30 minutes ago, Beetle said:

It will work out.

They have nothing more to offer us...player trades are finished & they've given us their best pick options which we've turned down for good reason.

Can't see any reason why we won't go to the draft with these picks unless we can turn pick 3 into 2 picks in this years first round...

Edited October 16, 20195 yr by rjay

1 minute ago, rjay said:

They have nothing more to offer us...player trades are finished & they've given us their best pick options which we've turned down for good reason.

They can make pick trades with other clubs prior to putting a better pick trade to us.

3 hours ago, Mach5 said:

They need the points themselves for Green.

I think we’re now in the realm of accepting 6 and their 1st rounder in 2020 plus shrapnel, or trading with someone else who has more assets & wants pick 3.

GWS might have to look at dealing with Sydney & Adelaide, and hoping we don’t bid on Green.

Just had a look at the points deficit rules, I thought you could rack up a big tab but seems I'm wrong.

So if we trade 3 for 6 and the Green bid comes at pick 4 (2034 points), less a 20% discount becomes 1627.

Assuming these rules are correct the most the Giants can carry over next year (less a first round pick) would be 1723 - 985 = 738 (less if they use pick 19 rather than pick 18).

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-12/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole

So the Giants would need 889 points in this years draft which they don't have. They've really stuffed up not getting an extra 2nd rounder so they can offer us more and have the flexibility to match any bid with a deficit. 

I can't see a trade with GWS that would satisfy us now that players are off the table and we've knocked back their future first rounder. Unless they can manufacture something worthwhile like another top 15 pick (unlikely) in this draft to go with pick 6 I think we will keep pick 3. If that's the case I hope we bid for Green and force them to use as many points as possible. We then take the next best talent at 4. 

Having said all that, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting pick 8 (pushed down to 9) on the night.

One scenario (and I'm factoring in that Green will have an early bid and all subsequent picks have been moved down one) could be that Port maybe keen on Dylan Stephens but know he won't last to their pick 13. Would they be desperate enough to package up 13 and 19 to get their man at 9? We may be keen on Weightman at pick 9 anyway and it's possible that we will know that he will still be available at 13. We then have a free hit at 19 for Bergman or whoever. This is of course just a theoretical example but shows the flexibility we have with two high end picks.

GWS don’t have enough picks this year & next to keep us happy, and it’s now too late for them to trade players to get more picks. I think they’re banking on us taking what they have to offer. 

And I think we’ll decide it’s not enough to slip down 3 places. Bidding on Green also ensures they have to use their pick 6 on Green, and there’s one more player available for us at pick 8 that might not be otherwise.

Conpletely comfortable for us to actually select Green. If he’s as good as he should be, you find room for that sort of player.

Seriously, if offered Cripps for a 1st round pick, would we knock it back? No, you’d make it work.

Edited October 16, 20195 yr by Mach5

6 more weeks of this.

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

6 more weeks of this.

But we won't lose a game for 6 weeks Mr Leg!

8 hours ago, rjay said:

They have nothing more to offer us...player trades are finished & they've given us their best pick options which we've turned down for good reason.

Can't see any reason why we won't go to the draft with these picks unless we can turn pick 3 into 2 picks in this years first round...

The clubs who have the currency to do this are Freo (pick 7 and 10)  and GCS (15 and 2020 1st round (likely 1-5) and their mid 1st round pp (likely 10-12).

Just can't see any benefit for either Freo or GCS needing pick 3. 

So l also think we will go to the draft with 3 and 8.

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

GWS don’t have enough picks this year & next to keep us happy, and it’s now too late for them to trade players to get more picks. I think they’re banking on us taking what they have to offer. 

And I think we’ll decide it’s not enough to slip down 3 places. Bidding on Green also ensures they have to use their pick 6 on Green, and there’s one more player available for us at pick 8 that might not be otherwise.

Conpletely comfortable for us to actually select Green. If he’s as good as he should be, you find room for that sort of player.

Seriously, if offered Cripps for a 1st round pick, would we knock it back? No, you’d make it work.

It will be interesting to see if we bid on Green at 3.  Two scenarios:

If GWS get 4 from Adelaide, I reckon we will bid on Green at 3 to force them to use it.  No reason for us to gift a Grand Finalist a free hit at another top 5 player especially if it is the player we want at 8 (and I'm guessing the quid pro quo of players for GWS to not bid on 3 if they got it would have been discussed in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink manner).

If GWS don't get 4 from Adelaide we can pass on Green because Sydney will definitely bid on him at 5 forcing GWS into pick 6.  Sydney won't trade GWS 5.

 

As and aside as this comment not related to either post above.  For posters concerned about bidding on Green and then 'stuck' with him because we already have too many 'inside mids' we can always trade one of them out next year.  And Green may well spend some time at Casey as most first year players do so I have no problem taking him at 3. 

Edited October 16, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

But what do GWS hav to give to adelaide to get pick 4?

And I’d imagine they’d then want to slip into 3 to stop us bidding. In that case it’s only slipping back 1 spot for us, but what price do we put on that, and what could GWS possible have left to offer us?

I think we keep our picks, bid on Green at 3, GWS match, we end up happy still.

That’s the bluff.

Eventually we trade 3 for 6, 2020 1st rounder and 2020 3rd rounder, something like that. Late picks in 2020 may have little value to us now, but next year we’ll be able to hand them off to all the teams with academy selections that need to accumulate points.

Still value to be found.

2 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

But what do GWS hav to give to adelaide to get pick 4?

And I’d imagine they’d then want to slip into 3 to stop us bidding. In that case it’s only slipping back 1 spot for us, but what price do we put on that, and what could GWS possible have left to offer us?

I think we keep our picks, bid on Green at 3, GWS match, we end up happy still.

That’s the bluff.

Eventually we trade 3 for 6, 2020 1st rounder and 2020 3rd rounder, something like that. Late picks in 2020 may have little value to us now, but next year we’ll be able to hand them off to all the teams with academy selections that need to accumulate points.

Still value to be found.

I understand the bluff.  I was saying we call the bluff if GWS get 4 (dropping two spots for Adelaide plus an extra 2020 first round may be worth it for them).  Even if GWS get 4 they still don't have the currency to get 3 from us.

If GWS don't get 4 we don't have to call the bluff as Green won't get to 6.

 

Assuming we go to the draft with picks 3 & 8 this gives the club a chance to add 4 good players to our best 12 (Injuries aside and assuming Tomlinson & Langdon perform up to standard)

And the best we've done in the last 15 years in terms of adding good players is 2014 when we added Petracca,  Brayshaw & Harmes (3 only)

But the draft can cough up busts as well as gems so fingers crossed. 

I really like taking 3 and 8 to this draft. 

We have a looming age/talent gap in our list, not having taken a top 20 draft pick for 3 years and we have very few senior listed players under 21 y.o. 

So two top 10 players will help fill that gap especially as we don't currently have a top 20 pick in 2020.

Edited October 16, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

40 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I understand the bluff.  I was saying we call the bluff if GWS get 4 (dropping two spots for Adelaide plus an extra 2020 first round may be worth it for them).  Even if GWS get 4 they still don't have the currency to get 3 from us.

If GWS don't get 4 we don't have to call the bluff as Green won't get to 6.

 

Maybe.

But all this happens in real time.

Adelaide can negotiate, say they’ll bid if we don’t, then wait until after we’ve made our selection at pick 3, then trade with GWS, still affecting our pick 8.

Fine, we still get pick 3, but maybe we could have selected the same player & had extra if we swapped for pick 6.

Edited October 16, 20195 yr by Mach5

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The clubs who have the currency to do this are Freo (pick 7 and 10)  and GCS (15 and 2020 1st round (likely 1-5) and their mid 1st round pp (likely 10-12).

Just can't see any benefit for either Freo or GCS needing pick 3. 

So l also think we will go to the draft with 3 and 8.

It will be interesting to see if we bid on Green at 3.  Two scenarios:

If GWS get 4 from Adelaide, I reckon we will bid on Green at 3 to force them to use it.  No reason for us to gift a Grand Finalist a free hit at another top 5 player especially if it is the player we want at 8 (and I'm guessing the quid pro quo of players for GWS to not bid on 3 if they got it would have been discussed in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink manner).

If GWS don't get 4 from Adelaide we can pass on Green because Sydney will definitely bid on him at 5 forcing GWS into pick 6.  Sydney won't trade GWS 5.

 

As and aside as this comment not related to either post above.  For posters concerned about bidding on Green and then 'stuck' with him because we already have too many 'inside mids' we can always trade one of them out next year.  And Green may well spend some time at Casey as most first year players do so I have no problem taking him at 3. 

One way to target Freo's pick 7 and 10 is to say we are going to bid on their NGA kid Liam Henry at 8 which actually does make sense from our points of view, he's a similar if not better small forward prospect than Weightman, he is a better crumbing player with more x-factor who has been likened to Walters. By my understanding Freo would have to use 10 to match the bid so it would make sense for them to trade up to 3 to get a better player than they would at 7. We still get weightman at 10 so it essentially would be 3 for 7 and 8 where Ash/Kemp/Stephens should be there.

1 hour ago, Gawndog98 said:

One way to target Freo's pick 7 and 10 is to say we are going to bid on their NGA kid Liam Henry at 8 which actually does make sense from our points of view, he's a similar if not better small forward prospect than Weightman, he is a better crumbing player with more x-factor who has been likened to Walters. By my understanding Freo would have to use 10 to match the bid so it would make sense for them to trade up to 3 to get a better player than they would at 7. We still get weightman at 10 so it essentially would be 3 for 7 and 8 where Ash/Kemp/Stephens should be there.

Would love for Bell to have to agree to this too

1 hour ago, Gawndog98 said:

One way to target Freo's pick 7 and 10 is to say we are going to bid on their NGA kid Liam Henry at 8 which actually does make sense from our points of view, he's a similar if not better small forward prospect than Weightman, he is a better crumbing player with more x-factor who has been likened to Walters. By my understanding Freo would have to use 10 to match the bid so it would make sense for them to trade up to 3 to get a better player than they would at 7. We still get weightman at 10 so it essentially would be 3 for 7 and 8 where Ash/Kemp/Stephens should be there.

Wrote this before seeing your post GawnDog... good minds think alike! 
 

Got a theory – so bear with me!

 

I think there will be fireworks on the trade night. 

 

1.      Melbourne has made no secret that we are after small forwards – particularly with publicly chasing Elliot.  That in itself is strange because our pattern the last few years is to only allow the speculation (leak to media?) when we know we are going to get our target (Lever, May, Langdon & Tomlinson).

2.      We have a history of bidding on academy players (not sure exactly which ones - Heeney, Mills?) so to say we will do again cannot be dismissed as bluff.

3.      We have 2 picks in the top 10 – if Greene is as good as reported, it would not be a terrible thing to get him at 3 if GWS don’t match and we can still target the outside run with / small forward with 8. 

4.      GWS and Geelong are clearly interested in our pick 3 (it’s likely others such as Sydney would be too).  Reportedly, GWS offering 6 and next year’s first round is not enough for us to trade 3.  Well played!

5.      The draft “experts” have said the best small forwards are Liam Henry (Freo academy) and Cody Weightman – depending on what you believe Melbourne rates Cody as high as 3 and others believe he will go as late as around pick 28.

6.      Fremantle hold picks 7 and 10.

7.      Unlike some years, there seems to be little consensus among the draft “experts” as to the best players from 3-12ish. 

 

Is there a way we could trade pick 3 and end up with 7 and 10 (while keeping 8)?  Given the reported evenness of the draft, I think this would be an enormous win.  How do we do this?

Probably smarter minds than I would have a better idea.  I don’t think Freo would trade 7 and 10 for 3 (and probably wouldn’t believe we would nominate Henry at 3) but if GWS believe we will take Greene at 3, then they will be forced to offer us a deal we can’t refuse – pick 6, next years first + anything else they have / can trade for.

 

We then have 6 and 8 and tell Freo we will nominate Henry with 6 – because picking him at 6 would not be a terrible thing for us at all.  He is reportedly a gun and fulfils our need.  They trade us 7 and 10 for 6 (not sure how much of what else we’ve received from GWS would need to be part of the deal).   They can then draft someone with pick 6 and Henry with their next pick - 22 (I think that’s right?).

 

We can then use 7,8 and 10 to get Weightman and 2 of Serong / Stephens, Flanders / Ash / Kemp / Young / whoever else I’m missing

This might have been mentioned before but even if GWS had have been able to get hold of pick 3 and then used that pick on a player other than Tom Green,  they might not have had the currency in draft picks to match a bid of another club budding for Green (as early as pick 4).

And as it stands they probably have to use pick 6 on Green regardless of whether another club bids on the player with an earlier pick.

So us getting pick 6 and next year's first rounder from GWS for pick 3 could possibly only benefit us.  Especially if GWS then had to use pick 3 on Green anyway and the 2 players that we were interested in drafting at 6 & 8 came from a pool of players rated anywhere within the 3 to 10 bracket.  We'd end up with a bonus pick for next year.

The reported deal with GWS might have been our idea. 

Stand corrected on the above if it's not an accurate assessment.

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Macca

Apparently Peter Bell wants to move pick 10 up the draft as concerned about bids from Henry coming in, specifically from Carlton who missed out on Papley ect

 

Now that the dust has settled somewhat on the trade period (especially the ability mouse players in potential movements), I'm firmly in the camp of no f-ing way should we split Pick 3.  There is nothing that GWS could realistically offer us that would make me want to give them a Top 3 player as well as Green.  And if this Green bloke is so good, then I'd be happy for him to be playing for us than them.  Then we still get to add some cream on top at 8.

We are crying out for more top end talent.  We've got more of a chance of getting that at Pick 3, than having two cracks at it in the Pick 8-15 range.

9 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Now that the dust has settled somewhat on the trade period (especially the ability mouse players in potential movements), I'm firmly in the camp of no f-ing way should we split Pick 3.  There is nothing that GWS could realistically offer us that would make me want to give them a Top 3 player as well as Green.  And if this Green bloke is so good, then I'd be happy for him to be playing for us than them.  Then we still get to add some cream on top at 8.

We are crying out for more top end talent.  We've got more of a chance of getting that at Pick 3, than having two cracks at it in the Pick 8-15 range.

We could look at alternative splits like with Freo or Gold Coast. We could also look to split pick 8 instead. Fair few options still.

Still think it will be Pick 6 and Future first round pick from GWS for pick 3, it gets us back into the first round next year most likely between 8-15, really we could take either  Young, Serong, Flanders, Ash at 4 and you should be getting a quality player.  Then you look at either  Kemp, McAsey(tall Forward), Weightman at pick 8 or one of the first 4 mentioned slip through

1 hour ago, olisik said:

Apparently Peter Bell wants to move pick 10 up the draft as concerned about bids from Henry coming in, specifically from Carlton who missed out on Papley ect

It is most unlikely Henry will be bid before pick 7 which Freo hold.  Carlton's first pick is 9 so can force Freo to use 10.  

To stop Carlton in their tracks the answer is for Freo to trade their pick 10 and their next year's first round pick for our pick 8.  Back themselves in to rise up the ladder next year. They can use 7 and 8 to before Carlton can bid on Hnery  and then they use pick 22 which is what they plan to do anyway etc.  This effectively gives them 3 top 10 players this year.

Pick 8 is suddenly quite powerful.

Bell will want 8 for their 10 and next year's second, which I might do if they give back our 2020 second round pick as well.

But I reckon Bell is too focused on winning every trade to see the big picture and the advantages of such deals. 

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

10 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

It is most unlikely Henry will be bid before pick 7 which Freo hold.  Carlton's first pick is 9 so can force Freo to use 10.  

To stop Carlton in their tracks the answer is for Freo to trade their pick 10 and their next year's first round pick for our pick 8.  Back themselves in to rise up the ladder next year. They can use 7 and 8 to before Carlton can bid on Hnery  and then they use pick 22 which is what they plan to do anyway etc.  This effectively gives them 3 top 10 players this year.

Pick 8 is suddenly quite powerful.

Bell will want 8 for their 10 and next year's second, which I might do if they give back our 2020 second round pick as well.

But I reckon Bell is too focused on winning every trade to see the big picture and the advantages of such deals. 

I imagine we wouldn't mind landing Henry - what if GWS trade 6 and next year's first for pick 3.  We might then threaten to use 6 on Henry.  Could this be enough to prize 7 and 10 out of freo (we might need to give up next year's first from GWS?)

From what others have posted Henry isn't on our radar as a small forward.  Not sure 'threats' are a good way to negotiate.  Would prefer to keep it amicable and slide our 8 to their 10 + +.

Also if Henry goes top 5 they may not match the bid.  Was touted as a low teens bid until Carlton missed out on Papley.

20 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

It is most unlikely Henry will be bid before pick 7 which Freo hold.  Carlton's first pick is 9 so can force Freo to use 10.  

To stop Carlton in their tracks the answer is for Freo to trade their pick 10 and their next year's first round pick for our pick 8.  Back themselves in to rise up the ladder next year. They can use 7 and 8 to before Carlton can bid on Hnery  and then they use pick 22 which is what they plan to do anyway etc.  This effectively gives them 3 top 10 players this year.

Pick 8 is suddenly quite powerful.

Bell will want 8 for their 10 and next year's second, which I might do if they give back our 2020 second round pick as well.

But I reckon Bell is too focused on winning every trade to see the big picture and the advantages of such deals. 

You think Bell -end would do that trade?

Unlikely