Jump to content

Splitting Draft Pick 3

Demon3
in Melbourne Demons

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

12 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

In relation to your first question I think you’re pretty much correct. 

In attempting to answer your second question are you thinking along the lines of: He nominates Melbourne and we offer him a contract however GWS match the offer and force a trade? 

Spot on

  • Quote
    •  
    19 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

    Spot on

    Technically I suppose it could happen. Personally I couldn’t see a RFA being used that way though. If we were keen to trade picks with GWS as we’re they and Tomlinson wanted to come to Melbourne, i’d Imagine they’d be done as seperate deals with an agreement. For example, we’ll trade you our picks 11 and 13 for pick 3 and we won’t match your offer for Tomlinson. 

    Edited by Ethan Tremblay

  • Quote

    I believe Tomlinson is an unrestricted free agent? Meaning GWS can’t match the offer.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    13 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

    I rate Daniels, would be happy with 11, 13 and Daniels and a swap of later picks. 

    Daniels is exactly what we need. 

    How many games has Daniels played? How is his kicking?

  • Quote
    9 minutes ago, binman said:

    How many games has Daniels played? How is his kicking?

    Just read that he signed until 2021 at the start of this year. 

    So rule him out. 

    He's super crafty, quick and very smart with ball in hands. High pressure and skilled. 

    Think of a player that possesses all attributes that our team doesn't. Daniels is that player. 

  • Quote

    11 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

    He's a free agent ffs!!

    Just because hes a ufa doesnt mean he cant be traded for. 

    In saying that depending how things turn out I'm not sure why you would trade for him

  • Quote
    17 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

    Just read that he signed until 2021 at the start of this year. 

    So rule him out. 

    He's super crafty, quick and very smart with ball in hands. High pressure and skilled. 

    Think of a player that possesses all attributes that our team doesn't. Daniels is that player. 

    I don't think the contract necessarily rules him out. Is he a Victorian?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    8 hours ago, Demon Forever said:

    Giving GWS picks 15, 41 and 59 for Ed Langdon is down right stupid for only a 2nd round pick. Langdon should be done for pick 20 or whatever that turns into. I get what your trying to do but that is way over the odds. 

    That wasn't the deal at all. Instead of just giving up pick 22 for Langdon, then going to the draft with picks 3, 41 & 59 we end up with Langdon, plus picks 13, 22 & 26 (and there'd be a good chance we'd also get another player out of GWS). On pure draft pick calculations (using the index), it values Langdon as an early 2nd, GWS get the equivalent points for their picks and we end up with the player we want plus downgrade our first pick to 13, don't lose our 2nd and pick up another decent 2nd for our 4th and 5th picks. When you actually take time to understand it, it's not over the odds at all, not saying it'll happen but based on the pure numbers this is a win-win-win for all clubs. 

  • Quote
    •  
    7 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    In relation to your first question I think you’re pretty much correct. 

    In attempting to answer your second question are you thinking along the lines of: He nominates Melbourne and we offer him a contract however GWS match the offer and force a trade? 

    Can't see GWS matching any offers, if they did and then we (or whoever made the offer) didn't then trade they'd be in a whole lot of salary cap trouble, they'll be making plans to keep Whitfield and Cameron next year, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few others get shaken out of their this year as well. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    42 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

    Just because hes a ufa doesnt mean he cant be traded for. 

    In saying that depending how things turn out I'm not sure why you would trade for him

    So trade for a player we can just get for free? Nice logic 

  • Quote

    Zac Langdon should be someone we target along with 11 and 13 for 2 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    25 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

    Can't see GWS matching any offers, if they did and then we (or whoever made the offer) didn't then trade they'd be in a whole lot of salary cap trouble, they'll be making plans to keep Whitfield and Cameron next year, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few others get shaken out of their this year as well. 

    I edited my original post which also made this point. 

    Edited by Ethan Tremblay

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    14 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    I’d keep pick 3 imo. The Josh Kelly outcome should be enough warning to keep our low pick. 

    Wondering if that argument would be brought up as much if GWS took Billings instead? Plus why doesn't anyone ever mention Carlton splitting their 2014 first round pick (7 for 19 plus Jaksch and Willey) - no winners there at all!! or in 2013 West Coast sending 6 & 44 (Scharenburg & Jesse White (traded for what became Aliir Aliir)) in exchange for 11, 31 & 44 (Sheed, Karpany & no gamer), still a clear win for WC.

    Or that time we sent picks 6, 29 and our 2016 first (AhChee, Schoenfield & Will Brodie - all still on the Suns list and played a combined 10 games this year) for picks 3, 10 & 43 (became Oliver, Weid & Bugg). 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

    Just read that he signed until 2021 at the start of this year. 

    So rule him out. 

    He's super crafty, quick and very smart with ball in hands. High pressure and skilled. 

    Think of a player that possesses all attributes that our team doesn't. Daniels is that player. 

    I like your old stuff better than your new stuff (whoah-a-whooooah) ;)

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    22 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

    Looks like Giants want our pick 2/3 to stop the next pick # holder bidding on Green.  giants-are-eyeing-off-demons-no2-draft-pick

    It means GWS is less likely to take their 1st round picks to the draft and Live Trade them so it gives us a bit of leverage in getting value for #2/3.

     

    So you're telling me Cameron's a chance! 

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    7 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

    So trade for a player we can just get for free? Nice logic 

    Doesn't make your original statement correct though 

  • Quote
    25 minutes ago, shorty said:

    Bonner and pick 11 + GWS 3rd Rd

     

    No way would i do that trade.

    Edited by Demon Disciple

  • Quote

    Given the salary cap room required by GWS and their apparent need for 2 top 5 players, who will be on base payments, our pick 2, but likely 3, could be extremely valuable. 

    If we are prepared to split picks and take 2 players later in the first round, I would imagine GWS would also throw a good player or players into the deal, to get it done.

    That could mean we turn our pick into 3-4 players.

    If the bloke we want is Anderson and we lose the pick, we might rate the next batch fairly equally and be prepared to do a big deal of the type I have outlined above.

    If that is possible, who could we reasonably target from GWS?

    Edited by Redleg

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    7 hours ago, Redleg said:

    If that is possible, who could we reasonably target from GWS?

    Patton. No question.

    If that’s not possible then one of their young small forwards - either Brent Daniels or Bobby Hill.

  • Quote
    •  

    Agree both of them highly valuable for what we need. If we can get an early 20s back then Williams would complement them both nicely. 

    Also on the Tomlinson rumour - he met with Goody mid season and my understanding is his management is talking to the Dees at the moment (well last week) about what the contract would look like if he decides to move. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

    Splitting the pick is only being considered for short terms results with Goodwin and Mahoney trying to save there jobs! 

    We should be taking a top 3 pick and locking him away as we've traded for a few mature types in recent years with a less than stellar track record of actually getting it right!

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

    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...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • 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.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • 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?

        • Haha
      • 170 replies
      Demonland

    • 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/

        • Haha
      • 46 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Clap
        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 328 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All