The Splitting of Pick 8

[Demonland 66,923]

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,875]

I wonder if that 4th unlocks the possibility of trading 28 down a bit further?

[Lord Travis 10,327]

Average trade IMO.

10+22 would've been decent as we would've landed whichever one of the smalls forwards slid. The small forwards we want are likely to be gone by 28. If they're gone by 28 then we've cocked it up. If not, then it's ok.

Why involve Adelaide at all? Why not go direct with Freo and do 10+22?

Future 4th in a compromised draft is legit useless and won't even be used.

Same weakness we showed when we traded our second rounder down in the Langdon trade.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lord Travis

[Pennant St Dee 11,840]

Elijah Taylor should still be there pick #28 unless we look at upgrading in the 20s throwing in Blues 4th rounder

[Demon3 2,541]

Just now, Pennant St Dee said:

Elijah Taylor should still be there pick #28 unless we look at upgrading in the 20s throwing in Blues 4th rounder

Blues 4th rounder has to be involved in a further upgrade to a team who needs the points. Otherwise why do it.?

[ben russell 764]

I hope it’s not Weightman we’re targeting at pick 10. Hopefully it’s Kemp or either of Young/Ash if they’re still there.

Just pick the best small forward available at pick 28.

Sounds like it’s between Green and Jackson for pick 3.

[Richard Tionary 145]

 Nice. Pretty much a free pick for sliding from 8-10. Well done Dees. 

[DubDee 21,931]

can only assume MFC know the top 10 is locked in AMAP and we want someone at 8 that will still be there at 10.  so pretty much getting pick 28 for nothing.

if not, not a great trade

[DubDee 21,931]

1 minute ago, ben russell said:

I hope it’s not Weightman we’re targeting at pick 10. Hopefully it’s Kemp or either of Young/Ash if they’re still there.

Just pick the best small forward available at pick 28.

Sounds like it’s between Green and Jackson for pick 3.

same here.  we could have traded a lot lower and he would still be there and get a higher second pick.  eg 16+18

[Clintosaurus 6,890]

Just now, DubDee said:

can only assume MFC know the top 10 is locked in AMAP and we want someone at 8 that will still be there at 10.  so pretty much getting pick 28 for nothing.

Top 10 would pretty much be locked in by now, and generally clubs know who each other is picking. Moving from 8 to 10 to me means the player we wanted at 8 will be there at 10. 28 and the other pick is a nice bonus.

[DeeSpencer 23,642]

10, 28 matches up pretty much bang on with 14, 17 if we're planning on Weightman or Pickett and are willing to go back again. 

Kemp at 10, staying above Hawthorn looks a good spot to me. Otherwise slide baby slide.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Pretty decent deal there.  Went back two spots and landed a second rounder and a future fourth which can be used for other small deals as well.

Means we have three picks inside the top 30, plus a later pick for something else if need be.

You get the feeling that we're confident our targets at those parts of the draft will be available so we're happy to do the deal.

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

Pick 28 is not a free hit!

To get 8 we gave up 26 and 50 from 2019 and our 2020 first.

We have now swapped it for 28, and Freo's 2020 fourth ie 55 to 72.

We have actually downgraded 26 to 28 and 50 to next year and swapped next years first for this year's #10.

Its an ok deal but not something to write home about.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[buck_nekkid 5,633]

In a way, we have traded next year’s first (in a highly compromised draft) for a top 10 this year.  We still hold a pick in the 20’s, just shifted back a pinch. Overall, I think that is a good play.

Some additional thoughts:

10 will now be about 12, with Green and Henry nominations to happen before then.

97 will not have to be used, so expect no upgrades of rookies.

10 still sits in play for live trading, if a desperate suitor comes knocking...

I suspect we know the order of the top 10, and are comfortable that we can get our targeted players with these picks, and then we add a further player as well.

[GCDee 3,111]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

Pick 28 is not a free hit!

To get 8 we gave up 26 and 50 from 2019 and our 2020 first.

We have now swapped it for 28, and Freo's 2020 fourth ie 55 to 72.

We have actually downgraded 26 and 50 and swapped next years first for this year's 10.

Its actually Carlton's 4th...

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,875]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Pick 28 is not a free hit!

To get 8 we gave up 26 and 50 from 2019 and our 2020 first.

We have now swapped it for 28, and Freo's 2020 fourth ie 55 to 72.

We have actually downgraded 26 and 50 and swapped next years first for this year's 10.

Depends where we finish, but given there is expected to be 5-6 academy/father sons in the first 15-10 picks it could be a very good result.

Also means we get a player in now rather than waiting 12 months.

28 could still potentially be moved up further if other clubs want to deal for certain reasons.

 

[JTR 2,692]

14 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Average trade IMO.

10+22 would've been decent as we would've landed whichever one of the smalls forwards slid. The small forwards we want are likely to be gone by 28. If they're gone by 28 then we've cocked it up. If not, then it's ok.

Why involve Adelaide at all? Why not go direct with Freo and do 10+22?

Future 4th in a compromised draft is legit useless and won't even be used.

Same weakness we showed when we traded our second rounder down in the Langdon trade.

Because 22 was previously ours and if I'm of the correct understanding we can't receive back a pick that's already been traded out

 

[Cam Schwab's Whiteboard 209]

I don't know much about drafting - they're just names to me at this stage.

However, this suggests to me that it's definitely Jackson at 3. He seems to be the outlier in the top 10-12 and so by selecting him at 3, there must be 4-5 similar players that we feel are similar/happy to draft and will be there at both 8 and 10.

Selection 28 is surely a complete lottery, and so all this feels a bit underwhelming to me after how much I liked the initial swap to get to 8.

[JTR 2,692]

2 minutes ago, Cam Schwab's Whiteboard said:

I don't know much about drafting - they're just names to me at this stage.

However, this suggests to me that it's definitely Jackson at 3. He seems to be the outlier in the top 10-12 and so by selecting him at 3, there must be 4-5 similar players that we feel are similar/happy to draft and will be there at both 8 and 10.

Selection 28 is surely a complete lottery, and so all this feels a bit underwhelming to me after how much I liked the initial swap to get to 8.

Surely a bit less of a lottery than having 97 as our third selection?

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

2 minutes ago, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

Depends where we finish, but given there is expected to be 5-6 academy/father sons in the first 15-10 picks it could be a very good result.

Also means we get a player in now rather than waiting 12 months.

28 could still potentially be moved up further if other clubs want to deal for certain reasons.

I know all that.  Just saying, 28 is not a free hit as some have posted.  And yes many things can still happen.

The net deal for #8 deal is a bit meh...

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

I just don't see much benefit in this deal.  We drop two spots, potentially miss a player we really want (Kemp) for pick 28 which is basically a crap-shoot.  It's not like we need it for points to spend on an academy kid.  Given how few spots we have available I just don't see the benefit here. 

[JTR 2,692]

I don't get the some of the angst.

We still have two selections in the top 10

I'd imagine who we want at 8 will.probably still be there at 10

We've upgraded our third selection from 97 > 28

?

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

The net deal for #8 deal is a bit meh...

They're numbers. If you replace the numbers with player names and think about possible targets, the trades make more sense. 

I'm really happy with this trade because it means we're clearly after a small forward and I see that as our greatest deficiency.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

2 minutes ago, JTR said:

I don't get the some of the angst.

We still have two selections in the top 10

I'd imagine who we want at 8 will.probably still be there at 10

We've upgraded our third selection from 97 > 28

?

Once upon a time we wanted Tom Lynch with our pick 12.  He went at pick 11.  We took Lucas Cook instead. 

Dropping two spots can be a monumentally painful thing to do if the picks don't go our way. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by RalphiusMaximus

[Cam Schwab's Whiteboard 209]

9 minutes ago, JTR said:

Surely a bit less of a lottery than having 97 as our third selection?

Absolutely. 

My apologies - what I meant was that it would be pretty tough to bank on anyone in particular being there at that stage, so it's an unknown quantity. 

Maximising the draft position this year to me would be about finding certainty in getting who we want. I know it's only a slide of 2 spots, but the more certainty you have, the better the chance is that you get the best outcome. As I said, the Club must either be certain that they will get the same player at 10, or there are 4-5 they would be happy with and know at least 1 would be there.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Cam Schwab's Whiteboard