Personally I would only split if we knew we could still get one of Kemp and Serong at 10, assuming Young is gone obviously. Either would be a great get at 8 let alone 10. 

46 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah that's the rumour doing the rounds currently.

Freo must be very worried about us or Carltank bidding on Henry at 8 or 9

4 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Freo must be very worried about us or Carltank bidding on Henry at 8 or 9

Haven't heard anything, but gut feel would be we would be looking at bidding on Henry for sure at this stage.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Haven't heard anything, but gut feel would be we would be looking at bidding on Henry for sure at this stage.

 

A bid is going to come for Henry before 22, so Freo will lose this pick regardless. Makes sense they use it to move up 2 spots. They get a better selection and remove the risk of a bid coming before 10. To me it seems a no brainer, I'm surprised the media haven't suggested it as an option more?

Where are the rumours you're hearing coming from?

Edited November 20, 20196 yr by whelan45

How would freo match a bid on Henry with just picks 58 and 69? I guess they would also have to trade away our future second.

9 hours ago, whelan45 said:

A bid is going to come for Henry before 22, so Freo will lose this pick regardless. Makes sense they use it to move up 2 spots. They get a better selection and remove the risk of a bid coming before 10. To me it seems a no brainer, I'm surprised the media haven't suggested it as an option more?

Where are the rumours you're hearing coming from?

Yeah tbh I've lost track a bit of all the bidding possibilities etc, so have put the calculator away.

Can't pass on the person who told me, sorry, I know how much of a cop out that is. Was told to me by someone who has given me solid info very often in the past, some of which I've posted here before. They didn't say it was a lock, just that it was a growing possibility and looking more and more likely.

 

11 hours ago, CRomey said:

Personally I would only split if we knew we could still get one of Kemp and Serong at 10, assuming Young is gone obviously. Either would be a great get at 8 let alone 10. 

Agreed  Love to have Kemp

May not be there at 10

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah tbh I've lost track a bit of all the bidding possibilities etc, so have put the calculator away.

Can't pass on the person who told me, sorry, I know how much of a cop out that is. Was told to me by someone who has given me solid info very often in the past, some of which I've posted here before. They didn't say it was a lock, just that it was a growing possibility and looking more and more likely.

 

Cheers mate. No dramas at all not passing on source wouldn't expect you to. Wondering whether it was a Twitter / bigfooty type rumour or more solid. I'll take this as more solid haha!

1 minute ago, whelan45 said:

Cheers mate. No dramas at all not passing on source wouldn't expect you to. Wondering whether it was a Twitter / bigfooty type rumour or more solid. I'll take this as more solid haha!

Haha yeah fair call! If I was doing that I would definitely preface with a lengthy disclaimer!

9 hours ago, CRomey said:

How would freo match a bid on Henry with just picks 58 and 69? I guess they would also have to trade away our future second.

Or they could go into deficit this year then lose those points in the 2020 draft and the affected pick(s) slide down the order.

According to 'knightmare' who is generally well informed on the draft and its rules writes:   "Deficit doesn't come out of first round picks".   I was a bit surprised by that.  It seems the benefits for Academy and F/S clubs never end!   

A system of draft points introduced to force them to pay value is being watered down to where they can increasingly use third and fourth round picks to get their players.  imv it looks like the draft points system has failed in its original intent.

Edited November 20, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

57 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Or they could go into deficit this year then lose those points in the 2020 draft and the affected pick(s) slide down the order.

According to 'knightmare' who is generally well informed on the draft and its rules writes:   "Deficit doesn't come out of first round picks".   I was a bit surprised by that.  It seems the benefits for Academy and F/S clubs never end!   

A system of draft points introduced to force them to pay value is being watered down to where they can increasingly use third and fourth round picks to get their players.  imv it looks like the draft points system has failed in its original intent.

Wow, I had no idea that was a mechanic they could use. Cheers for that info. No way should it be that easy to get high end talent with such low picks. I feel like you should at least have to use 1 pick within 1 round of the bid, or something along those lines. But yea I agree, rather poor system.

18 hours ago, Dante said:

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.

What my Cook reference wasnt good enough... i put 1 min work in to that.

Maybe toumpas or Morton are more suitable references.

Im all for trusting the people in charge - I'm pretty sure i said that.

But let's not pretend the mfc doesn't have a long glorious history of f up draft picks.

This isn't meant to be a pissing contest but i hope we dont get too clever.

I don't claim to be in the know it's just an opinion 

Edited November 20, 20196 yr by Unleash Hell

12 hours ago, whelan45 said:

A bid is going to come for Henry before 22, so Freo will lose this pick regardless. Makes sense they use it to move up 2 spots. They get a better selection and remove the risk of a bid coming before 10. To me it seems a no brainer, I'm surprised the media haven't suggested it as an option more?

Where are the rumours you're hearing coming from?

That trade cannot happen. Freo is unable to trade pick 22 back to Melbourne as it was our original pick. (Ed Langdon).AFL rule. 

Edited November 20, 20196 yr by Cheney

7 minutes ago, Cheney said:

That trade cannot happen. Freo is unable to trade pick 22 back to Melbourne as it was our original pick. (Ed Langdon).AFL rule. 

this interpretation is doubtful and needs afl clarification.

i think the parking rule is where the shift out then back occurs all during the draft. not sure it applies across trade and draft periods.  

23 minutes ago, Cheney said:

That trade cannot happen. Freo is unable to trade pick 22 back to Melbourne as it was our original pick. (Ed Langdon).AFL rule. 

Yeah I thought the same, however have not been able to get this clarified for certain anywhere. A way around it I feel would be to get the owner of pick 23 (Adelaide) involved, where they receive 22 and we receive 23, basically giving them a free upgrade and enabling the trade.

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

this interpretation is doubtful and needs afl clarification.

i think the parking rule is where the shift out then back occurs all during the draft. not sure it applies across trade and draft periods.  

It does apply. This is 100% fact. 

35 minutes ago, Cheney said:

That trade cannot happen. Freo is unable to trade pick 22 back to Melbourne as it was our original pick. (Ed Langdon).AFL rule. 

I don't think that's how that rule applies. Not confirmed though.

 

if we end up with 3, 10, 22, its a fair chance we end up with

jackson

kemp (if there)

pickett (if there)

three exciting attacking players with speed (for their size) and the ability to hit the scoreboard (hopefully).

 

2 minutes ago, Cheney said:

It does apply. This is 100% fact. 

a bit more info would be helpful

39 minutes ago, Cheney said:

That trade cannot happen. Freo is unable to trade pick 22 back to Melbourne as it was our original pick. (Ed Langdon).AFL rule. 

 

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

this interpretation is doubtful and needs afl clarification.

i think the parking rule is where the shift out then back occurs all during the draft. not sure it applies across trade and draft periods.  

 

14 minutes ago, whelan45 said:

Yeah I thought the same, however have not been able to get this clarified for certain anywhere. A way around it I feel would be to get the owner of pick 23 (Adelaide) involved, where they receive 22 and we receive 23, basically giving them a free upgrade and enabling the trade.

 

3 minutes ago, Cheney said:

It does apply. This is 100% fact. 

 

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I don't think that's how that rule applies. Not confirmed though.

 

 

Just now, daisycutter said:

a bit more info would be helpful

“A club may not trade away a selection with another club for a later selection, use that later selection to counter a bid on one of their Academy players and then once that player is secured, trade in a selection with that same club to receive a higher selection in the national draft order,” an AFL spokesperson confirmed to foxfooty.com.au.

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

The way I read that, it does not apply to our circumstances with Freo.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

 

 

 

“A club may not trade away a selection with another club for a later selection, use that later selection to counter a bid on one of their Academy players and then once that player is secured, trade in a selection with that same club to receive a higher selection in the national draft order,” an AFL spokesperson confirmed to foxfooty.com.au.

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

The way I read that, it does not apply to our circumstances with Freo.

 

i agree, but still need clarification

we certainly didn't "trade away a selection with another club for a later selection" because we traded for a player which is different and this situation doesn't seem to be the loophole that the afl is trying to stop

just my interpretation

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i agree, but still need clarification

we certainly didn't "trade away a selection with another club for a later selection" because we traded for a player which is different and this situation doesn't seem to be the loophole that the afl is trying to stop

just my interpretation

I agree. This is all very grey and it would be ridiculous to stop people trading picks back when there is a specific reason for doing so other than draft tampering, which is effectively what the Swans and WC did.

Perhaps the AFL should have been on top of these things before they brought in new rules.

Fairly incompetent.

 

1 hour ago, Cheney said:

It does apply. This is 100% fact. 

The only 100% fact so far is that it's not a 100% fact.

20 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Split with Freo whispers are growing.

 

Officially happening.

Melbourne involved in pick swap