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

41 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Why do Giants need picks after 3 if we deal that pick to them (which I've taken you're implying here) Gold Coast for sure wont be placing a bid on Tom Green. Once they get to 3 they're in the box seat to land him. What I can't see is the Hawks giving up 11 which they'll use on McGinness. Despite that, the most logical scenario I can see is:

Hawthorn out: 11

GWS out: 6, Bonar, Patton

Melb out: 3, 26

Hawthorn in: Bonar, Patton, 26

GWS in: 3, 42

Melb in: 6, 11

Later pick swaps would have to come into it to balance it out, but at the base of it I reckon that's pretty fair

Hawthorn giving up far too much for a couple of late 2nd/3rd round pick types.

I could see the Hawks doing 11 and late picks for GWS' future first and Bonar/Patton instead of pick 26, but you don't go from 11 to 26 without something valuable thrown in. Bonar/Patton just aren't worth that level of drop.

I wouldn't be overly keen on 3 and 26 for 6,11 because I'm not sure in this draft if 11 and 26 are all that different. We'd have to get some upgrades to use 3rd and 4th picks if that's the case.

 

 
Just now, DeeSpencer said:

Hawthorn giving up far too much for a couple of late 2nd/3rd round pick types.

I could see the Hawks doing 11 and late picks for GWS' future first and Bonar/Patton instead of pick 26, but you don't go from 11 to 26 without something valuable thrown in. Bonar/Patton just aren't worth that level of drop.

I wouldn't be overly keen on 3 and 26 for 6,11 because I'm not sure in this draft if 11 and 26 are all that different. We'd have to get some upgrades to use 3rd and 4th picks if that's the case.

 

As much as people keep saying "its such a deep draft that picks x,y,z in the 2nd round arent that different to 1st round picks" is a bit reductive. Clubs will have their intended draftees in mind to fill a certain position. A few others on here have said it much better, but if we're trading 3 to 6 and 11 we can afford to draft a player on a more needs basis (e.g. gun small forward) which may not be available come pick 26, rather than just grabbing the best player that could be superfluous to our current needs. I'd be more than happy to part with 26 in a deal that landed us 6 and 11 that got us some gun outside run and forward craft rather than another mid at pick 3 and a development player at 26.

1 hour ago, Dees247 said:

12 & 18 are worth more than 6, so GWS must be after our pick. Also, if they don’t have enough points for Green as well, they just loose points next year, & can still take Green & a player at 3

Interesting point.

I wonder if the AFL has considered what happens if GWS trade away their 2020 1st rounder this year - their 2020 2nd and 3rd rounders just get downgraded to 3rd & 4th rounders? Weak "penalty" they may be happy to live with.
I'm sure GWS would tolerate a year in 2020 where they take the bare minimum of 3 late picks and essentially opt out of a weak draft. 

Or do they have academy selections?

Edited by Mach5

 
35 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

As much as people keep saying "its such a deep draft that picks x,y,z in the 2nd round arent that different to 1st round picks" is a bit reductive. Clubs will have their intended draftees in mind to fill a certain position. A few others on here have said it much better, but if we're trading 3 to 6 and 11 we can afford to draft a player on a more needs basis (e.g. gun small forward) which may not be available come pick 26, rather than just grabbing the best player that could be superfluous to our current needs. I'd be more than happy to part with 26 in a deal that landed us 6 and 11 that got us some gun outside run and forward craft rather than another mid at pick 3 and a development player at 26.

Drafting for needs is dangerous at any spot. The most important objective with pick 3 is to get a high quality player regardless of position. If we can do that at pick 6 (and I think we can) then that’s good too, but pick 3 gives us more certainty. 

11 is more likely to get a nice player than 26 but not by a huge margin. To take the risk at moving back from 3 I want certainty with the other half of the deal. 

Yes we lack quality in the forward line but we are more than 1 or 2 kids away. 

As long as we are able to get Kemp and one of Serong/Flanders I would be happy.


I would love to get involved in upgrading pick 26 slightly and think Gold Coast could use it in a number of trades. They are at an impass with both greenwood and Ahchee. We send picks 26 and 50 along with billy stretch who there has been some interest in for pick 20 and 58. 

Hawks trade pick 11 and 42 for gws Patton, Bonar, and 2020 gws 1st round pick. 

Hawks can then wait for a bid on McGuinness and match it and then trade back into the draft using that future first.

Gws trade picks 6 and 11 for 3 and 58. 

That is a cost discrepancy  in our favour of about pick 29. But they need pick 3 to make all their previous trades make sense. 

We don’t have to trade and make it all perfectly equal. They benefit more out of having pick 3 than us. 

 

We we will only use 3 picks anyway due to list spots. I imagine they keep the fourth until pre season of pick up a delisted free agent like Tory Dickson. 

A pick haul of 6,11,20 - equals 3 of kemp, young, Stephens, weightman or Taylor. 

Make it happen.

Edited by Eillih

1 hour ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

I don't think you can lump HWSNBN into the same basket as Bonar who was drafted only 2 years ago and hasnt suffered a nearly career ending leg injury

You mean like the two knee recos he's already had?

6 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

You mean like the two knee recos he's already had?

Apologies then, were these as a junior though? I genuinely looked through all the recentnews stories around him and found nothing about acl damage.

 
9 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Apologies then, were these as a junior though? I genuinely looked through all the recentnews stories around him and found nothing about acl damage.

ACL's were pre-draft, he managed to get back from his second to play some decent TAC Cup footy.

Impressed with his speed and power at draft combine and there have been no injury issues in his two years on the GWS list. 


5 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Fluff piece.
Says that Sydney & Adelaide are both very keen, having visited Green's home in Canberra.
Landsburger is assuming Essendon wouldn't be interested and that might increase the chances of Green slipping past 6.
Yeah, nah.

6 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Fluff piece.
Says that Sydney & Adelaide are both very keen, having visited Green's home in Canberra.
Landsburger is assuming Essendon wouldn't be interested and that might increase the chances of Green slipping past 6.
Yeah, nah.

Isn't Green exactly what Essendon need? An inside bull?

There are too many AFL journalists with no idea...

Edited by Good Lord George

32 minutes ago, Good Lord George said:

Isn't Green exactly what Essendon need? An inside bull?

There are too many AFL journalists with no idea...

 

I thought the same thing myself.

Any idea who Landsberger supports? Maybe hoping Green gets there!
Otherwise, very confusing.

7 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

I thought the same thing myself.

Any idea who Landsberger supports? Maybe hoping Green gets there!
Otherwise, very confusing.

He’s a bulldog. His old man is one of their club doctors


I don't know if this has been floated before and can't be bothered reading 27 pages to find out. What would people think of Peter Wright and Jack Martin as a package? I have a feeling we need to use a first round pick this year, but if we sent picks 3 and 26 their way in exchange for Wright, Martin and 15? 

21 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I don't know if this has been floated before and can't be bothered reading 27 pages to find out. What would people think of Peter Wright and Jack Martin as a package? I have a feeling we need to use a first round pick this year, but if we sent picks 3 and 26 their way in exchange for Wright, Martin and 15? 

Not a fan. Both have been underachievers and looked a bit soft IMHO

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I don't know if this has been floated before and can't be bothered reading 27 pages to find out. What would people think of Peter Wright and Jack Martin as a package? I have a feeling we need to use a first round pick this year, but if we sent picks 3 and 26 their way in exchange for Wright, Martin and 15? 

I'd be okay with this. ?

38 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I don't know if this has been floated before and can't be bothered reading 27 pages to find out. What would people think of Peter Wright and Jack Martin as a package? I have a feeling we need to use a first round pick this year, but if we sent picks 3 and 26 their way in exchange for Wright, Martin and 15? 

Both are just average and although Wright has upside, I would stick with 3.

I can’t see GC trading him either after he re-committed. 

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I don't know if this has been floated before and can't be bothered reading 27 pages to find out. What would people think of Peter Wright and Jack Martin as a package? I have a feeling we need to use a first round pick this year, but if we sent picks 3 and 26 their way in exchange for Wright, Martin and 15? 

I would rather go to the draft with high picks, than trade in either of those two players. Plus the Suns would want to keep Wright, as they find it so hard to attract talent, especially with players of his age.


Starting to think we won't split our pick and just head into the Draft with pick 3. 

13 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Starting to think we won't split our pick and just head into the Draft with pick 3. 

I think any offer for the pick was always going to come late, but it is hard to see anyone being able to offer us something of interest.

GWS have an issue in that if they were to give us Pick 6 and a player, they won't actually have enough mid range picks to match a bid of Green without going into deficit. 

 

28 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

I think any offer for the pick was always going to come late, but it is hard to see anyone being able to offer us something of interest.

GWS have an issue in that if they were to give us Pick 6 and a player, they won't actually have enough mid range picks to match a bid of Green without going into deficit. 

 

I think we'll need to add later picks/swap this years later picks for next years to give them the points they need to match the Green bid. It won't be as simple as 3 for 6+whatever. It'll need to be more like 3+3rd round pick+4th round pick for 6+teen pick/player.

 

GWS pretty much have to trade for pick 3 for their strategy to work for them, otherwise they wouldn’t have traded for pick 6. 

I’d be surprised if they aren’t most of the way to negotiating a deal with us already, but no deal will probably happen until some of the other pieces have fallen into place and the available pieces for trade are known.

22 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

GWS pretty much have to trade for pick 3 for their strategy to work for them, otherwise they wouldn’t have traded for pick 6. 

I’d be surprised if they aren’t most of the way to negotiating a deal with us already, but no deal will probably happen until some of the other pieces have fallen into place and the available pieces for trade are known.

Also worth noting that whilst player trades finish on Wednesday, picks can be traded up until Nov 22. And then again on draft night.

Edited by Moonshadow


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
    • 91 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
    • 342 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