would be great for us, but I just don't see Freo doing it.

They will be keen on Jackson and Robertson. At least one of them will still be there at 7, maybe both.

No one will bid on Henry before 7. At worst, they pick at 7 and pay 10 for Henry. At best, they get players at 7 and 10, and pay for Henry with later picks.

If they trade 3, at best the get a player at 3 (who might be there at 7), and pay for Henry with later picks. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do they trade unless they really, really rate someone.

 

That’s why it would be a great deal. I don’t see it happening, and we’ll only trade pick 3 if we come out on top, naturally.

I also don’t buy the idea that Freo will be fixated on certain players simply because they’re from WA. But like you said, it’s predicated upon Freo really really liking a player they need pick 3 to get.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mach5

[Demon Head 299]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:57 PM, Deefiant said:

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

Is that sort of thing is considered draft tampering given some of the things the AFL seems to be suggesting in the context of live trading? 

[Deecisive 1,709]

been a demon supporter for many many years, i still remember melbourne having a massively good half back line led by Gary Hardiman that turned defense into attack with their rebound football.  Frost was one of the few players who took the game on this year and tried to generate that rebound football. Lever, May, Salem and others all seem to stop and wait, look sideways, look backwards, and often go for short passes that opposition players intercept and goal on. 

Young is the players we need at the back end of the field with Langdon who will get the ball run 10 meters and kick it another 50 meters away from the opposition goal to one of our players. I just hope they can then mark the ball and kick straight.

Faster and better delivery down field / fewer kaos balls will give our forwards a better chance to score. still not sure we should be wasting pick 8 on a small forward, again I would be looking for clean kickers, someone like stephens who has run and good kicking skills. No point getting a player who gets the ball 20 times a game but turns it over 6 or 7 of those times.

If we can split pick 8 and still get two highly skilled players then great, but if we are getting two average skilled players, then forget it, use pick 8 and take the best available.

[ChaserJ 5,169]

On 11/6/2019 at 2:33 PM, Dees247 said:

I forgot to mention that they also said that Kemp may be there at 14 and 17 too. If we could get Kemp and Weightman (for pick ? it would be a no brainer

If we do end up deciding to go with Jackson as high as 3, we could split 8 and select Gould as a similar(ish) player to Young and go with whichever small/medium forward is available with the second pick. That could be any one of Weightman, Bergman and Pickett all of whom we've been linked with to varying degrees. 

[Pennant St Dee 13,389]

7 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

If we do end up deciding to go with Jackson as high as 3, we could split 8 and select Gould as a similar(ish) player to Young and go with whichever small/medium forward is available with the second pick. That could be any one of Weightman, Bergman and Pickett all of whom we've been linked with to varying degrees. 

I won't be happy Chaser if we take Pickett over any of Taylor, Weightman, Henry or Bergman