I just don’t think we traded selections with North to get pick 8 to then (potentially) split it. IMO we’ll take it to the draft. I’m hoping for Young and Kemp at picks 3 and 8.

Edited November 10, 20195 yr by Ethan Tremblay

I have a question if anyone can help as to the live trade rules. 

I understand that following a bid, the concerned club will then have a brief opportunity to trade picks. 

The question is: after that window (or even during), are teams then permitted to withdraw their bid?  

 

7 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I just don’t think we traded selections with North to get pick 8 to then (potentially) split it. IMO we’ll take it to the draft. I’m hoping for Young and Kemp at picks 3 and 8.

I think its value lies in getting to pick 8, other teams being able to assess the talent still available, and then make their bids based on the knowledge we’re happy to put it up for grabs.

Based on the evenness of talent at that stage of the draft this year, it’s highly likely a player will be left who a team really likes, and we can capitalise on that.

Much like Adelaide did last season (or should have) when Stocker was still available & the blues had him rated at 6.

Alternatively, we might find one of the players we’re really into is still there & that no bids are appealing enough to pass the kid up.

We could promise not to bid on Green on the proviso that GWS swap #6 for #8 and a shuffling of future picks after he gets bid on. GWS could also swap #8 with Adelaide for a bunch of later picks for points. 

Not sure if this has been floated, but would we consider trading pick 3 for GWS's pick 6 and their 2020 first rounder?

Might appeal to the Giants as they get a 'bonus' top 3 pick before a bid comes for Green.

Might appeal to us if we don't see much difference between Young and pick 6.

It's also not completely unreasonable to take the punt on GWS sliding next year - historically, not many teams bounce back from a grand final hammering (see Dees 2001; Port 2008; Adelaide 2017). Noting that GWS are obviously more talented than any of those teams.

Recent comparisons:

2017: Dow (3) vs Stephenson (6)

2016: McLuggage (3) vs  Petrevski-Seton (6)

2015: Mills (3) vs Francis (6)

2014: A Brayshaw (3) vs Marchbank (6)

2013: Billings (3) vs Scharenberg (6)

2012: Plowman (3) vs Macrae (6)

 

 

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

We could promise not to bid on Green on the proviso that GWS swap #6 for #8 and a shuffling of future picks after he gets bid on. GWS could also swap #8 with Adelaide for a bunch of later picks for points. 

You'd think Sydney would be fairly likely to bid on Green at 5 anyway

7 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Not sure if this has been floated, but would we consider trading pick 3 for GWS's pick 6 and their 2020 first rounder?

Might appeal to the Giants as they get a 'bonus' top 3 pick before a bid comes for Green.

Might appeal to us if we don't see much difference between Young and pick 6.

It's also not completely unreasonable to take the punt on GWS sliding next year - historically, not many teams bounce back from a grand final hammering (see Dees 2001; Port 2008; Adelaide 2017). Noting that GWS are obviously more talented than any of those teams.

Recent comparisons:

2017: Dow (3) vs Stephenson (6)

2016: McLuggage (3) vs  Petrevski-Seton (6)

2015: Mills (3) vs Francis (6)

2014: A Brayshaw (3) vs Marchbank (6)

2013: Billings (3) vs Scharenberg (6)

2012: Plowman (3) vs Macrae (6)

 

 

If you go back to the start of this thread you might find the answers you are looking for, or the short answer is we would want more,gws first round pick next year will be worth jacksh.

If we were looking at the likes of weight man, Pickett, Gould types we could potentially do 

8 for 10 + 22 from freo
and then trade 

10 for 15 + 20 from the suns as apparently they want another top 10 as they might not even be able to use pick 20 

which would give us 

3, 15, 20, 22 

so effectively 3 first rounds and one really early second. 

The latest the bid will possibly come is pick 5. Sydney are in desperate need of a big bodied inside midfielder to replace J Kennedy, and will 100% bid on Green if the bid hasn’t already come. Adelaide will 98% bid on him at pick 4. We’re 75% chance to bid on him at pick 3.

GWS will match the bid for Green regardless of where it comes. It’s about whether they can get a pick in before he is bid on. 

I don’t think we’ll split pick 3. We’ll likely bid on Green, have it matched, then take Young. 

We may split pick 8 for 10+22. This is dependent on bids for Henry and what other clubs shuffle round and do on the night.

 

From Cal Twomey

State-of-play-how-the-first-round-of-the-draft-is-shaping-up

 

An update from Cal Twomey with some interesting tidbits, some of which as already been discussed here.

• Melbourne were offered a bundle of three picks by Giants (not stated which ones) for pick 3 which we rejected.
• Rivals thinks we are unlikely to move on pick 3 now.
• Giants no certainty to match a bid on Green if it comes as early as pick 3 (I don't believe that)
• Melbourne and Freo may do a swap of pick 8 and 10 so Freo can get 2 picks in before Henry (obviously other components to the trade but not discussed in the article)
• Cats possibly looking to acquire Carltons pick 9.
• Gold Coast keen on our pick 8 with picks 15 and 20.

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

The latest the bid will possibly come is pick 5. Sydney are in desperate need of a big bodied inside midfielder to replace J Kennedy, and will 100% bid on Green if the bid hasn’t already come. Adelaide will 98% bid on him at pick 4. We’re 75% chance to bid on him at pick 3.

GWS will match the bid for Green regardless of where it comes. It’s about whether they can get a pick in before he is bid on. 

I don’t think we’ll split pick 3. We’ll likely bid on Green, have it matched, then take Young. 

We may split pick 8 for 10+22. This is dependent on bids for Henry and what other clubs shuffle round and do on the night.

Agree - think this is the most likely scenario. Might depend on whether Kemp is still available at 8 - you'd think Carlton would surely take him at 9.

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

 

From Cal Twomey

State-of-play-how-the-first-round-of-the-draft-is-shaping-up

 

An update from Cal Twomey with some interesting tidbits, some of which as already been discussed here.

• Melbourne were offered a bundle of three picks by Giants (not stated which ones) for pick 3 which we rejected.
• Rivals thinks we are unlikely to move on pick 3 now.
• Giants no certainty to match a bid on Green if it comes as early as pick 3 (I don't believe that)
• Melbourne and Freo may do a swap of pick 8 and 10 so Freo can get 2 picks in before Henry (obviously other components to the trade but not discussed in the article)
• Cats possibly looking to acquire Carltons pick 9.
• Gold Coast keen on our pick 8 with picks 15 and 20.

Its a shame Twomey doesn't give more info on the 3  GWS picks we rejected.

Twomey hasn't thought thru the GCS interest in pick 8.  With 3 Acadamey/FS picks likely before 15 the GCS picks 15 and 20 will become 18 and 23.  That will be poor value for our pick 8 and I can't see us getting a very good player at 18 and 23. 

It is worth recapping the North trade.  Out:  26, 50 and 2020 1st round pick for North's pick 8.  While not a big believer in Draft Points to measure pick value it is worth using it as a guide for pick swaps:  Even if we win the Premiership, and North get pick 18, the trade (then valued at 1987 points) will give them quite a premium for their pick 8 valued at 1511 points).  

Realistically we are not likely to win the premiership so the value to North will be much more than the 1987 points.  As a point of reference if we come 8th in 2020 the trade value will be 2331 points to North for pick 8 valued at 1551.

So, I can't see how the mooted interest for pick 8 by GCS (pick 15 and 20 = 2024 draft points), Geelong (pick 14 and 17= 2186) give us value. 

And I put an 'intangible value' on a top 10 player being an excellent, long term prospect than two players in the late teens.  So would rather keep pick 8 and do either of those mooted trades.

I strongly feel that a trade for pick 8 needs to give us substantially better value that we paid for it otherwise we have coughed up our 2020 first round pick for a mighty discount. 

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

30 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Its a shame Twomey doesn't give more info on the 3  GWS picks we rejected.

Twomey hasn't thought thru the GCS interest in pick 8.  With 3 Acadamey/FS picks likely before 15 the GCS picks 15 and 20 will become 18 and 23.  That will be poor value for our pick 8 and I can't see us getting a very good player at 18 and 23. 

It is worth recapping the North trade.  Out:  26, 50 and 2020 1st round pick for North's pick 8.  While not a big believer in Draft Points to measure pick value it is worth using it as a guide for pick swaps:  Even if we win the Premiership, and North get pick 18, the trade (then valued at 1987 points) will give them quite a premium for their pick 8 valued at 1511 points).  

Realistically we are not likely to win the premiership so the value to North will be much more than the 1987 points.  As a point of reference if we come 8th in 2020 the trade value will be 2331 points to North for pick 8 valued at 1551.

So, I can't see how the mooted interest for pick 8 by GCS (pick 15 and 20 = 2024 draft points), Geelong (pick 14 and 17= 2186) give us value. 

I strongly feel that any trade for pick 8 needs to give us substantially better value that we paid for it otherwise we have coughed up our 2020 first round pick for a mighty discount.

If we get pick 10 and 22 from Freo it’s 2240 draft points. If you factor in how next years draft is devalued by academy picks then I think it works out well for us. We more or less swap pick 10 in this years draft for our first round pick in next years draft which by all accounts will be weaker due to academy picks. 

13 minutes ago, Colm said:

If we get pick 10 and 22 from Freo it’s 2240 draft points. If you factor in how next years draft is devalued by academy picks then I think it works out well for us. We more or less swap pick 10 in this years draft for our first round pick in next years draft which by all accounts will be weaker due to academy picks. 

If we just wanted pick 10 and 22 (which we traded to Freo) we could have done it as part of the Langdon trade.  They would have loved our 2020 first pick.  Can't help but think there was a particular strategy behind the North pick 8 trade.

Also, under the new rules according to Cal Twomey (not sure which thread) Freo can't trade pick 22 to us as we traded it to them so they would have to find another club with a similar pick to get pick 8.

I would rather get 2 top class players, than be greedy and get 3 lesser players.

25 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I would rather get 2 top class players, than be greedy and get 3 lesser players.

Huh?! We would still have pick 3 and we would only be moving from 8 to 10. If we wait until draft night we would know what players are still most likely to still be there at 10 so we could still get the same 2 players we would without splitting but we get 22 for a small forward. 

FWIW if there’s a standout play at 8 that won’t be there at 10 then I think we should pick him at 8.  

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Colm

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Its a shame Twomey doesn't give more info on the 3  GWS picks we rejected.

Twomey hasn't thought thru the GCS interest in pick 8.  With 3 Acadamey/FS picks likely before 15 the GCS picks 15 and 20 will become 18 and 23.  That will be poor value for our pick 8 and I can't see us getting a very good player at 18 and 23. 

It is worth recapping the North trade.  Out:  26, 50 and 2020 1st round pick for North's pick 8.  While not a big believer in Draft Points to measure pick value it is worth using it as a guide for pick swaps:  Even if we win the Premiership, and North get pick 18, the trade (then valued at 1987 points) will give them quite a premium for their pick 8 valued at 1511 points).  

Realistically we are not likely to win the premiership so the value to North will be much more than the 1987 points.  As a point of reference if we come 8th in 2020 the trade value will be 2331 points to North for pick 8 valued at 1551.

So, I can't see how the mooted interest for pick 8 by GCS (pick 15 and 20 = 2024 draft points), Geelong (pick 14 and 17= 2186) give us value. 

And I put an 'intangible value' on a top 10 player being an excellent, long term prospect than two players in the late teens.  So would rather keep pick 8 and do either of those mooted trades.

I strongly feel that a trade for pick 8 needs to give us substantially better value that we paid for it otherwise we have coughed up our 2020 first round pick for a mighty discount. 

I think you should remove the points from pick 50, because even if it comes in a few picks it's likely to be outside the range of quality picks that Jason Taylor wants (he mentioned 35 or so draftable players on RTD). It's points value is drastically more than it's real value in this draft.

That would make it a future first (planned to be at least in the 10-15 range) and pick 26 for pick 8. So we could then swap it back to becoming a pick from 10-15 and a pick around 20 and come out ahead.

Gold Coast have the pick 11 priority pick next year as well, if they offered that up along with pick 15 and 20 for something back the other way then it's looking like a better deal even if we have to wait a year for that pick to convey. If we play finals next year and have upgraded from our pick to pick 11 that would be even better!

It all comes down to how we rate the players and if there's a lock selection at pick 8. I think that's where the intangible factor becomes more tangible if you're drafting a kid with special skills and the right make up. Where's the cut off in this draft crop for truly elite prospects? Rowell, Anderson, Green*, Young, Henry*?, Flanders?, Jackson?, Serong?, Robertson? Kemp?

43 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I would rather get 2 top class players, than be greedy and get 3 lesser players.

Agree, Bring in Young & Kemp (or whoever we value @ pick 8). Though i would just about spew if Carlscum were able to not only do a shifty by bringing in Martin, then also get kissed on the d##k and be able to draft Kemp @ 9.

32 minutes ago, Colm said:

Huh?! We would still have pick 3 and we would only be moving from 8 to 10. If we wait until draft night we would know what players are still most likely to still be there at 10 so we could still get the same 2 players we would without splitting but we get 22 for a small forward. 

FWIW if there’s a standout play at 8 that won’t be there at 10 then I think we should pick him at 8.  

I think we actually agree.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think you should remove the points from pick 50, because even if it comes in a few picks it's likely to be outside the range of quality picks that Jason Taylor wants (he mentioned 35 or so draftable players on RTD). It's points value is drastically more than it's real value in this draft.

That would make it a future first (planned to be at least in the 10-15 range) and pick 26 for pick 8. So we could then swap it back to becoming a pick from 10-15 and a pick around 20 and come out ahead.

Gold Coast have the pick 11 priority pick next year as well, if they offered that up along with pick 15 and 20 for something back the other way then it's looking like a better deal even if we have to wait a year for that pick to convey. If we play finals next year and have upgraded from our pick to pick 11 that would be even better!

It all comes down to how we rate the players and if there's a lock selection at pick 8. I think that's where the intangible factor becomes more tangible if you're drafting a kid with special skills and the right make up. Where's the cut off in this draft crop for truly elite prospects? Rowell, Anderson, Green*, Young, Henry*?, Flanders?, Jackson?, Serong?, Robertson? Kemp?

Of course their are many permutations of pick swaps with various clubs; I was commenting on the trades being mooted with GCS and Geelong. 

I have posted elsewhere that if GCS include 2020 #11 it is closer to getting us the value I am looking for.   (Btw we can't give anything back to GCS as we cannot trade another 2020 pick.)

Pick 50 is worth 273 points, so even by removing it, it doesn't essentially change the position I was posing for the need to get value back for pick 8.  Can't see the point in doing the first deal with North otherwise.

But I still put more value on a pick 8 (might become 9 or 10 than picks 17-23 (ie 14 to 20 after academy and f/s picks) to get us a very good player.  None of the players you mention or those linked to us will be there at 17-20 so I still favour taking 8 to the draft - unless we get an offer we can't refuse.

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I have posted elsewhere that if GCS include 2020 #11 it is closer to getting us the value I am looking for.   (Btw we can't give anything back to GCS as we cannot trade another 2020 pick.)

 

I know you can't trade late round picks if you've traded a first but If we trade in a future first round pick can we trade out later round picks? Thought I'd saw that somewhere. 

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I know you can't trade late round picks if you've traded a first but If we trade in a future first round pick can we trade out later round picks? Thought I'd saw that somewhere. 

Yes, we can.

But even by including their 2020 #11 and getting a second round back it really doesn't improve the equation that much (compared to what we paid for #8) let alone increase the chances of really improving our talent which pick 8 will. 

16 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

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

I'd have him behind all of those named.

Taylor intrigues me the most, but have a hunch that he's not someone we're considering all that strongly.

Interesting that GWS pick 6 (1751) is almost exactly 80% (1787) of our pick 3 (2234).

If we bid Green at 3 and GWS try to trade down to later picks to match they will need to strike a deal heavily in their favour to get any benefit. 

I don't think it's worth it and they wasted their time and points trading up to 6 from 12 and 18. They'd be better off with those picks now.  They clealy failed to offer us a decent trade involving a player for 3 and it has backfired.

I'm still torn dammit. The talk of us being interested in Kysiah Pickett if we had a suitable late first rounded has me intrigued.

And yet... I feel like there's now a better defined top group of players after Rowell and Anderson and pick 3 will get us our favourite of them while pick 8 is still guaranteed to get us someone we would be very interested in.  To get Young would require pick 3, and that's fine for a long, accurate, smart kick who is no slouch on workrate or hardness either.  It is almost certain that either Kemp (the most likely 'superstar' outside the top two) or Jackson (finally a ruck succession plan, with the bonus of being allegedly ready to be a very early AFL-starter as rucks go which also helps with the Gawn-longevity plan).

I'm just totally chill, y'know?  It's all gonna be all right, all right?