Not keen on that. 8 for 14+17 isn’t a good result. Getting 10+22 from Freo would be better IMO.

I’d prefer we keep 3 and 8 and take them to draft though.

What is the benefit for us?

nothing

14 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Not keen on that. 8 for 14+17 isn’t a good result. Getting 10+22 from Freo would be better IMO.

I’d prefer we keep 3 and 8 and take them to draft though.

I wonder if the bastards would do 8 for 14, 17 and 24?

Called it a few weeks ago. They will try to get one of our  picks to draft Brodie Kemp.  God I hate Geelong.

We are looking for a goal kicking Full Forward and a "Dangerous" on baller otherwise feck off

Might consider 8 for 14 + 17 + future pick.

Just recalling we are still not in the first round next year, right?

 

 

It actually depends on who we are looking at, Weightman is not top 10, closer to 20 actually, Pickett probably 24 would get him if Bulldogs don't go for him at 13 and that would be a big stretch, comes back to do we want 2 for 8 or sit on the one selection. Kemp might slide, Robertson, Jackson, Bianco, Day, Gould all chances

So let's assume Rowell, Anderson, Young, Jackson, Green are gone in the first 5 picks as the TIER 1 - potential superstars prospects.

With pick 8 that becomes pick 9 (after Green) has us looking at the next tier of talent. TIER 2 - high quality players: Serong, Flanders, Kemp, Ash, Stephens, Robertson and I'd put McAsey in that group (and Henry but let's exclude him for simplicity).

That would get us to pick 12, whilst the Geelong deal would slide us to pick 15, is someone from that group going to drop 3 more spots?

After that TIER 3 - high upside/elite positional players comes in: Weightman, Bergman, Sharp, Rivers, Day, Worrell, Gould, Pickett.

I'm happy to do the Geelong deal based on 3 criteria.

1: Are we sure we aren't missing a superstar if we keep the original pick?
2. Are we sure we'll still get a very good player with the first pick we swap for?
3. Are we sure this isn't a move purely designed to get a small forward for needs?

 

 

53 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

So let's assume Rowell, Anderson, Young, Jackson, Green are gone in the first 5 picks as the TIER 1 - potential superstars prospects.

With pick 8 that becomes pick 9 (after Green) has us looking at the next tier of talent. TIER 2 - high quality players: Serong, Flanders, Kemp, Ash, Stephens, Robertson and I'd put McAsey in that group (and Henry but let's exclude him for simplicity).

That would get us to pick 12, whilst the Geelong deal would slide us to pick 15, is someone from that group going to drop 3 more spots?

After that TIER 3 - high upside/elite positional players comes in: Weightman, Bergman, Sharp, Rivers, Day, Worrell, Gould, Pickett.

I'm happy to do the Geelong deal based on 3 criteria.

1: Are we sure we aren't missing a superstar if we keep the original pick?
2. Are we sure we'll still get a very good player with the first pick we swap for?
3. Are we sure this isn't a move purely designed to get a small forward for needs?

 

 

You can guarantee there will be at least one slider, always is.That is why there will be lots of trades on the night. Think we will be involved. Just my thoughts.

Hope we don’t trade. If next year is as compromised as it sounds......we’ll only get a good result in next years draft if we fail badly again. 
 

Take the picks to the draft and DEVELOP whom ever we select. 

Geelong's 'audacious' move is old news taken from a 'Road to the Draft' interview with Wells a few weeks ago.  Wishful thinking on Geelong's part.  Their picks will all move down 3 spots after academy bids.

We need to remember that pick 8 isn't just pick 8 it includes our 2020 first round pick, along with some later picks 26, 50 we gave North in exchange.  In no way do their 14, 17 come close to what we paid for #8. 

If we must trade 8 go to GCS for 15 and next years first round or mid first round pp and something else from them.  Pick 8 is in high demand.  It has more value than just draft points.  Why would we give up the chance to get a gem at #8 for several roughies late in round 1.

Geelong a dreaming and we will look very silly giving up our 2020 1st round pick to North only to cough it up to Geelong.

If we do trade 8 we sure as hell need to nail pick 3.

Edited November 15, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

... Maybe that's a sign that we should be drafting Kemp instead.

At the end of the day if we lock down a solid deal with Geelong that we think is fair then we can wait until it is time for us to call out pick 8 on draft night and see if the deal still suits us. For example, if on the night somehow young or Flanders slips to 8 and we are really interested in them then we say no to the deal and take them. If there is no one we rate head and shoulders above the rest anymore then we do the deal. Ball is firmly in our court and I only see positives for this. We hold all the cards 

I would have thought that you have a better chance at getting a 200 game A grader with 2 picks inside the top 20 than 1 pick inside the top 10.

Be interested to see any stats that prove/disprove this.

"Melbourne is expected to call out West Australian ruckman Luke Jackson’s name with Pick 3"

[censored] hope not.

13 minutes ago, bing181 said:

I would have thought that you have a better chance at getting a 200 game A grader with 2 picks inside the top 20 than 1 pick inside the top 10.

Be interested to see any stats that prove/disprove this.

There was a graph someone made back in the day that showed picks 1-5 were excellent, pick 6 stank, pick 7 was great and most of the first round after that was very even. Then picks 20-45 were similar too.

I think we have to grade the draft in to order and tiers and then work out if there’s a trade that keeps us in a similar tier. I can see that being the case as I outlined above but obviously I have no idea how Jason Taylor and co has graded the players. 

CATS ARE TRYING TO GRAB BRODIE KEMP

its that obvious.  They know he will not last up to pick 14. 
 

8 for 14 and 17.  No way

Cats need to sweeten that deal with another 20ish type pick. 
 

Well I must be the only one that actually don't mind trading pick 8 for 14 and 17?

The beauty of this draft is that whoever is picked at 14 or 17 will be just as talented as 8. At 14 the likes of Robertson, Serong or even Kemp could all slide.

The top 25 is quite a talented crop. 

20 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

There was a graph someone made back in the day that showed picks 1-5 were excellent, pick 6 stank, pick 7 was great and most of the first round after that was very even. Then picks 20-45 were similar too.

 

I was told by an Age journo that a lot of recuiters believe we will trade out pick 8.

And I think you/they are right.  Next years first could easily be 13 or less. Could be 2, but not getting the value this year, the pick will be going back at least 4 spots going by the pundits.

23 minutes ago, Damo said:

I was told by an Age journo that a lot of recuiters believe we will trade out pick 8.

For?

I'm thinking we're just evaluating the likely draft orders and deciding on:

1. Bid on Henry and trade 8 to Freo for 10 and 22.

2. Use the threat of options 1 and 3 to trade to the Cats for 14 and 17

3. Trade to the Suns for 15 and 20 and maybe something late in the draft

OR

4. Use the threat of 1, 2 and 3 to get the Suns to give up 15, 20 and next years priority pick 11 with something back the other way.

Our list needs multiple skilled additions and especially if we go Jackson at 3 (which I think is fine) we have to look to divide 8 and get multiple classy players.