2 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

You seem to be totally ignoring that the Dogs need points for JUH.  There is no way they're trading 41 unless they have sufficient points from somewhere.

The dogs will need about 2400 points, to cover the bid.  There current first pick is about 1150 points, if we can get a mid 30s pick for Preuss, plus our pick 25 we could offer these and hannan for dogs first round and future third round.  Offer north this future 3rd round for Brown

8 minutes ago, drdrake said:

The dogs will need about 2400 points, to cover the bid.  There current first pick is about 1150 points, if we can get a mid 30s pick for Preuss, plus our pick 25 we could offer these and hannan for dogs first round and future third round.  Offer north this future 3rd round for Brown

In that deal they'd want enough points to cover JUH 2400pts PLUS Hannan to make it worth their while. AFAIK 25 + 30 is nowhere near enough.

27 minutes ago, drdrake said:

The dogs will need about 2400 points, to cover the bid.  There current first pick is about 1150 points, if we can get a mid 30s pick for Preuss, plus our pick 25 we could offer these and hannan for dogs first round and future third round.  Offer north this future 3rd round for Brown

Yes I am trying to get through this. Assume dogs need to match #1 discount for JUH.  They have pick 14 (1141) then use picks 26 (729) 30 (629) off the Dees to collate enough points. Dees would want to trade Hannan and 26 and 30 for Dogs 2021 1st round and 3rd round.  It’s all too complex but Dogs might be tempted. 

3 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

In that deal they'd want enough points to cover JUH 2400pts PLUS Hannan to make it worth their while. AFAIK 25 + 30 is nowhere near enough.

We don't need to cover the 2400 points only the value of pick 14, 1141 points.  As Spirit of Norm Smith mentioned pick 25 and 30 gives them 1358 points so really we should be asking for pick 14 and future second round pick for picks 25 and 30 plus Hannan.  If you use points as a basis say Dogs have pick 30 next year that we get 629 points, take off the 217 points we gave them as overs it will work out to be equal  to  pick 41 in next years draft.  Pick 41 is about right trade for Hannan.  

It enables the dogs to get closer to the 2400 points they need. They are a mile off having enough points to cover the bid, as it stands now they only have 1773 points, they need to get more picks in, you don't really want your first round next year being effected unless they have a F/S pick next year.

45 minutes ago, drdrake said:

We don't need to cover the 2400 points only the value of pick 14, 1141 points.  As Spirit of Norm Smith mentioned pick 25 and 30 gives them 1358 points so really we should be asking for pick 14 and future second round pick for picks 25 and 30 plus Hannan.  If you use points as a basis say Dogs have pick 30 next year that we get 629 points, take off the 217 points we gave them as overs it will work out to be equal  to  pick 41 in next years draft.  Pick 41 is about right trade for Hannan.  

It enables the dogs to get closer to the 2400 points they need. They are a mile off having enough points to cover the bid, as it stands now they only have 1773 points, they need to get more picks in, you don't really want your first round next year being effected unless they have a F/S pick next year.

Yes you're right we don't need to cover the entire 2400 for just 14 but they will want to get there with whatever deal they do that includes that pick because that's their main leverage and they'll need to make a verydecent points profit, otherwise just use it and get a 2nd or some 3rds elsewhere.

They'll want a deal that goes close to making up that 600 point deficit.

Edited November 5, 20204 yr by Pollyanna

56 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

Yes you're right we don't need to cover the entire 2400 for just 14 but they will want to get there with whatever deal they do that includes that pick because that's their main leverage and they'll need to make a verydecent points profit, otherwise just use it and get a 2nd or some 3rds elsewhere.

They'll want a deal that goes close to making up that 600 point deficit.

It is us trading them a player not the other way around.  To make up their points they need to trade a player, no club will offer the overs they need to make up points, the deal mentioned gives the 217 more points then there current pick is worth.

6 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Given that we're going to get bugger all for him, do we just delist him and let the Dogs pick him up for free as a delisted free agency.

Don't we need to reduce our list size anyway?

Except that MFC have offered Mitch a contract for 2 years. The dogs upped the ante by offering 3 so it isn't obvious that we planned to send hime to the draft. On the other hand Oscar was not offered a contract and may well end up in the pre season draft.

I think what I'd be trying to do is:

26 +  68/69 + Hannan for a future first.

Why? Because the Dogs need points this year but not next year. Let's say that their first round pick next year is the same (ie, 14). That equates to them giving up approximately pick 44 for Hannan, but crucially it allows the Dogs to increase their draft points this year by 788. That will be important given that they need to use about 2000 for JUH. 

Importantly for us, it also allows us to have a pick in a much more valuable draft (ie, next year). A lot of teams want future picks and we'll have two first rounders which, more than anything, gives us a lot of currency for trade both this year and next.

How about bombers send first to us, future first to doggies.  We send Hannan and a second rounder to Doggies. Doggies send Dunkley to bombers? A few scrappy back pick exchanges between bombers and doggies to increase points.

16 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I think what I'd be trying to do is:

26 +  68/69 + Hannan for a future first.

Why? Because the Dogs need points this year but not next year. Let's say that their first round pick next year is the same (ie, 14). That equates to them giving up approximately pick 44 for Hannan, but crucially it allows the Dogs to increase their draft points this year by 788. That will be important given that they need to use about 2000 for JUH. 

Importantly for us, it also allows us to have a pick in a much more valuable draft (ie, next year). A lot of teams want future picks and we'll have two first rounders which, more than anything, gives us a lot of currency for trade both this year and next.

The Dogs dont want picks this year (early picks anyway) so I cant see them do it for future first, IMO they are more likely to do a similar deal for this years first.

17 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I think what I'd be trying to do is:

26 +  68/69 + Hannan for a future first.

Why? Because the Dogs need points this year but not next year. Let's say that their first round pick next year is the same (ie, 14). That equates to them giving up approximately pick 44 for Hannan, but crucially it allows the Dogs to increase their draft points this year by 788. That will be important given that they need to use about 2000 for JUH. 

Importantly for us, it also allows us to have a pick in a much more valuable draft (ie, next year). A lot of teams want future picks and we'll have two first rounders which, more than anything, gives us a lot of currency for trade both this year and next.

Sounds good AB, what are the chances of it happening?

On 10/14/2020 at 5:23 AM, Travy14 said:

Offer him and Hunt for picks,  which we should chuck at Collingwood for Phillips, who should be top priority. Close second being Brown/Cameron/Hogan/Mihochek.

We don't need Hannan and Hunt.  We have Melksham, Fritcsh, Smith, Vanders, Harmes who can play that role. 

I would have Hunt any day over Melk. Unfortunately for this great player his best footy is behind him.. Hunt is still young and has a future.  I am not impressed with Smith either as I feel he is another O Mc .

I like this bolded bit from Sam Power of Bulldogs:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/523866/dogs-still-want-dunkley-but-open-to-different-situations-

• Melbourne forward Mitch Hannan: "It's really encouraging he has indicated he wants to come … but we've got a bit to work through there. That's one we'll work through over the next week."

Hopefully we can something decent for losing Hannan.

22 hours ago, drdrake said:

We don't need to cover the 2400 points only the value of pick 14, 1141 points.  As Spirit of Norm Smith mentioned pick 25 and 30 gives them 1358 points so really we should be asking for pick 14 and future second round pick for picks 25 and 30 plus Hannan.  If you use points as a basis say Dogs have pick 30 next year that we get 629 points, take off the 217 points we gave them as overs it will work out to be equal  to  pick 41 in next years draft.  Pick 41 is about right trade for Hannan.  

It enables the dogs to get closer to the 2400 points they need. They are a mile off having enough points to cover the bid, as it stands now they only have 1773 points, they need to get more picks in, you don't really want your first round next year being effected unless they have a F/S pick next year.

I'm really glad Victoria seems to have got its Covid under control. That allows the supercomputer which was being used to do all that modelling to be given back to the AFL to allow these deals to be properly assessed and calculated. 

30 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I like this bolded bit from Sam Power of Bulldogs:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/523866/dogs-still-want-dunkley-but-open-to-different-situations-

• Melbourne forward Mitch Hannan: "It's really encouraging he has indicated he wants to come … but we've got a bit to work through there. That's one we'll work through over the next week."

Hopefully we can something decent for losing Hannan.

Just send them the YouTube link of the goal from the 2018 final against Geelong and we should get two first rounders for him.

3 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

I would have Hunt any day over Melk. Unfortunately for this great player his best footy is behind him.. Hunt is still young and has a future.  I am not impressed with Smith either as I feel he is another O Mc .

What role Travy 14 ? HFF?  or HBF ?
rather a difference in skill and output between Fritsch and Smith at Zhang forward.

Also Harmes Vanders and Melkshske  in 2020. All  are about the same for form in decline.
Keep Hunty Who can kick Multiple  goals and get an early/ mid 3 Rd rounder fir Mitch.

 

20 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Just send them the YouTube link of the goal from the 2018 final against Geelong and we should get two first rounders for him.

No that would be Collingwood, they have mastered the over paying trick.

On 11/6/2020 at 2:54 PM, 58er said:

What role Travy 14 ? HFF?  or HBF ?
rather a difference in skill and output between Fritsch and Smith at Zhang forward.

Also Harmes Vanders and Melkshske  in 2020. All  are about the same for form in decline.
Keep Hunty Who can kick Multiple  goals and get an early/ mid 3 Rd rounder fir Mitch.

 

Wasn't me who said that.  I wouldn't have Hunt or melksham in our b22.

We are shocking by foot going inside 50, we shoukd be going hard at phillips. Or polec. Hunt has been at the club for 7 years now.  He is what he is, handy depth but that's it.

Smith shouldn't have been given another contract 

On 11/5/2020 at 11:24 PM, 58er said:

What role Travy 14 ? HFF?  or HBF ?
rather a difference in skill and output between Fritsch and Smith at Zhang forward.

Also Harmes Vanders and Melkshske  in 2020. All  are about the same for form in decline.
Keep Hunty Who can kick Multiple  goals and get an early/ mid 3 Rd rounder fir Mitch.

 

well said...agree. Hunt has years left compared with Melk ( who I really like as a player but every player has their Big day in retirement )

2 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

well said...agree. Hunt has years left compared with Melk ( who I really like as a player but every player has their Big day in retirement )

Melksham this year was very ineffectual. I hope if he gets a game next year it's because his form warrants it, same with Jones if he deserves a game he might make it to 300. We must stop picking players who aren't performing regardless of whether they are mates with the coach or if they are close to a milestone. It's a team game, the team comes first.

On 11/7/2020 at 6:52 AM, Travy14 said:

Wasn't me who said that.  I wouldn't have Hunt or Melksham in our b22.

We are shocking by foot going inside 50, we should be going hard at Phillips. Or Polec. Hunt has been at the club for 7 years now.  He is what he is, handy depth but that's it.

Smith shouldn't have been given another contract 

Smith should be delisted. 

His AF scores in 2020 were : (by round) 17,20,20,14,28,26,26, for a total of 151

Hunts AF scores in 2020 were : (By round ) 54,27,30,15,36,53, for a total of 215  for less games.  

Frankly Smith is turning into another O Mc and offers very little to the Team structure of the future

My guess is the trade will be Hannan + 68 for a future 3rd pick.

68 should come into the 50's and provide the doggies with more points this year for their academy selection while a future 3rd gives us trading flexibility as replacing that future 3rd round pick we traded to the lions allows us to trade our future first if we so wish.

On 11/7/2020 at 9:52 PM, Travy14 said:

Wasn't me who said that.  I wouldn't have Hunt or melksham in our b22.

We are shocking by foot going inside 50, we shoukd be going hard at phillips. Or polec. Hunt has been at the club for 7 years now.  He is what he is, handy depth but that's it.

Smith shouldn't have been given another contract 

Tracy 14 you said no Hunt or Hannan on 14/10. 
then said Vanders  Smith  Fritsch Melky could all play HForward role 

I am saying Fritsch 's talent is far better than Smiths and the rest are in decline.

Plus retain Hunt who can kick multiple goals from HF and I think will improve in 2021.

4 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

Smith should be delisted. 

His AF scores in 2020 were : (by round) 17,20,20,14,28,26,26, for a total of 151

Hunts AF scores in 2020 were : (By round ) 54,27,30,15,36,53, for a total of 215  for less games.  

Frankly Smith is turning into another O Mc and offers very little to the Team structure of the future

AF scores are not a sound basis for comparison particularly when they are playing different roles.

1 hour ago, Pollyanna said:

AF scores are not a sound basis for comparison particularly when they are playing different roles.

And particularly when fantasy points are given for goals which, generally, are not available to defenders.