Splitting Draft Pick 3

[Lord Travis 10,763]

GWS reportedly deep in talks with Adelaide for pick 4. Likely trade of 14, second round pick and future first for Adelaides pick 4.

We'll have to look elsewhere if we want to split pick 3.

[Whispering_Jack 30,573]

5 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

GWS reportedly deep in talks with Adelaide for pick 4. Likely trade of 14, second round pick and future first for Adelaides pick 4.

We'll have to look elsewhere if we want to split pick 3.

It would be risky for GWS to take pick 4 if they wanted to stave off the necessity for giving too much away for Tom Green. We could nominate him with pick 3 and then they would have to use 4 if they want him. 

If they deal with us for pick 3 then they can use it for someone else and then take Green with later picks. That way they get two top 10s. However, 14 plus a second rounder and next year’s first rounder wouldn’t be all that attractive to us, I imagine. 

[whatwhat say what 22,896]

Mark Stevens is reporting that Adelaide will part with Pick 4 to GWS to get in return Picks 12, 18 and 2020 1st rounder

Even if we nominate Green with pick 3 GW$ will be able to match with late picks and still use pick 4

Whole thing is a farce

[Watts the matter 1,235]

5 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

Mark Stevens is reporting that Adelaide will part with Pick 4 to GWS to get in return Picks 12, 18 and 2020 1st rounder

Even if we nominate Green with pick 3 GW$ will be able to match with late picks and still use pick 4

Whole thing is a farce

I thought you had to use your next pick?

[Wunders 397]

I'd personally take it with the aim of going for ben king next year and having multiple 1st round picks available.

[old55 23,687]

20 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

Mark Stevens is reporting that Adelaide will part with Pick 4 to GWS to get in return Picks 12, 18 and 2020 1st rounder

Even if we nominate Green with pick 3 GW$ will be able to match with late picks and still use pick 4

Whole thing is a farce

Nope they would have to use pick 4 for the points to match our pick 3 and they'd get a later pick as change.

That would be an incredibly risky move. They'd have to give us some incentive not to bid on Green. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Fifty-5

[Gawn's Beard 378]

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

Nope they would have to use pick 4 for the points to match our pick 3 and they'd get a later pick as change.

That would be an incredibly risky move. They'd have to give us some incentive not to bid on Green.

Pick 4 and steak knives for pick 3?

[old55 23,687]

Is Zach Williams steak knives?

I'd seriously consider 12 and Williams for 3.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Fifty-5

[Nascent 9,280]

Another risk for GWS is us splitting our pick, I'm sure there are a number of clubs that would bid on Green if they had the chance.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Nascent

[Clintosaurus 7,858]

8 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Is Zach Williams steak knives?

I'd seriously consider 12 and Williams for 3.

Zack Williams is worth pick 3 alone. Absolute jet.

[whatwhat say what 22,896]

I don’t believe they would not have to use 4 to match a Green nomination

They could use points from other picks

[Lord Travis 10,763]

Either way, it seems they’re splitting with Adelaide and not us, so we’ll have to look elsewhere to split our pick.

What other options are there for us? Geelong? Essendon if they trade Daniher?

[whatwhat say what 22,896]

Just take pick 3 to the draft, add top end talent

[Lord Travis 10,763]

I agree we should just take it to the draft.

However, if there’s some trades requiring first rounders that we haven’t heard about such as Laird or Papley, then splitting it is a necessity.

Interesting to see how this plays out!

[FlashInThePan 1,893]

There is no way they will trade with Adelaide. It doesn't get them what they need, we'll just bid for green at 3.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

4 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

I don’t believe they would not have to use 4 to match a Green nomination

They could use points from other picks

99.99% sure the system doesn't allow this and forces you to use your next available pick. If that pick has more value (due to the academy discount) you then receive another pick later in the draft for the difference in points.

[Demon Disciple 12,257]

3 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

99.99% sure the system doesn't allow this and forces you to use your next available pick. If that pick has more value (due to the academy discount) you then receive another pick later in the draft for the difference in points.

Yep, that's why they want to get up higher in the draft, so that their next pick is after whoever bids for Green.

It won't be GC, so that just leaves us (for the moment).

[olisik 4,060]

Whose to say they won’t ontrade pick 4 to us with interest for pick 3?

[dazzledavey36 55,311]

1 minute ago, olisik said:

Whose to say they won’t ontrade pick 4 to us with interest for pick 3?

How was your holiday?

[olisik 4,060]

12 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

How was your holiday?

Got myself a nice tan

[Adam The God 30,403]

10 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

This is the stumbling block for me.  I know others might feel it is fair, but swapping 3 for 14 and 17 just doesn't feel right.  A top 3 pick is a valuable commodity and if we're going to deal it then you expect a pretty darn good return for it, and 14 and 17 isn't it for me.

I think we need a very good player if we're splitting the pick or if we're going to the draft.

The best way to ensure we get a very good player though is to split the pick and then trade one or two of the picks for an established player.

Would anyone give up pick 3 in a straight swap for Taranto? And more importantly, does anyone think GWS would?

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, A F said:

I think we need a very good player if we're splitting the pick or if we're going to the draft.

The best way to ensure we get a very good player though is to split the pick and then trade one or two of the picks for an established player.

Would anyone give up pick 3 in a straight swap for Taranto? And more importantly, does anyone think GWS would?

To answer the question - yes, I would and no, they won't.

[Dees247 140]

If true, they are calling our bluff, and saying we wouldn't take another inside mid. I would let GWS know that we would, out of principle alone. There is no way they will not bid on him, especially with the discount in points they get.

[Adam The God 30,403]

44 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

To answer the question - yes, I would and no, they won't.

It may sound stupid, but if they can get Green and add another top 10 talent for the loss of one top 10 talent in Taranto, they may go with that and keep spreading the profile of their list wider.

[Dee tention 617]

Pick 3 and 2020 First Round for Ben King and Pick 14.