16 hours ago, olisik said:

8 to cats for 14 and 17. We are looking at over drafting a player at 8 who could potentially be available at 14.

No thanks.  Other than the fact that deal, points wise (which I don't really GAF about TBH), is heavily in our favour, I'd prefer us to take the 8th best kid in the draft instead of the 14th and 17th.  Not only that, I'd hate Wells to get his grubby little hands on a pick that high, which will only make them stronger.

Try again.

10 hours ago, Bonkers said:

Next years first rounder won't have the value to help with a trade as most teams are unlikely to want a first round pick which will effectively be a 2nd round pick after academy and F/S selections.

Essentially we would be trading for a swap of 3 to 6 and a second round pick. It's not really worth it when you consider if we were to do the trade it helps GWS more than it helps us. They get 2 top 5 players in a draft and we dilute our draft hand and get effectively a 2nd round pick next year. Who wins that deal? It's not us.

so on that basis our current first pick in the 2020 draft will net us a third round quality player.  You can't tell me that there are players outside the NGA and father son priority picks that aren't considered first round picks.  You want a first round pick so you can bid on players that will take away clubs second and third round picks so you elevate your pick.  If clubs like us that don't have any top picks in our NGA don't bid all off the sudden the clubs that do are picking up top line talent with first round picks then Priority FS/NGA picks with second third round picks.

 

44 minutes ago, Kent said:

Future first is likely to be in the 20's  Just not enough!

So what you are saying is our current first pick will be mid late 30's to 40's.  The pick will be 8-15 we can't control what other clubs have in the FS/NGA so if that falls back we still are in a position to grab the best kids that aren't priority access picks, there isn't going to be any quality around with later picks

19 minutes ago, drdrake said:

so on that basis our current first pick in the 2020 draft will net us a third round quality player.  You can't tell me that there are players outside the NGA and father son priority picks that aren't considered first round picks.  You want a first round pick so you can bid on players that will take away clubs second and third round picks so you elevate your pick.  If clubs like us that don't have any top picks in our NGA don't bid all off the sudden the clubs that do are picking up top line talent with first round picks then Priority FS/NGA picks with second third round picks.

 

Our first round pick is now with North so we don't have one. The pick from GWS as a first round is likely to slip back to the mid 20's if they finish in the top 4 as the amount of NGA & F/S picks are high. You want a first round pick so you can take away clubs second and round picks? Really? Then why has the club given away its first round next year for pick number 8? That would be contradictory to the strategy to obtain a first rounder this year. 

You have a valid point about clubs not bidding etc. But if we were to obtain a first rounder from a club like GWS next year it doesn't really have first round value next year, why would you want to trade for it? Our pick that we traded for 8 on the other hand could have gone anywhere in the first round as our finish position next year is not as certain as GWS. 

GWS want a player like Young for example and they want Green who is in their academy. Why would we give them that opportunity just for a diluted pick in return? It has to be Win / Win to give them a leg up. Those proposing to only accept their first rounder next year are happy with giving GWS an advantage over the rest of the comp and us receiving chump change in exchange. It doesn't make sense to me. The club would be right in holding out for more in exchange. Giving up the rights to the 3rd best junior in the country for pick 6 and an even more speculative 20's pick next year plus giving GWS a crack at 2 top 5 picks doesn't appeal to me.

23 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

Our first round pick is now with North so we don't have one. The pick from GWS as a first round is likely to slip back to the mid 20's if they finish in the top 4 as the amount of NGA & F/S picks are high. You want a first round pick so you can take away clubs second and round picks? Really? Then why has the club given away its first round next year for pick number 8? That would be contradictory to the strategy to obtain a first rounder this year. 

You have a valid point about clubs not bidding etc. But if we were to obtain a first rounder from a club like GWS next year it doesn't really have first round value next year, why would you want to trade for it? Our pick that we traded for 8 on the other hand could have gone anywhere in the first round as our finish position next year is not as certain as GWS. 

GWS want a player like Young for example and they want Green who is in their academy. Why would we give them that opportunity just for a diluted pick in return? It has to be Win / Win to give them a leg up. Those proposing to only accept their first rounder next year are happy with giving GWS an advantage over the rest of the comp and us receiving chump change in exchange. It doesn't make sense to me. The club would be right in holding out for more in exchange. Giving up the rights to the 3rd best junior in the country for pick 6 and an even more speculative 20's pick next year plus giving GWS a crack at 2 top 5 picks doesn't appeal to me.

Understand what you are saying, we drop back 3 spots by trading 3 to 6 and pick up a first round pick next year.  Based on what you say our current first pick in the 2020 draft is going to be equivalent to a third round pick, so we may as well not attend the 2020 draft, but we have to take 3 picks.  There are kids that will be rated top 25 picks that aren't NGA/FS priority access to other clubs, what you are saying is we shouldn't try to even be in a position to pick these kids up and wait for the uncertainty of picking kids up in the late 30's, 40's and 60's. 

If we are worried about a pick in 2020 being pushed back too far should we just set GWS a task. For example just tell them, "Go fetch us Freo's pick 10. We don't care how you do it, but we will take that and 6 for 3". Otherwise we just keep 3. There are plenty of other side's they can deal with too. If we could get pick 8 then I'm sure the Giants can figure out a way to get a second good pick. Maybe they can get hold of Carltons pick 9 they seem to be able to convince them to take their scraps. When you give a club a deal you'll accept, then they'll often find a way to do it, particularly if they're as desperate as reported

This is hopefully the year where we can get 2 x elite talents into a pretty reasonable list

We may not get a chance like this for a considerable time. Need to make the most of it. Everything the recruiting team has done, rightly or wrongly,  has been done for a reason. so far they don't seem to have put a foot wrong - altho aside from maybe Oliver & Gawn we still lack a damaging game breaker like Martin, Danger or Cripps.

It has to be an extraordinary deal to give away 3 and/or 8.

 

Edited October 17, 20195 yr by jnrmac

I hope the club takes a long-term view and doesn't overestimate the ability to judge 18 year old talent and how it will translate to the AFL. The best strategy for us is to blackmail GWS and Freo and be willing to slide down the draft to gain future assets. If we are clever about ascertaining the likely order of the draft, we could potentially have our cake and eat it too.

I would also like us to take the best big bodied midfielders, given they tend to be the best players in the AFL and are the least likely to be busts. From all the draft bios, I think Green (GWS) and Kemp look the most sure-fire picks.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

This is hopefully the year where we can get 2 x elite talents into a pretty reasonable list

We may not get a chance like this for a considerable time. Need to make the most of it. Everything the recruiting team has done, rightly or wrongly,  has been done for a reason. so far they don't seem to have put a foot wrong - altho aside from maybe Oliver & Gawn we still lack a damaging game breaker like Martin, Danger or Cripps.

It has to be an extraordinary deal to give away 3 and/or 8.

 

If you look at pick 3 at the moment we have 4 players that on this site we the favourites for this pick Kemp, Serong, Young and Ash, my point in downgrading to 6 we will still get one of these players, then 2 picks later we get another pick and one of these could be still available or Flanders or best small or Tall Forward in the draft.

4 hours ago, drdrake said:

Understand what you are saying, we drop back 3 spots by trading 3 to 6 and pick up a first round pick next year.  Based on what you say our current first pick in the 2020 draft is going to be equivalent to a third round pick, so we may as well not attend the 2020 draft, but we have to take 3 picks.  There are kids that will be rated top 25 picks that aren't NGA/FS priority access to other clubs, what you are saying is we shouldn't try to even be in a position to pick these kids up and wait for the uncertainty of picking kids up in the late 30's, 40's and 60's. 

No what I'm saying is don't help a direct competitor obtain access to a player for a draft pick that doesn't have equal value to the one they're getting access to by helping them out. 

2 hours ago, drdrake said:

If you look at pick 3 at the moment we have 4 players that on this site we the favourites for this pick Kemp, Serong, Young and Ash, my point in downgrading to 6 we will still get one of these players, then 2 picks later we get another pick and one of these could be still available or Flanders or best small or Tall Forward in the draft.

I hear what you are saying but surely MFC know these players a lot better and there could be a big difference between them - more than we know.  Based on history 1-2 of those 4 won't play more than 20 games. One will be a gun and one good.  so if we know our stuff, it matters

12 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

No what I'm saying is don't help a direct competitor obtain access to a player for a draft pick that doesn't have equal value to the one they're getting access to by helping them out. 

Only problem with that is... you completely remove any incentive for GWS to do the deal in that case.

We’d still need to “lose” somewhat, although getting a better return than face value.

47 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Only problem with that is... you completely remove any incentive for GWS to do the deal in that case.

We’d still need to “lose” somewhat, although getting a better return than face value.

Well we aren't going to get pick 5 in return or course. But they need to pay something better than what's rumoured to have been offered so far. 6 and a pick under 12 this year would be more ideal. 

2 hours ago, Bonkers said:

Well we aren't going to get pick 5 in return or course. But they need to pay something better than what's rumoured to have been offered so far. 6 and a pick under 12 this year would be more ideal. 

Well they can’t trade us players now.

They also can’t trade players to others to get more picks for us.

Therefore, the best we can really hope for is 6 plus GWS first round next year, plus their 2nd next year. 

But then I think there might be rules around trading future picks restricting this?

Unless they managed to get a future 2nd from someone else during trade week, can’t recall.

10 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Well they can’t trade us players now.

They also can’t trade players to others to get more picks for us.

Therefore, the best we can really hope for is 6 plus GWS first round next year, plus their 2nd next year. 

But then I think there might be rules around trading future picks restricting this?

Unless they managed to get a future 2nd from someone else during trade week, can’t recall.

We may want GWS to trade their next years 1st, for someone else’s pick from this years draft. At least that way we know what pick we are getting.

not a fan of splitting the pick, we have two top 10 players we can pick, these are the best players. best opportunity to pick up two good players, to trade one away for a couple of less talented players seems wrong. would you want to give GWS a possible cripps so that we can get to more average players.

I'm happy either way. I'm happy if we take our current 2 top 10 picks to the draft. I'd also be happy to split the picks if we could land 3 top 10 picks. 

5 hours ago, Deecisive said:

not a fan of splitting the pick, we have two top 10 players we can pick, these are the best players. best opportunity to pick up two good players, to trade one away for a couple of less talented players seems wrong. would you want to give GWS a possible cripps so that we can get to more average players.

You do realise if we split the pick we will likely still have two top ten picks and in top of that regain a first rounder next year?

There is no Cripps available to us in this draft. They are both gone in the first two selections or to GWS with Green.

If, for some reason (such as inability to trade future picks), we aren’t able to do a direct split pick deal with GWS, is it possible to do a three way trade of draft picks during the current period?

Edited October 18, 20195 yr by SidVicious

We need to take both our picks this year, use pick 3 for Lachie Ash and 8 for Brodie Kemp?

These are the absolute blue-chip AFL superstars taken in the top-fifteen in recent draft years (my decision is final): 

Lachie Whitfield 1
Josh Kelly 2
Marcus Bontempelli 4
Patrick Cripps 13
Jordan De Goey 5
Clayton Oliver 4

Yes, we're all aware of the upper-end draft busts and low-pick steals. But outside of Cripps, of the highly touted: all top-five. Sure, others may enter the frame, but there's not many candidates from the 10 to 15 range in their respective drafts.

Drafting is of course a crap-shoot, but having a top-five pick definitely helps in the potential of landing an outright star. So, unless we pull a serious surprise and package up to the Sun's number two, I'm of the mind we hold on to three. 

Hopefully to use on Young and Kemp - but that opinion is based entirely on footage of precisely one kick and briefly reading something something about Patrick Dangerfield and explosions . . . not including Kemp's recent anterior cruciate one. 

Edited October 18, 20195 yr by Skuit

6 hours ago, Beetle said:

You do realise if we split the pick we will likely still have two top ten picks and in top of that regain a first rounder next year?

There is no Cripps available to us in this draft. They are both gone in the first two selections or to GWS with Green.

Ye there is.

We pick Tom Green with 3

Use 8 on small forward

Move on

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Ye there is.

We pick Tom Green with 3

Use 8 on small forward

Move on

We aren’t getting Green.

48 minutes ago, Beetle said:

We aren’t getting Green.

True ... but there’s nothing to stop us from nominating him at pick 3 if we don’t trade it.

3 hours ago, Beetle said:

We aren’t getting Green.

we may not get green but we can certainly get the next best player after green instead of letting him go off to GWS and make them even stronger.

6 hours ago, Skuit said:

These are the absolute blue-chip AFL superstars taken in the top-fifteen in recent draft years (my decision is final): 

Lachie Whitfield 1
Josh Kelly 2
Marcus Bontempelli 4
Patrick Cripps 13
Jordan De Goey 5
Clayton Oliver 4

Yes, we're all aware of the upper-end draft busts and low-pick steals. But outside of Cripps, of the highly touted: all top-five. Sure, others may enter the frame, but there's not many candidates from the 10 to 15 range in their respective drafts.

I’d argue for Charlie Curnow and Darcy Moore as absolute blue chippers.

But my stronger argument is that there’s no blue chippers left at pick 3 so what we really need is to get a classy player. 

2016 draft. Pick 11: Oli Florent. Pick 12: Jy Simpkin. If you could lock in a player of that quality at pick 6 then I’d do the deal immediately. 

It’s the Salem for Billings style decision, but this time there’s no Josh Kelly and if there’s a Bont I can’t see it.