5 minutes ago, whelan45 said:

Let's say they trade out pick 6 for a future pick, are they still able to match a bid if it came at pick 3? I know they can go into deficit, but how much is the max they can go into deficit? I imagine pick 40 & 59 still wouldn't be enough?

Found this article which helps. I'll try do some scenarios a bit later.

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

 

 

 

 

Article on fox sports saying Dee’s are firming on Jackson at pick 3.

1 hour ago, It's Time said:

The AFL brought in rule 6 to compensate the rest of the Clubs if a Club has the benefit of being able to have access to a Father/Son or Academy player. The AFL set up a points value for each pick in the draft. As an example of how it works GWS have the right to draft Tom Green because they developed him in their Academy. Any other Club can use one of their picks to bid for him. GWS then has to decide to give up enough picks in value to match the value of that pick or let the other Club have him. So for instance if we bid on him at pick 3 that pick is worth 2234 points. To keep Green GWS would have to give up picks they have to match that amount of points. They currently have pick 6 which is worth 1751 points, pick 40 which is worth 429. and pick 59 which is worth 158.  They  would have to give up all those picks and that would leave an excess of 104 points which is worth pick 64 so they would be registered as having used pick 3 in the draft our pick 3 would become 4 and they would lose their picks 6, 40 & 59 and get back 64. 

Hope that explains it. Same applies for Father/Son and NGA academy players. 

Very helpful, thanks.

does that mean every club goes up on the draft (I.e club with pick 41 gets pick 40) ?

26 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

Article on fox sports saying Dee’s are firming on Jackson at pick 3.

I'd be disappointed with the club if we draft Jackson with 3.

He'll be undersized as a ruck at AFL level, and hasn't shown he can play as a key forward. He's mobile and athletic sure, but he's also a horrible kick of the footy and will never be a dominant ruckman at AFL level. He'd basically be playing as a negating ruckman who then becomes an extra midfielder. If the club doesn't value ruck work (Gawns strength), then it makes sense.

He's definitely not the best talent available at such a high pick. Happy to claim that and cop egg on the face in future.

17 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

No point wasting a top 10 pick on Pickett - might as well split 8 and take him later if we want him that badly. As others have said, he'd be a massive risk. GWS have shown you don't necessarily need a specialist crumber to have a potent forwardline (although having Cameron, Green et al. admittedly helps). I'd bid for Tom Green, then take Young and Kemp. Talent over needs in the first round every day of the week.

That's the point AM that you miss GWS have missed a small crumbing forward !!! that's why they have got 2 on their list now Hill and the goalkicker vs Brisbane in the Semi who won it for them.

1 hour ago, It's Time said:

The AFL brought in rule 6 to compensate the rest of the Clubs if a Club has the benefit of being able to have access to a Father/Son or Academy player. The AFL set up a points value for each pick in the draft. As an example of how it works GWS have the right to draft Tom Green because they developed him in their Academy. Any other Club can use one of their picks to bid for him. GWS then has to decide to give up enough picks in value to match the value of that pick or let the other Club have him. So for instance if we bid on him at pick 3 that pick is worth 2234 points. To keep Green GWS would have to give up picks they have to match that amount of points. They currently have pick 6 which is worth 1751 points, pick 40 which is worth 429. and pick 59 which is worth 158.  They  would have to give up all those picks and that would leave an excess of 104 points which is worth pick 64 so they would be registered as having used pick 3 in the draft our pick 3 would become 4 and they would lose their picks 6, 40 & 59 and get back 64. 

Hope that explains it. Same applies for Father/Son and NGA academy players. 

Close but no cigar.

The team matching the bid has to supply picks worth 80% of the pick bid on the player. They get a 20% discount. So if we bid Green at 3 = 2234pts, GWS have to supply 1787  pts to match. Coincidentally pick 6 is worth very nearly that.

32 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

Article on fox sports saying Dee’s are firming on Jackson at pick 3.

Wrong way to go IMO.

So Open after 1 an2 gone but many good prospects in top 10.

Needs first   No 3 Dylan Stephens  addresses Outside run breaks lines beautiful Left foot kick and kicks goals.Huge upside in our team 

No 8 needs first Weightmen prob ahead of Pickett but small crumbing forward very necessary 

BEST PLAYER  policy then prob Young then Kemp if avail at 8 or Jackson or still Stephens.

 

1 hour ago, whelan45 said:

Let's say they trade out pick 6 for a future pick, are they still able to match a bid if it came at pick 3? I know they can go into deficit, but how much is the max they can go into deficit? I imagine pick 40 & 59 still wouldn't be enough?

Maximum deficit is the points value of the last pick in the first round so they can cover the deficit with a future 1st even if they win the flag.

47 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

Article on fox sports saying Dee’s are firming on Jackson at pick 3.

I doubt they have the slightest idea what we are planning

39 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

I doubt they have the slightest idea what we are planning

 

57 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

I'd be disappointed with the club if we draft Jackson with 3.

He'll be undersized as a ruck at AFL level, and hasn't shown he can play as a key forward. He's mobile and athletic sure, but he's also a horrible kick of the footy and will never be a dominant ruckman at AFL level. He'd basically be playing as a negating ruckman who then becomes an extra midfielder. If the club doesn't value ruck work (Gawns strength), then it makes sense.

He's definitely not the best talent available at such a high pick. Happy to claim that and cop egg on the face in future.

For these reasons I don't believe we will be drafting him. Makes no sense on many levels. Won't be a no. 1 ruckman, too short. Apparently hasn't shown anything to indicate he will be a forward worthy of pick 3. 

No idea where press are getting this from. If it's from the Club they must be spreading misinformation for a purpose. Maybe to spook Freo into a deal. Who knows. Jackson looks like a player you'd take in the late 30's or later. Too short, not skilled. Go figure. 

43 minutes ago, It's Time said:

 

For these reasons I don't believe we will be drafting him. Makes no sense on many levels. Won't be a no. 1 ruckman, too short. Apparently hasn't shown anything to indicate he will be a forward worthy of pick 3. 

No idea where press are getting this from. If it's from the Club they must be spreading misinformation for a purpose. Maybe to spook Freo into a deal. Who knows. Jackson looks like a player you'd take in the late 30's or later. Too short, not skilled. Go figure. 

Also the go home factor.

I don't see it either, especially when Young and Green are seen by most as far better prospects.

If we take a bloke who is going to take years to develop over a an absolute need that we have who is also rated as teh third best player in teh draft by some in Young then we will make a mess of this. 

1 hour ago, 58er said:

That's the point AM that you miss GWS have missed a small crumbing forward !!! that's why they have got 2 on their list now Hill and the goalkicker vs Brisbane in the Semi who won it for them.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an effective crumbing forward - a good one makes any forwardline better. It's a matter of risk vs reward for me. Is it worth passing up a chance at drafting the next Dusty for a more speculative, albeit desirable small forward that almost certainly won't make an impact for 2 years anyway? (If he turns out to be any good). I'd rather rookie one, and be aggressive during free agency and trade period next year. 

On Jackson, I agree with most on here - doesn't really seem to make much sense. 

I think we're all sick of the speculation, theories and wild, uninformed guesswork.

Just bring on the draft already, although I note the AFL is milking it by (unnecessarily) dragging it out over two nights.

Same boat here, really hope we don't take Jackson. If we are playing games (which I don't think we are), we are doing a good job. If we somehow manage to get Freo's 7 & 10 for 3, it will have worked, and we should be happy.

2 hours ago, Pipefitter said:

Article on fox sports saying Dee’s are firming on Jackson at pick 3.

Do you, or anyone, have a link? I can't find it..

1 hour ago, Dees247 said:

Do you, or anyone, have a link? I can't find it..

Throw away line at the bottom of the May/Preuss article that doesn't even list an author.

Quote

The Demons will take Pick 3 and Pick 8 to this month’s draft, with ruckman Luke Jackson firming as the player the club take with its first selection.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

I'd be disappointed with the club if we draft Jackson with 3.

He'll be undersized as a ruck at AFL level, and hasn't shown he can play as a key forward. He's mobile and athletic sure, but he's also a horrible kick of the footy and will never be a dominant ruckman at AFL level. He'd basically be playing as a negating ruckman who then becomes an extra midfielder. If the club doesn't value ruck work (Gawns strength), then it makes sense.

He's definitely not the best talent available at such a high pick. Happy to claim that and cop egg on the face in future.

Will happily line up with you LT in terms of our own needs.

Having said that he looks like a very solid ruck prospect that will present any opponent with a big headache, especially once the ball hits the deck.  When you say undersized.   On the surface yes but this kid has a super leap on him enabling him to match it with somewhat taller opponents and best them on many occasions just through pure athleticism.

His ability/agility to work himself 'off' the ruck contest quickly and present himself as a 4th balanced mid, either on the receive or getting his hands dirty if needed , is also astonishingly good and will no doubt be a point of difference and great asset to any team.  Think a slightly smaller version of Nic Nat but better hands to distribute, allowing other mids to release on the burst but without the goal kicking / high marking cred (at this point...i could also be wrong here re: not appearing to be a dangerous/handy part-time forward or pack busting marking prospect so far.  Just going on the vision from the Nats replays).

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

2 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Same boat here, really hope we don't take Jackson. If we are playing games (which I don't think we are), we are doing a good job. If we somehow manage to get Freo's 7 & 10 for 3, it will have worked, and we should be happy.

They would need to give 22 back to us also if they don't want a significant (700+) points deficit going into 2020.

While you have to be willing to give up Young, some of the 'potential' combos with 7, 8, 10 & 22 are pretty enticing...

Kemp, Stephens, Weightman and one of Kozzie or Taylor.

Ash, Kemp, Jackson and same.

Ash, Stephens, Weightman and same.

Serong, Robertson, Weightman and Gould.

Serong, Stephens, Weightman and one of De Koning, Sharp or Schoenberg.

Etc.

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

More about that closed loophole 

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

 

3 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an effective crumbing forward - a good one makes any forwardline better. It's a matter of risk vs reward for me. Is it worth passing up a chance at drafting the next Dusty for a more speculative, albeit desirable small forward that almost certainly won't make an impact for 2 years anyway? (If he turns out to be any good). I'd rather rookie one, and be aggressive during free agency and trade period next year. 

On Jackson, I agree with most on here - doesn't really seem to make much sense. 

Whatever player AM we choose there is always a risk but another inside mid Please NO let's be more creative.

I am sick to death of the ball going to ground (anywhere really) but especially in our Forward line and no one crumbing on a reasonably regular basis with speed and skill. We need a small desperately so must be prepared to recruit high or as wide as possible and let  numbers  do the job!

Surely Weightman Pickett And even another forward type in Sokol in the  PSD draft would change the whole forward setup Add a fit Harley mid year a best ever season from Trac with 40 plus goals along with Fritschy developing more to an A grade forward plus Weide bigger stronger now and Tommy in 2018 form and Milkshake stirring things up.

Now we are talking!

Even ANB could surely fit in as depth with that group around him.

5 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an effective crumbing forward - a good one makes any forwardline better. It's a matter of risk vs reward for me. Is it worth passing up a chance at drafting the next Dusty for a more speculative, albeit desirable small forward that almost certainly won't make an impact for 2 years anyway? (If he turns out to be any good). I'd rather rookie one, and be aggressive during free agency and trade period next year. 

On Jackson, I agree with most on here - doesn't really seem to make much sense. 

AM are you referring to someone in particular as the next potential Dusty or was that just a general comment re passing up on recruiting a genuine mid in this draft vs a small forward?

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

4 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

They would need to give 22 back to us also if they don't want a significant (700+) points deficit going into 2020.

While you have to be willing to give up Young, some of the 'potential' combos with 7, 8, 10 & 22 are pretty enticing...

Kemp, Stephens, Weightman and one of Kozzie or Taylor.

Ash, Kemp, Jackson and same.

Ash, Stephens, Weightman and same.

Serong, Robertson, Weightman and Gould.

Serong, Stephens, Weightman and one of De Koning, Sharp or Schoenberg.

Etc.

They are not going to trade us 7, 10 & 22 for 3, that is laughable

My theory is that Freo will do the following:

1. Wait and see what happens up to their pick 7 and assuming there's no bids on Henry to that point they will select their first option (likely Deven Robertson or Luke Jackson).

2. They will then offer us pick 10 and 22 as they are then guaranteed pick 8 and Henry by matching a bid with pick 58.

3. We will then use pick 10 on someone like Brodie Kemp and Pick 22 on Pickett, Weightman or Elijah Taylor.

 

5 minutes ago, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

My theory is that Freo will do the following:

1. Wait and see what happens up to their pick 7 and assuming there's no bids on Henry to that point they will select their first option (likely Deven Robertson or Luke Jackson).

2. They will then offer us pick 10 and 22 as they are then guaranteed pick 8 and Henry by matching a bid with pick 58.

3. We will then use pick 10 on someone like Brodie Kemp and Pick 22 on Pickett, Weightman or Elijah Taylor.

The second scenario is that Henry is bid on before pick 7. I believe they will then swap that pick with someone like the Hawks for pick 11 & 30.

Obviously scenario one is better for them, but it all depends what happens on draft night.

Very unlikely Henry is bid on before pick 7.

 

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by Collar-Jazz-Knee