6 hours 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...

I think it's  about the other club receiving our picks.  I think your answer lies there-in.   Ladder jockeying, isn't just during H&A matches.

4 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 think we want 4 new boys.  List management is happening right now, to cover off Gawn Garlett, Jones, Hibbo, et al.   I think we'll take 4 kids each year, from now on.

2 hours ago, SFebes said:

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

It's OK, we'll trade back into some of them on the rebound,  when they want to leave interstate to come home. imv.

I reckon, and just a reckon, that the FD have a pretty good idea of who they want and why. 

Jackson- Tall, moves like a midfielder, future type ruck (Grundy Mold)

They will also target a Mid field x 2

Small Forward.

Problem is it will all depend on who is available when.

Getting Bennell on the park is pressing as this means at least one of these guys have time to develop. I also reckon Sparrow will tear it apart this year and bedford will play a few in the pocket. 

2 hours 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...

 

1 hour ago, Dee tention said:

 

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! 

Like the thought, but the AFL wouldn't tick off on it, nor would GWS go anywhere near it. Say if we split 10 into 15 & 20. If we then bid pick 3 on Green, GWS could then use pick 4 and be left with the approx. pick 50 after their discount or alternatively we trade them picks 15 & 20 for 4 and there left with equivalent of pick 50. Either way GWS end up with Green and a pick in the 50s, there's no compelling reason for them to do that, even including pick 28 would be questioned. 

Weightman who has been mentioned as a connection to us, toured the Doggies HQ today, according to the little paper. Looks like even if we did split to 15 & 20 (GC) or 14 & 17 (Cats), then we'd miss out - if we wanted him anyway. If we did want him and be able to split the pick then maybe we'd talk to the Power,  but would they give up 12 & 18 for 10 & 28, I doubt it.

1 minute ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Weightman who has been mentioned as a connection to us, toured the Doggies HQ today, according to the little paper. Looks like even if we did split to 15 & 20 (GC) or 14 & 17 (Cats), then we'd miss out - if we wanted him anyway. If we did want him and be able to split the pick then maybe we'd talk to the Power,  but would they give up 12 & 18 for 10 & 28, I doubt it.

12 & 18 is more or less same draft points as 10,28 and future 4th round we picked up so I def wouldn’t rule it out. 

No disrespect to Weightman, but if we keep pick 10 I'll be shocked (and disappointed) if we read his name out.  

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

No disrespect to Weightman, but if we keep pick 10 I'll be shocked (and disappointed) if we read his name out.  

Don't know a ton about this year's potential draftees tbh, didn't think I'd need to follow them closely this year, but from what I know the club is VERY keen on Weightman, and the only way we won't be reading out his name is if someone else snaps him up first.

Likely scenario IMO seems to be 10 & 28 to Geelong for 14 & 17, and we then take Weightman with one of those picks.

 

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Don't know a ton about this year's potential draftees tbh, didn't think I'd need to follow them closely this year, but from what I know the club is VERY keen on Weightman, and the only way we won't be reading out his name is if someone else snaps him up first.

Likely scenario IMO seems to be 10 & 28 to Geelong for 14 & 17, and we then take Weightman with one of those picks.

 

As I said, I'll be surprised and exceedingly disappointed if we took Weightman at 10.

He's simply not a top 10 talent.

7 hours 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. 

Hope we hold it, speaking to a few in recruiting and development in WA word is top 6 to 10 in this draft are rated a lot higher than the next 20-25 who they still feel are ahead of next seasons batch.

I think the needs basis of the clubs in front of us will see one of Ash/Young (i expect GWS to take either at 4), Kemp, Serong or Stephens to be there at 10.

I'm happy to take a Jeremy Sharp or Elijah Taylor with 28

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

As I said, I'll be surprised and exceedingly disappointed if we took Weightman at 10.

He's simply not a top 10 talent.

I think there's still some moving parts, so not sure it would mean he's a top 10 pick (could be reliant on the Geelong pick swap), just know the club is keen on picking him up at the appropriate spot.

 

Just now, Lord Nev said:

I think there's still some moving parts, so not sure it would mean he's a top 10 pick (could be reliant on the Geelong pick swap), just know the club is keen on picking him up at the appropriate spot.

 

Like Pennant, I hope we retain pick 10 and pick the best player available.

25 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Weightman who has been mentioned as a connection to us, toured the Doggies HQ today, according to the little paper. Looks like even if we did split to 15 & 20 (GC) or 14 & 17 (Cats), then we'd miss out - if we wanted him anyway. If we did want him and be able to split the pick then maybe we'd talk to the Power,  but would they give up 12 & 18 for 10 & 28, I doubt it.

I doubt Port would entertain that trade as they would want to stay ahead of a bid for their father-son Mead and pick 28 is around that likely bid. 17 is before a Mead bid is expected.

Ever since we got 8, I have been convinced we were going after Weightman. The drop to 10 would suggest that. And the potential spit of 10 would suggest that too. We have been after a small forward since we looked at trading Butters in at last years draft. I think we are trading to fill a need, in this instance.

27 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Weightman who has been mentioned as a connection to us, toured the Doggies HQ today, according to the little paper. Looks like even if we did split to 15 & 20 (GC) or 14 & 17 (Cats), then we'd miss out - if we wanted him anyway. If we did want him and be able to split the pick then maybe we'd talk to the Power,  but would they give up 12 & 18 for 10 & 28, I doubt it.

Don't read much into it. Not saying they won't pick him necessarily, but it's standard practice for potential draftees to tour any number of clubs apparently. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I think there's still some moving parts, so not sure it would mean he's a top 10 pick (could be reliant on the Geelong pick swap), just know the club is keen on picking him up at the appropriate spot.

 

LN, do you think a trade with Geelong (or GC), might go down today?

2 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

Ever since we got 8, I have been convinced we were going after Weightman. The drop to 10 would suggest that. And the potential spit of 10 would suggest that too. We have been after a small forward since we looked at trading Butters in at last years draft. I think we are trading to fill a need, in this instance.

I really struggle to see the appeal in Weightman - from the little I have seen Pickett looks a better prospect

Here is a really unusual suggestion for pick 10. Seems to have been overlooked.

 

Why don't we just pick a [censored] gun player

Edited November 22, 20195 yr by jnrmac

6 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

LN, do you think a trade with Geelong (or GC), might go down today?

Not 100% sure mate. All I know is the club is apparently pushing for the deal, so only really know our side of it and not sure on how receptive Geelong are being.

23 minutes ago, ProDee said:

As I said, I'll be surprised and exceedingly disappointed if we took Weightman at 10.

He's simply not a top 10 talent.

Agree Pro, there are better fish to fry.

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Here is a really unusual suggestion for pick 10. Seems to have been overlooked.

 

Why don't we just pick a [censored] gun player

Too simple jnr.

44 minutes ago, ProDee said:

No disrespect to Weightman, but if we keep pick 10 I'll be shocked (and disappointed) if we read his name out.  

Yep Stephens looks twice the player.

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Here is a really unusual suggestion for pick 10. Seems to have been overlooked.

 

Why don't we just pick a [censored] gun player

Just my view but most of the 'potential' guns (that we can genuinly nab ie;  where a bid is unable to be easily matched like Henry) will be gone by 10 unless they slide for some reason.

Don't get me wrong there will still be plenty of talent about but i think an extra gun left our clutches with the pick swap of 8.  Who knows though we might get lucky and find a gold nugget in the mix (assuming we keep 10).

Edited November 22, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

32 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Don't read much into it. Not saying they won't pick him necessarily, but it's standard practice for potential draftees to tour any number of clubs apparently. 

Yeah agree, just putting out what was in the little paper, and know that the Dogs and us have been spoken about the most in connection to him. I think most clubs will meet with draftees, but having them tour facilities is normally left to  a select few.

Port like Stephens from all reports, so can see the trade of 12 and 18 for 10 being on the cards of Stephens is there at 10. Depends how real the reported interest in Weightman is. But Weightman I can imagine being there at 12 and someone like Gould at 18 would be great and fill our needs

Edit: I think Serong or Stephens at 10 would be great, am more thinking we could fill 3 needs - tall, forward and back - with Jackson, Weightman, Gould

Edited November 22, 20195 yr by SwissDee

3 hours 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.

If we bid Green at 3 the best move for GWS if they want to match is to trade 4 for a 2019 pick in the teens and a 2020 1st rounder.  That way only the 2019 pick and later picks get swallowed up and the 2020 1st is quarantined. No doubt they will have this contingency pre organised if they plan to match.

Edited November 22, 20195 yr by Fifty-5