If we bid on Green GWS could split 4 for a later 1st rounder and a 2020 1st rounder and match the bid with 2019 picks and quarantine the 2020 1st.

For example trade 4 with GC for 15 + 2020 priority 11.  Use 15 and later picks for Green and end up with a better 2020 1st rounder than they just traded away.

There's lots of permutations.

GWS have got in front of the bid. Smart move by them. It seems they really want Jackson, so use that to our advantage and say we’re taking him at pick 3 unless they give us a reason not to.

Try to trade pick 3 for pick 4+Crows future first rounder?

My fave thing we could do would be to swap 3 for 5 and 25 from swans, let them have Green and screw over giants. Then we get whoever isn't taken out of Young, Jackson or whoever else we would like. I wish we had a need for Flanders so we could wreck Adelaide as well. 

8 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

GWS have got in front of the bid. Smart move by them. It seems they really want Jackson, so use that to our advantage and say we’re taking him at pick 3 unless they give us a reason not to.

Try to trade pick 3 for pick 4+Crows future first rounder?

Any chance they have some mail that we are super keen on Young with 3?  This move up then gets them Jackson and Green.

We have a history of bidding, but I believe only coz we would have taken those players if we had the chance. Not because we are keeping clubs honest or playing the game.

If we rate green, we will bid on him, and may land him. If we pick Jackson, it will be because Taylor rates him as the best talent, not for needs (Taylor has already said you dont pick for needs that early, nor do you outsmart yourself). At 3, I believe Taylor will take best available, according to the work they've done

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

If we bid on Green GWS could split 4 for a later 1st rounder and a 2020 1st rounder and match the bid with 2019 picks and quarantine the 2020 1st.

For example trade 4 with GC for 15 + 2020 priority 11.  Use 15 and later picks for Green and end up with a better 2020 1st rounder than they just traded away.

There's lots of permutations.

Pretty poor deal for gws considering they traded 12, 18 And next years first round for 4

2 hours ago, Deefiant said:

Pretty poor deal for gws considering they traded 12, 18 And next years first round for 4

It's risk mitigation. If they really want Green and we don't bid they win big time - pick 4 and Green.  This is just a safety net get out method in case we do bid.

I assumed Green was off the table. If not, that would be delicious. Oliver and Green. ?

Last night at the Member's Forum both Mahoney and Tim Lamb said we hold picks 3 and 8 'at the moment'.  Interpreting this I would say there is a 99% chance one pick (most probably pick 8 ) will be traded.

List decisions are a team effort but I would say Tim will have a very big say (maybe more than Taylor) in who we pick.  No clues were given last night on who our draftees might be.

 

Edit:  Forgot to mention, Lamb was asked whether we will pick 'best available' or 'needs based'.  He said it would be a balancing act which was a surprise as usually clubs go 'best' in the top 10 and also most probably in the 10-20 range.

That made me think Jackson is our candidate for #3 even tho he isn't rated that highly by draft watching media scribes (eg Twomey today has him at 11).  Then wherever the next pick is it will be 'best'.

Edited November 19, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

i'll be happy with either green, young or jackson at #3

fwiw (probably not much) i'd rank them in order: green > young > jackson

if we bid green i have no idea what gws would do. I find it hard to believe we have an agreement with gws

 

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Last night at the Member's Forum both Mahoney and Tim Lamb said we hold picks 3 and 8 'at the moment'.  Interpreting this I would say there is a 99% chance one pick (most probably pick 8 ) will be traded.

List decisions are a team effort but I would say Tim will have a very big say (maybe more than Taylor) in who we pick.  No clues were given last night on who our draftees might be.

 

Edit:  Forgot to mention, Lamb was asked whether we will pick 'best available' or 'needs based'.  He said it would be a balancing act which was a surprise as usually clubs go 'best' in the top 10 and also most probably in the 10-20 range.

That made me think Jackson is our candidate for #3 even tho he isn't rated that highly by draft watching media scribes (eg Twomey today has him at 11).  Then wherever the next pick is it will be 'best'.

That's never backfired on us before....

But in fairness at least this time the player is highly rated... Unlike one L Cook … you get the idea. our recruiting and development has been done to death and the list is long and distinguished.

It will be interesting to see what we do and who we are targeting - you'd hope they look at blokes who are AFL ready first that can make an impact now as we're not rebuilding… But i'll leave it to the experts

#Ps I'm not having a crack at you just continuing the conversation.

Also I don't claim to know who we should pick up - history says we will fudge it regardless. Only blind faith keeps us here

Edited November 20, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Last night at the Member's Forum both Mahoney and Tim Lamb said we hold picks 3 and 8 'at the moment'.  Interpreting this I would say there is a 99% chance one pick (most probably pick 8 ) will be traded.

List decisions are a team effort but I would say Tim will have a very big say (maybe more than Taylor) in who we pick.  No clues were given last night on who our draftees might be.

 

Edit:  Forgot to mention, Lamb was asked whether we will pick 'best available' or 'needs based'.  He said it would be a balancing act which was a surprise as usually clubs go 'best' in the top 10 and also most probably in the 10-20 range.

That made me think Jackson is our candidate for #3 even tho he isn't rated that highly by draft watching media scribes (eg Twomey today has him at 11).  Then wherever the next pick is it will be 'best'.

I think we'll go for our view of best available at 3 and I hope we think that's Jackson because if we're right the upside is huge.

I think if we split 8 we might go a bit more needs based - maybe small forwards that Mahoney mentioned in the trade period we would seek to address in the draft.

22 hours ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

My fave thing we could do would be to swap 3 for 5 and 25 from swans, let them have Green and screw over giants. Then we get whoever isn't taken out of Young, Jackson or whoever else we would like. I wish we had a need for Flanders so we could wreck Adelaide as well. 

There's a lot of sense in that. No doubt they'll be interested in Green, doubt they'd want him enough to hand over 25 without something else coming back though. 

Maybe Dees pick 3 & 2020 3rd rounder for Swans pick 5 and 25?

 

9 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

There's a lot of sense in that. No doubt they'll be interested in Green, doubt they'd want him enough to hand over 25 without something else coming back though. 

Maybe Dees pick 3 & 2020 3rd rounder for Swans pick 5 and 25?

 

We have traded our 2020 1st so we can't trade other 2020 picks (unless we have multiple ones in the same round - which we don't)

1 hour ago, Unleash Hell said:

That's never backfired on us before....

But in fairness at least this time the player is highly rated... Unlike one L Cook … you get the idea. our recruiting and development has been done to death and the list is long and distinguished.

It will be interesting to see what we do and who we are targeting - you'd hope they look at blokes who are AFL ready first that can make an impact now as we're not rebuilding… But i'll leave it to the experts

#Ps I'm not having a crack at you just continuing the conversation.

Also I don't claim to know who we should pick up - history says we will fudge it regardless. Only blind faith keeps us here

I don't know why posters are referring to Lucas Cook when discussing Jackson. It's my understanding that we were looking at a big forward in that draft and were after Lynch, who went the pick before Cook. That was a dreadful pick and shows that it sometimes is better to pick the player you like as opposed to the player who may fill a need.

This is about a player not a need and Jackson is seen by the club as a good long term proposition, perhaps in a couple of positions and not a forward or ruck. He finished second in the Larke medal so obviously others saw something in him as well and if you have a look at the extended footage the  club and other clubs have you might change your view.

Hawks just made a trade that seems their first round pick from next year back in the game, I'd expect they now chase a pick in the teens as Port did.

Not sure if they would consider trading up from 11 to 8, but I'd suspect there's going to be a lot of movement between 8-20 on draft night.

Split with Freo whispers are growing.

 

3 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

There's a lot of sense in that. No doubt they'll be interested in Green, doubt they'd want him enough to hand over 25 without something else coming back though. 

Maybe Dees pick 3 & 2020 3rd rounder for Swans pick 5 and 25?

 

GWS offered Adelaide pick 6 and a first rounder next year for pick 4. They would have offered us the same deal, but we must have rejected it. So why would we accept an inferior deal from Sydney?

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Split with Freo whispers are growing.

 

For pick 3 or 8?

30 minutes ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

 

Edited November 20, 20195 yr by grazman
wrong thread

21 minutes ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

For pick 3 or 8?

8.

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

8.

10 and 22?

Just now, Patches O’houlihan said:

10 and 22?

Yeah that's the rumour doing the rounds currently.

Trading our pick 8 for 10 and 22 would be a nice win for us.  Just do it!

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah that's the rumour doing the rounds currently.

I'm amazed our response wouldn't be where do we sign? unless we have a particular player in mind who may not make it to pick 8, which is entirely possible. 

a combination of 

Jackson, Stephens and Pickett sounds very appealing.

Edited November 20, 20195 yr by Patches O’houlihan