Jump to content

POLL 259 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Demons split their Pick 3 by trading it for 2 First Round Picks

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Featured Replies

39 minutes ago, defuture15 said:

If we are down for just this year, we need it to count.

100% this year we have to nail using this pick 3 whether it's utilising for bargaining ability or picking up an absolute gun in the draft.

I wasn't against splitting our pick with the Tyson/Salem combo as it served a purpose at the time, Tyson came into the team and made an immediate impact, Salem's form has been patchy but there are enough positive attributes he has to contribute to the team. We needed something at that time that a raw rookie wasn't going to give us.

This time is different though, and we can't waste the opportunity that this awful year has provided us.

 
9 minutes ago, The Swimming Dee said:

Thanks. Inconsistency by foot doesn't sound great

Not ideal, but kicking efficiency and pace seem to be a trade off in the AFL. Its rare to find a player that has both. 

34 minutes ago, The Swimming Dee said:

How good is Caldwell? I don’t know anything about him. Is he quick, good foot skills?

He’s basically Dylan Shiel with a better kick. I rate him massively and would gladly give up a top 10 pick for him. We should be pushing to get him. Potentially better than any we have bar Oliver IMO

 
1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

We should push to trade our pick 3 for their pick 6 and Caldwell.

If we pulled that off, we’d be trading in a future gun midfielder who can play both inside and outside (plays best outside) and draft another elite talent with pick 6 such as Ash, Flanders, Serong etc.

Make it happen Dees!

I like the Idea, but I think they would want more. Next years 2nd rounder maybe?

Is Caldwell name actually been mentioned by anyone from the media? Or are we just pipe dreaming.

Caldwell would be a fantastic get. Huge talent who the Giants rated on par with Dylan Shiel on talent alone. 


4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Is Caldwell name actually been mentioned by anyone from the media? Or are we just pipe dreaming.

Caldwell would be a fantastic get. Huge talent who the Giants rated on par with Dylan Shiel on talent alone. 

if the giants get pick 3, and the suns dont go for Green, which they won't, i think they can grab someone else then dont have to use a pick until another club puts his name up.  they said on SEN this is why they wanted pick 6 from saints. they'll get the gun for bugger all and a top 3 player as well. we should bend them over if they want pick3.

10 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Is Caldwell name actually been mentioned by anyone from the media? Or are we just pipe dreaming.

Caldwell would be a fantastic get. Huge talent who the Giants rated on par with Dylan Shiel on talent alone. 

There hasn't been anything in the media re: Caldwell. General feeling is that Bonar is the one most likely to leave GWS this year.

Caldwell or Taranto, or we go for Green, thanks GWS.

Edited by A F

 

Would we consider pick 6 and GWS’ 2020 first round pick for pick 3? 

17 minutes ago, Beetle said:

Would we consider pick 6 and GWS’ 2020 first round pick for pick 3? 

Next year is a weaker draft with a tonne of acandemy and f/s players

Given they'll likely be a top 4 team, the pick probably gets pushed out into the 20s.. no deal for me 


6 hours ago, drdrake said:

Agree with what you are saying but we are really getting him for nothing, he would add to our midfield depth I reckon he and Petracca could rotate as Midfield forward.  You still will get a player at 6 with the attributes we are looking for.  Not sure what else GWS would want to give up for a 3 place upgrade

Is it correct to say we’re getting him for nothing though? We’re swapping out pick 3

Let’s see how creative we can get:

- Pick 3 to GWS for Pick 6 and Caldwell

- Pick 6 to Geelong for Pick 14 and Ratugolea

(Just jumping on the ridiculous trade bandwagon)

Edited by Gawn's Beard

50 minutes ago, Gawn's Beard said:

Let’s see how creative we can get:

- Pick 3 to GWS for Pick 6 and Caldwell

- Pick 6 to Geelong for Pick 14 and Ratugolea

(Just jumping on the ridiculous trade bandwagon)

Mark Stevens said tonight he could confirm that GWS will be making a big offer to us to get 3.

Many of us have posted 3 for 6, since it got to GWS and a player, preferably Caldwell. That would be a good deal for us as we would probably grab the bloke we want with 6, maybe Weightman. But he said big deal and that could include another pick, maybe 40 which they got as compo for Tomlinson.

We are in the box seat here to do a huge deal.

As for Esava, it won't be happening.  

The Caldwell chat inspired me to learn more about him. First page of Google "Jye Caldwell's frustrating run with injuries has continued". Will fit in perfectly!


Mark Stevens reporting GWS will swap 12, 18 and their first next year for Adelaide's 4.

Would be a big gamble if they then don't swap with us, especially given our history of bidding in players. Pick 4 and something else for 3?

23 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Mark Stevens reporting GWS will swap 12, 18 and their first next year for Adelaide's 4.

Would be a big gamble if they then don't swap with us, especially given our history of bidding in players. Pick 4 and something else for 3?

Good Lord!

33 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Mark Stevens reporting GWS will swap 12, 18 and their first next year for Adelaide's 4.

Would be a big gamble if they then don't swap with us, especially given our history of bidding in players. Pick 4 and something else for 3?

They don't have those picks anymore. They have pick 6 now. 

39 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Mark Stevens reporting GWS will swap 12, 18 and their first next year for Adelaide's 4.

Would be a big gamble if they then don't swap with us, especially given our history of bidding in players. Pick 4 and something else for 3?

Didn't they swap those picks yesterday?


8 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Barrett: The Dees have picks 3 and 22, can they get both Brad Hill and Ed Langdon out of the Dockers with those picks? LISTEN: https://t.co/y0GSLLkU3o WATCH: https://t.co/QdiGlJy8Ir #AFLTrade

What u reckon guys....

Would love to, but doubt Hill is willing to take a $300,000 PA pay cut. Also, if we could get Pick 6 and GWS Hill, that could entice Brad more with the lure of playing with family still.

Edit: I don't think we'll be getting the Hill from GWS, but one can dream.

Edited by AshleyH30

10 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Barrett: The Dees have picks 3 and 22, can they get both Brad Hill and Ed Langdon out of the Dockers with those picks? LISTEN: https://t.co/y0GSLLkU3o WATCH: https://t.co/QdiGlJy8Ir #AFLTrade

What u reckon guys....

I was thinking about whether we could enter the conversation with Hill given the Saints have traded their first pick down. Would be more down to whether we can/want to try to get Hill through our door. 

 
2 minutes ago, Pates said:

I was thinking about whether we could enter the conversation with Hill given the Saints have traded their first pick down. Would be more down to whether we can/want to try to get Hill through our door. 

I know it also comes down to player/manager but i think a [censored] off Bell (with last night's GWS swap slap) might be VERY happy to do the double....and foot a small part of the bill!!

 

1 minute ago, Frustrated Demon said:

That would be a massive get. But I don’t think he is worth the 900k per season.

See above FD

8 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I know it also comes down to player/manager but i think a [censored] off Bell (with last night's GWS swap slap) might be VERY happy to do the double....and foot a small part of the bill!!

 

See above FD

At the end of the day though he’s got to want to come to us, even if Bell was annoyed at the Saints. And to be fair they tried to be really greedy with Hill and the Saints called their bluff to keep going with other trades, I actually admire the Saints for doing that. What would get the deal done for us?


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 29 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 238 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies