26 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

No Nascent I didn't miss your post. That's a different issue altogether.

Essentially it means if we were to upgrade a rookie, that would be our last pick in the draft. So at this point, in the 6th round we must make a pick, either a new draftee, or a rookie upgrade.

If people think we really only have 2 draft picks in this years draft, they better get on the phone to Mahoney immediately and let him know, as he's come out and said we're taking them to the draft. If we do that, according to a few on here, we'll be in breach of the 3 draft pick rule. What's the penalty?

If Mahoney is purely posturing for a better trade, he should probably realise that all other clubs would know we'd be in breach of the rules and they may only offer us a 4th and 5th round pick for our first rounder, which we'd be forced to take.

Can you see how ridiculous this is getting?

 

46 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Oh man.

Please tell me what pick number that would be? Oh and by the way we do have to make a 3rd pick according to the Rules At this stage it would be our 6th round pick. I can't tell you exactly what number that would be as most teams will have passed by then, so it could potentially be around the 70s. If you are desperate for me to give you an exact number, as it stands it would be pick 97, AKA the 2nd pick of round 6. And yes, I'm well aware we need to make 3 picks, as per the rules.

I thought that would just mean we had 2 more spots on our list to fill. Yes we'd have 2 more list spots to fill whichever way we wish to fill them. Draft rounds 7 and 8 if we were that way inclined, or DFAs, PSD etc.

Why are you insisting the draft ends after 5 rounds? That is simply not the case, and has never been the case. Go through the rules again if you like and highlight where it says the draft ends after 5 rounds. When you don't see that anywhere in the rules, ask yourself this question. Have we traded our 6th round selection? No. We can use a pick in the 6th round!

I've been patient with you insisting your communication skills are the problem. They aren't. Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.

FWIW though, I hope you are correct that we are still looking to trade in a player for our current suite of picks.

Thanks for your patience, I hope you will see from the below table why I have been saying the things I've been saying. The table sets out each teams available picks, the last one being pick 95 for Richmond I believe. I thought we had traded away all our higher picks but if you are right we must somehow have pick 96. The rule I was after was the one that made this assertion so.

Club-by-club draft picks

YOUR CLUB'S 2019 PICKS
ADEL	4, 23, 28, 49
BL	16, 21, 34, 52, 55, 64
CARL	9, 43, 48, 72, 85
COLL	35, 62, 69, 74
ESS	31, 33, 57, 65, 70, 88
FRE	7, 22, 79, 83
GEEL	14, 17, 24, 36, 37, 93
GCFC	1, 2, 15, 20, 58, 78, 90
GWS	6, 40, 59, 60, 80, 94
HAW	11, 30, 42, 61, 87, 92
MELB	3, 8
NMFC	8, 26, 27, 47, 50, 73, 84
PORT	10, 29, 66, 67, 68, 71, 86
RICH	19, 38, 39, 41, 75, 77, 95
STK	12, 18, 76, 82
SYD	5, 25, 44, 54, 56, 63, 81
WCE	46, 91
WB	13, 32, 45, 51, 53, 89

The AFL table just limited themselves to putting in 5 rounds worth of selections. But you can can go into round 6, 7 even 8 if required. The picks are there.  We will have pick 97, then 115, then 133 ad infinitum until all the required spots have been filled. These numbers will of course change as each club will only have a certain amount of selections and picks will change with acadamy and f/s selections.

3 minutes ago, Nascent said:

The AFL table just limited themselves to putting in 5 rounds worth of selections. But you can can go into round 6, 7 even 8 if required. The picks are there.  We will have pick 97, then 115, then 133 ad infinitum until all the required spots have been filled. These numbers will of course change as each club will only have a certain amount of selections and picks will change with acadamy and f/s selections.

Ok, I think I'm starting to see it now, so Richmond has 95 then a new round starts GC has 96 then we have 97. If necessary we can promote a rookie for 97 and that would then give us 3 selections in the draft if we keep 3 and 8.

17 minutes ago, dworship said:

 

Thanks for your patience, I hope you will see from the below table why I have been saying the things I've been saying. The table sets out each teams available picks, the last one being pick 95 for Richmond I believe. I thought we had traded away all our higher picks but if you are right we must somehow have pick 96. The rule I was after was the one that made this assertion so.

Club-by-club draft picks

YOUR CLUB'S 2019 PICKS
ADEL	4, 23, 28, 49
BL	16, 21, 34, 52, 55, 64
CARL	9, 43, 48, 72, 85
COLL	35, 62, 69, 74
ESS	31, 33, 57, 65, 70, 88
FRE	7, 22, 79, 83
GEEL	14, 17, 24, 36, 37, 93
GCFC	1, 2, 15, 20, 58, 78, 90
GWS	6, 40, 59, 60, 80, 94
HAW	11, 30, 42, 61, 87, 92
MELB	3, 8
NMFC	8, 26, 27, 47, 50, 73, 84
PORT	10, 29, 66, 67, 68, 71, 86
RICH	19, 38, 39, 41, 75, 77, 95
STK	12, 18, 76, 82
SYD	5, 25, 44, 54, 56, 63, 81
WCE	46, 91
WB	13, 32, 45, 51, 53, 89

There are an infinite number of picks ... for instance Richmond hold pick 95 but 96,  97,  98 and so on exist (in theory)

Just imagine that Richmond use pick 95 on a player and there is just us left to draft a player.

We'd then use pick 96.  Which isn't listed but it's there (at least in theory)

But there's a caveat ... all promoted rookies happen before the actual draft rather than afterwards.  And each promoted rookie acts as a draft pick.  So there's no actual draft pick number attached.

So we can go to the draft with just 2 picks (3 and 8 or whatever combo) and a promoted rookie effectively acts as our 3rd pick (with no actual draft pick number attached)

Go to the wiki page for the 2018 draft to see the draft as it's played out.

1 minute ago, Macca said:

There are an infinite number of picks ... for instance Richmond hold pick 95 but 96,  97,  98 and so on exist (in theory)

Just imagine that Richmond use pick 95 on a player and there is just us left to draft a player.

We'd then use pick 96.  Which isn't listed but it's there (at least in theory)

But there's a caveat ... all promoted rookies happen before the actual draft rather than afterwards.  And each promoted rookie acts as a draft pick.  So there's no actual draft pick number attached.

So we can go to the draft with just 2 picks (3 and 8 or whatever combo) and a promoted rookie effectively acts as our 3rd pick (with no actual draft pick number attached)

Go to the wiki page for the 2018 draft to see the draft as it's played out.

Thanks Macca, and yes I finally see, time to eat a bit of humble pie also. Cheers

1 minute ago, dworship said:

Thanks Macca, and yes I finally see, time to eat a bit of humble pie also. Cheers

Don't worry DW ... I am absolutely sure many were in the dark as well.  But promoted rookies taking up a draft pick may not have always been the case

The media don't do a great job explaining it all to the footy folk either. 

I think I'm right in saying that our 3 picks could all be promoted rookies but that may not be altogether correct.  You have to use a first round pick in the '4 year cycle' and I believe the same rule applies for a 2nd round pick.  But if a club uses 2 picks in the first round some sort of carry-over applies.

And the 4 year cycle is a bit ambiguous too.  I've yet to see it explained where it makes sense.

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

Don't worry DW ... I am absolutely sure many were in the dark as well.  But promoted rookies taking up a draft pick may not have always been the case

The media don't do a great job explaining it all to the footy folk either. 

I think I'm right in saying that our 3 picks could all be promoted rookies but that may not be altogether correct.  You have to use a first round pick in the '4 year cycle' and I believe the same rule applies for a 2nd round pick.  But if a club uses 2 picks in the first round some sort of carry-over applies.

And the 4 year cycle is a bit ambiguous too.  I've yet to see it explained where it makes sense.

Now my head hurts, and I have to eat humble pie lol and thanks

4 minutes ago, dworship said:

Now my head hurts, and I have to eat humble pie lol and thanks

We're creatures of habit too and we're well used to the club drafting at least 3 players and sometimes up to 6 players are drafted

But I'm not sure we'll just end up with 2 picks anyway.  'Axis' has put forward a compelling argument that GWS will have to deal with us for our pick 3 and we might end up with pick 6 and another pick in the late first round or a 2nd round pick.  Maybe even a 3rd rounder as well. Or a player (?)

The whole 'package' isn't done with yet you'd imagine.  Which was your original reasoning.  So in the end,  you may well be kinda/sorta right. 

1 hour ago, Beetle said:

If this happens and we manage to go into the draft with 6, 8 (possibly a fourth rounder included) and get back into the the first round next year for pick 3, it will be a massive win for Mahoney and his team.

Don't worry the village idiot having returned, will find a negative with it

3 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Don't worry the village idiot having returned, will find a negative with it

Which of the idiots are we talking about exactly @Pennant St Dee?

7 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

I hope so SD.  I was referring to Olisk's comment that Freo will snatch Stephens with their first pick (7) as they are after two wingman.  I was suggesting they might not need two with chatter suggesting they are in talks with Aish from the Pies.

They are still in the box seat for Stephens with 7 though given that Aish wont be coming across for that pick.  What makes you think they'll go for Jackson over Stephens?

Hey Rusty, I don't ever respond to that troll, waste of time and oxygen.

I think they will take Jackson for a few reasons

As Sandis long term replacement, Darcy is contracted for another 2 years but Cats have been keen on him for a while.

Darcy struggles to run out games and they would like to play Lobb forward more

I know they have been keen on him for a while

They have been burnt a few times with the go home factor and he's a Freo boy born and bred

1 minute ago, Beetle said:

Which of the idiots are we talking about exactly @Pennant St Dee?

Read through this thread, it stands out like the preverbial.

Only comes on here to slate Viney, Mahoney and Goody.

Not a Dees fan that clown

3 hours ago, Pates said:

It’s a very bold play, basically backing ourselves in to be back in the top 8. I would’ve liked a later pick back just to have as a little bit of currency at the end of the draft. 

But I’ll say this, we aren’t playing a safe option. We are going in saying next year that will be a late first found pick. 

I don’t get it. It’s backing ourselves to be top of the table !! We can come 7th and we will definitely still lose. 

 

I cannot get it. Even if we do really well next year we still lose. Explkain that to me ? 

Young and Weightman sound good to me.

9 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

No this is the MFC finally being ballesy like many have been asking and backing itself in for 2020.  Better than sitting back and waiting in hope.

This is NOT BALLSY this is NEGLIGENT!!

6 minutes ago, picket fence said:

This is NOT BALLSY this is NEGLIGENT!!

Just out of interest, what was the last positive thing you think Melbourne did?

4 minutes ago, Bay Riffin said:

I don’t get it. It’s backing ourselves to be top of the table !! We can come 7th and we will definitely still lose. 

 

I cannot get it. Even if we do really well next year we still lose. Explkain that to me ? 

Forget pick 50, it's not worth much when there's preseason and midseason drafts. The point system is rubbish valuing a pick that late.

So it's Pick 9 (after Tom Green bid) for pick 29 (at least 3 father sons/academy picks - Greene, Henry, Maginness) and a future first rounder.

If we finish 7th then we give over pick 13 (Gold Coast mid first round priority pick) which after 3 academy picks in the top 12 which recruiters all think is very likely it becomes pick 16.

Forget about points. Pick 9 - with a years development and hopefully some games -  for 16 and 29. Is that really losing? 

IF - and it's a big if - but if we play finals next year the deal will work out. North are banking on us missing finals.

29 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Read through this thread, it stands out like the preverbial.

Only comes on here to slate Viney, Mahoney and Goody.

Not a Dees fan that clown

Lol, you must be fun at bbqs mate. Pull the pole outta that [censored] of yours, surely it’s getting sore by now.

Hopefully we can pick up some outside stars with good kicks like Toumpas and Strauss with these picks. Truely can set us up for the next decade.

Edited October 15, 20195 yr by olisik

36 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Hey Rusty, I don't ever respond to that troll, waste of time and oxygen.

I think they will take Jackson for a few reasons

As Sandis long term replacement, Darcy is contracted for another 2 years but Cats have been keen on him for a while.

Darcy struggles to run out games and they would like to play Lobb forward more

I know they have been keen on him for a while

They have been burnt a few times with the go home factor and he's a Freo boy born and bred

You don’t respond but you randomly talk about me all the time instead?  

The girls who had a crush on me in highschool used to do the exact same thing ?

Edited October 15, 20195 yr by olisik

11 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Nothing to do with Goodwin trying to save his job

Though probably not much to do with Goodwin at all. It's why we have a football department and recruiting team.

18 hours ago, olisik said:

Goodwin needs us to go all in this year. First rounders next year won’t save his job.

Willing to sell the farm to get in talent.

Quite frankly, I’m happy for him to sell it.

We simply cannot have another season like this year’s.

Despite finishing 17th, we are (ironically) in the premiership window right now, and we have to go for it - full bore.

Great move - Josh Mahoney is a gun at trading picks IMO.

I love it.

 

SEN this morning suggesting  there is talk of whitfield for 3 & 8 - sounds good to me.

I would imagine that he would come with some picks attached to keep us in the draft.  Trade Billy to Suns for a pick and you have whitfield and your requisite picks for the draft.  

By the way, this was less than a rumour so just a bit of fun thinking about it.

Edited October 15, 20195 yr by Salems Lot

I think we get 2 good players with 6 & 8 still so its good, i think we need to somehow get back mor ethan just p6 7 next years first rounder.We hold the whip hand here, so if we are going to help GWS out and make no mistake, we are helping them out, we are helping last years Grand Finalists become even better so that has to be taken into account, we need to ask for:

GIVE: PICK 3

GET: PICK 6, PICK 40 & FUTURE FIRST PICK 2020 

They wont hand over a player, its counter productive for them. we will miss out on Young if we trade pick 3 so we need to be strong on this.

Edited October 15, 20195 yr by Demon3

39 minutes ago, Salems Lot said:

SEN this morning suggesting  there is talk of whitfield for 3 & 8 - sounds good to me.

I would imagine that he would come with some picks attached to keep us in the draft.  Trade Billy to Suns for a pick and you have whitfield and your requisite picks for the draft.  

By the way, this was less than a rumour so just a bit of fun thinking about it.

Would hope pick 6 is still part of this.

34 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

I think we get 2 good players with 6 & 8 still so its good, i think we need to somehow get back mor ethan just p6 7 next years first rounder.We hold the whip hand here, so if we are going to help GWS out and make no mistake, we are helping them out, we are helping last years Grand Finalists become even better so that has to be taken into account, we need to ask for:

GIVE: PICK 3

GET: PICK 6, PICK 40 & FUTURE FIRST PICK 2020 

They wont hand over a player, its counter productive for them. we will miss out on Young if we trade pick 3 so we need to be strong on this.

No enough.  3 for 6, 36ish and about 25 ( after academy picks) next year?  Nope