I don’t get why we would do 10 & 28 for the cats 2 picks. Why wouldn’t we have just done 8 for those 2 picks? Same result...

3 minutes ago, Gawn's Beard said:

I don’t get why we would do 10 & 28 for the cats 2 picks. Why wouldn’t we have just done 8 for those 2 picks? Same result...

Was wondering this, maybe they insisted on getting 2 picks back?

8 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Herald Sun are reporting that we are now going to split 10!

Was the same article that was up a day earlier saying we’d split 8 and take Jackson at 3 just substituting pick 10 for 8. Not sure if it’s based on further intel that we’ll split 10. 

can someone explain what's happened/happening? it's not on The Age website, and I don't read the Hun on principle (I'm also in NNSW so no access to a copy of the Hun)

So we gave away 8 for what?

I want to be wrong but I got a bad feeling about this Dr Jones

This all feels like the club is trying to be too clever for its own good. Trading away future picks, splitting picks and then splitting them again, etc.

We can't afford to take risks in this draft. Just pick the best player/s with the picks we have and move on. Stop trying to outsmart everyone else for minimal gains. 

3 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

can someone explain what's happened/happening? it's not on The Age website, and I don't read the Hun on principle (I'm also in NNSW so no access to a copy of the Hun)

So we gave away 8 for what?

You can check the Foxsports website instead. Or maybe try the Advertiser or Courier Mail perhaps. The Daily Telegraph is pretty average, but as a broadsheet the Australian is a respectable paper. If not, Mungo will probably have a write-up in the Echo in the coming days. 

*We traded pick 8 for Fremantle's pick 10 and 28. 

4 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You can check the Foxsports website instead. Or maybe try the Advertiser or Courier Mail perhaps. The Daily Telegraph is pretty average, but as a broadsheet the Australian is a respectable paper. If not, Mungo will probably have a write-up in the Echo in the coming days. 

*We traded pick 8 for Fremantle's pick 10 and 28. 

Thanks for cutting to the chase.

 

Edited November 21, 20196 yr by Superunknown

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Was the same article that was up a day earlier saying we’d split 8 and take Jackson at 3 just substituting pick 10 for 8. Not sure if it’s based on further intel that we’ll split 10. 

I thought the same thing. Pretty sure it's an error in the article, as they just updated the original article from pre pick swap. I don't think they meant to suggest we are pick swapping pick 10

15 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

Ash will go before 10 imv.  Probably missed that boat along with Young if you believe all the noise on Jackson.

Serong a possibility.  Kemp should be there.

I'll add my voice to the 'don't split 10' chorus (don't think it's on the cards anyway).

My reading is that there seem to be a group of 8-10 players that are hard to split after Rowell and Anderson. As others have mentioned, it's looking likely that at least one of Kemp, Stevens , Ash, Serong or even Young will slide to 10 - all of which have been firmly in the top 5 discussion since the championships. 

Geelong recruiters aren't slouches - if they want 10, it's for a reason.

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

Edited November 21, 20196 yr by Dees247

1 minute ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 8 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

It’s pick 10 now. So that would be a trade with Gold Coast then. I wonder who we’re targeting with those picks.

Can effectively rule out any of Young/Ash/Stephens and probably Kemp will be gone by then too.

Kemp and Weightman would be ideal with 15 and 20.

10 minutes ago, ben russell said:

It’s pick 10 now. So that would be a trade with Gold Coast then. I wonder who we’re targeting with those picks.

Can effectively rule out any of Young/Ash/Stephens and probably Kemp will be gone by then too.

Kemp and Weightman would be ideal with 15 and 20.

Sorry, just to be clear, I did mean pick 10 ?

Edited November 21, 20196 yr by Dees247

Just take teh 3 picks my god, we need really the best talent we can get, i still think taking Jackson at 3 is a mistake, but use 10, to get the next best available of who hasn't already been drafted and pick 28 is chance to take more of a speculative pick. Lets not mess around anymore, Bennell is the risk we are taking, bank the talent and get on with it.

Lets trade pick 97 for 3, 10 and 28. That way we will get some news for the AFL.

35 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

I wonder if they would do 10 for 15 and 20. There was talk they might not even use their pick 20. Or was this scenario having us including 28?

Then we could look to use 20 and 28 to see if it's possible to move back up.

38 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

we would only do it if the guy we want will be there at 15. if they're set on Weightman for example it make sense to improve that third pick as much as possible

 

2 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

I’m not giving up on Young until Luke Jackson’s name is called out or the club release something before next week stating their intentions. 

12 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Herald Sun are reporting that we are now going to split 10!

Better not miss out on Kemp, Stephens, Ash or a slider for the sake of picking up midgets.

29 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

I wonder if they would do 10 for 15 and 20. There was talk they might not even use their pick 20. Or was this scenario having us including 28?

Then we could look to use 20 and 28 to see if it's possible to move back up.

They only mentioned trading 10

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

1 hour ago, Reevesy said:

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

Trying to follow... are you saying GWS might trade pick 4 for two of our picks?

Indeed. On draft night, if we bid on Green at 3 and GWS wish to match, they have 5 minutes to trade away 4 or have it consumed. At this point the pick number becomes less relevant than the attached points. It would be more valuable to GWS to have 12 and 18 than 4, for example.

1 hour ago, Reevesy said:

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

 

20 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Indeed. On draft night, if we bid on Green at 3 and GWS wish to match, they have 5 minutes to trade away 4 or have it consumed. At this point the pick number becomes less relevant than the attached points. It would be more valuable to GWS to have 12 and 18 than 4, for example.

I like it...

Potential to take 3, 4 and 28 to the draft.

That would be a smart move if we could pull it off! I would think another team would be able to trump us here though!