Josh Mahoney did mention there were a few guys that weren't as high profile that he feels would have gone higher if games were played in Vic so my guess is if we don't move up, it's because we have an eye on 2-3 of those guys that may all have otherwise been first rounders 

 

I've gone and developed a genuine draft-crush for the first time in years.  Archie Perkins will likely go in the middle of the first round, so we need to get into that range.

Possible Targets:

Essendon:

6, 7, 8, 44, 77, 85, 87

Lots of list spots to fill.  Some top picks but then dross.  They might be enticed by some combo of 19+ 28 to keep them participating meaningfully.

Fremantle 12, 32, 55 Doesn't seem likely, but hey, it is Fremantle. GWS 10, 13, 15, 20, 29, 52, 74, 88 What the hell are they going to do with all those picks? That's just selfish.  Again. Unfortunately they look all set for drafting early and then burning late picks for academy points. North Melbourne  2, 11, 30, 39, 71, 81 That 11 is 'ours' anyway, isn't it?  I can see it happening, once they've got their draftee star they'd love to be able to point to as many young guns as possible coming through the system, so a pair of later first rounders may have value. Adelaide 1, 9, 22, 23, 40, 56, 66, 80  Nine would do the job for us nicely, but they might not see the point in adding 18 or 19 to their 22 and 23.  But 18, 19 and 28 for 9 and 23 might start a conversation. Collingwood 14, 16, 65, 70, 75, 92 Offer them 18 and 89 for 14 and 92 and see if they are still drunk, but only if Archie is still available at 14.   And that's every pick from 6 to 16 covered in just six clubs.

general 'vibe' is that north's pick 2 is up for grabs and that gc17 will likely only want ONE pick as they will bring in two top 15-20 rated players at NO COST due to their frankly outrageous zone allocation of the nt - they currently hold 5, 27, 37, 76, 84 

18 and 19 should definitely be flipped - they are the equivalent points value of pick 5, which gc17 are pretty unlikely to give up

peptides and the filth both have serious hard-ons for logan mcdonald from all reports; they both want that pick 2 from north

our best hope might be to flip 18 and 19 for pick 8 and 44

pick 18 and 19 = 1933 points

pick 8 and 44 = 1898 points

peppies can then do, say, 7 and 19 for pick 2 and all of a sudden - in this year's top 20 - they have 2, 6, and 18, north have 7, 11, and 19, and we end up with pick 8

the biggest stumbling block might be that north might see more value in flipping 2 for 14 and 16 from the filth

3 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

general 'vibe' is that north's pick 2 is up for grabs and that gc17 will likely only want ONE pick as they will bring in two top 15-20 rated players at NO COST due to their frankly outrageous zone allocation of the nt - they currently hold 5, 27, 37, 76, 84 

18 and 19 should definitely be flipped - they are the equivalent points value of pick 5, which gc17 are pretty unlikely to give up

peptides and the filth both have serious hard-ons for logan mcdonald from all reports; they both want that pick 2 from north

our best hope might be to flip 18 and 19 for pick 8 and 44

pick 18 and 19 = 1933 points

pick 8 and 44 = 1898 points

peppies can then do, say, 7 and 19 for pick 2 and all of a sudden - in this year's top 20 - they have 2, 6, and 18, north have 7, 11, and 19, and we end up with pick 8

the biggest stumbling block might be that north might see more value in flipping 2 for 14 and 16 from the filth

Wow, there's so many permutations!  Thought the Roos would be keen on Logan McDonald - but us Melbourne supporters understand the sense of splitting the value of early picks (as the gun players never used to be picked there!).

 

Would be great to keep pick 19 and package 18 and 28.  On points value (obviously this isn't the main measurement to go by) it is worth 1662 points (equivalent of pick 7).  Given the Dons have picks 6, 7 and 8, I wonder if having nabbed their two players at 6 and 7 would be willing to trade pick 8 if it means they can get two more picks in the top 30?  Maybe some later picks involved as well.

5 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

peppies can then do, say, 7 and 19 for pick 2 and all of a sudden - in this year's top 20 - they have 2, 6, and 18, north have 7, 11, and 19, and we end up with pick 8

the biggest stumbling block might be that north might see more value in flipping 2 for 14 and 16 from the filth

Neither of those deals are anything close to the value of pick 2 if big Loges is half as talented as many predict.

Ideally I'd want two top 10 picks, like 7 and 8 from Essendon maybe with something minor back the other way. If the Pies got up to 5 using a future first and combined that with 16 then maybe, or they could do 14 and 16 for 9 and change and then add their future first with 9.

Trading down is a smart move when you stay in the same draft range, but elite key forwards are their own draft range and not one you trade out of.

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Neither of those deals are anything close to the value of pick 2 if big Loges is half as talented as many predict.

Ideally I'd want two top 10 picks, like 7 and 8 from Essendon maybe with something minor back the other way. If the Pies got up to 5 using a future first and combined that with 16 then maybe, or they could do 14 and 16 for 9 and change and then add their future first with 9.

Trading down is a smart move when you stay in the same draft range, but elite key forwards are their own draft range and not one you trade out of.

pick 2 = 2517 points
pick 7 and 19 = 2592 points

but i agree, i can't understand why north supposedly want to rid themselves of a chance to take a top 3 kpf (juh, thilthorpe, mcdonald) or the #1 rated key back (grainger-barass)

Edited November 12, 20204 yr by whatwhatsaywhat

1 minute ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

pick 2 = 2517 points
pick 7 and 19 = 2592 points

but i agree, i can't understand why north supposedly want to rid themselves of a chance to take a top 3 kpf (juh, thilthorpe, mcdonald) or the #1 rated key back (grainger-barass)

I feel like I need to plaster it everywhere 'points are only useful comparisons for like for like picks or teams that need points'.

Collingwood gave away Treloar for free to get pick 14 today.

Last year our trade up with North was apparently so out of whack we had to win the flag just to draw even (then we did the Freo deal, add in free agent compo and we've probably won the deal).

For pick 2, you'd want to win the deal by 500 or so points. North are guided by Glen Luff formerly from Champion Data who has more at state with the points system than most but I don't think he'd blindly trust it.

We had better have something in the works to move into the top 10.

Next years draft will be much better and we just traded away out 1st rounder.   This years batch of kids didn't even play all season.

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

Collingwood gave away Treloar for free to get pick 14 today.

no, collingwood gave away treloar, stephenson, and phillips for sweet fanny adams today so that they weren't over the cap by $2m in 2021

Ess 6 and 7 to North for 2

Ess  8 and f2 to melb for 18, 19, 28

Ess  6, 7, 8 , f2  for   2, 18, 19, 28

North  2  for 6 , 7

Melb  18 , 19 , 28  for  8 and  f2

 

26 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

We had better have something in the works to move into the top 10.

Next years draft will be much better and we just traded away out 1st rounder.   This years batch of kids didn't even play all season.

But we are so good are trading picks and working up the order I would back us to have at least one first rounder next year by the time the draft comes around

On paper it appears solid trading but as many have there is probably more to come.

Would be good if we could start solving our outside run/ball use issues this year and not next.

Obviously, the footy department have some sort of plan. I don't think, despite many on here claiming inside knowledge, any of us know what it is!

 

Good picks to take quality kids in an uncertain draft year. We could have our eye on a couple for rippers that either slide or aren’t rated due to not much footy played this year. Perfect picks, could be as good as 2 top 10 picks 

Thanks Josh, now we wait for Mr Taylor to weave his magic

5 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I've gone and developed a genuine draft-crush for the first time in years.  Archie Perkins will likely go in the middle of the first round, so we need to get into that range.

Possible Targets:

Essendon:

6, 7, 8, 44, 77, 85, 87

Lots of list spots to fill.  Some top picks but then dross.  They might be enticed by some combo of 19+ 28 to keep them participating meaningfully.

Fremantle 12, 32, 55 Doesn't seem likely, but hey, it is Fremantle. GWS 10, 13, 15, 20, 29, 52, 74, 88 What the hell are they going to do with all those picks? That's just selfish.  Again. Unfortunately they look all set for drafting early and then burning late picks for academy points. North Melbourne  2, 11, 30, 39, 71, 81 That 11 is 'ours' anyway, isn't it?  I can see it happening, once they've got their draftee star they'd love to be able to point to as many young guns as possible coming through the system, so a pair of later first rounders may have value. Adelaide 1, 9, 22, 23, 40, 56, 66, 80  Nine would do the job for us nicely, but they might not see the point in adding 18 or 19 to their 22 and 23.  But 18, 19 and 28 for 9 and 23 might start a conversation. Collingwood 14, 16, 65, 70, 75, 92 Offer them 18 and 89 for 14 and 92 and see if they are still drunk, but only if Archie is still available at 14.   And that's every pick from 6 to 16 covered in just six clubs.

 

Essendon owning those 3 picks will really hurt our chances of trading into the top 10.

The Saad trade and their compensation for Daniher were both disgusting outcomes.

Pick 7 and 8 for Daniher and Saad.  FMD

Edited November 12, 20204 yr by Pickett2Jackson

6 hours ago, Paulo said:

Ess 6 and 7 to North for 2

Ess  8 and f2 to melb for 18, 19, 28

Ess  6, 7, 8 , f2  for   2, 18, 19, 28

North  2  for 6 , 7

Melb  18 , 19 , 28  for  8 and  f2

 

Can we retrade futures now?

I personally would love to see us take 18 & 19 to the draft.

These are perfect picks to go for quick, skillful smalls similar to the Power did with Duursma and Butters.

Areas we have covered:

KPF - Brown, Jackson, Weid & McDonald

KPD - May, Lever, Petty & Tomlinson

Ruck - Gawn & Bradtke - ideally we add Phillips on a one year contract as back up

Inside Mids - Oliver, Petracca, Harmes, Viney, Brayshaw & Sparrow

Medium/Small backs - Rivers, Salem, Hibberd, Smith & Lockhart

Medium/small forwards - Fritsch, Melksham, Pickett, Spargo, Hunt & Baker

I want players with genuine leg speed and skills to play on the outside more or partner Pickett up forward.

Any keen draft observers have same names in mind that fit this?

3 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

I personally would love to see us take 18 & 19 to the draft.

These are perfect picks to go for quick, skillful smalls similar to the Power did with Duursma and Butters.

Areas we have covered:

KPF - Brown, Jackson, Weid & McDonald

KPD - May, Lever, Petty & Tomlinson

Ruck - Gawn & Bradtke - ideally we add Phillips on a one year contract as back up

Inside Mids - Oliver, Petracca, Harmes, Viney, Brayshaw & Sparrow

Medium/Small backs - Rivers, Salem, Hibberd, Smith & Lockhart

Medium/small forwards - Fritsch, Melksham, Pickett, Spargo, Hunt & Baker

I want players with genuine leg speed and skills to play on the outside more or partner Pickett up forward.

Any keen draft observers have same names in mind that fit this?

where are you playing Langdon?

7 minutes ago, Kent said:

where are you playing Langdon?

On a wing at the G round 1!

Missed him somehow!

13 hours ago, DemonOX said:

Commentary around this yrs draft is that it’s light and doesnt run deep at all but next season it runs very deep. 
 

Not sure what we are going to do with 18 and 19 but I hope JM knows what he is doing as we have no first rounder again next season at this stage. 

2 weeks ago we didn't have a first round pick for this year, now we have 2!

How I see this deal is that we are banking on making finals next year, which means our first pick would be at least a Pick 10.  We've effectively swapped a Pick 10 for 18 + 19.  Similar to last year/this year with North.  We basically traded Pick 9 for Pick 9, but got access to Kosi a year earlier, who I think will be a very good player for us.

So in answer to the first part of your post that I bolded, I think JM does know what he's doing.  I'm not a big fan of the bloke, but he seems an industry leader in the swapping and upgrading of draft picks.

5 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

2 weeks ago we didn't have a first round pick for this year, now we have 2!

How I see this deal is that we are banking on making finals next year, which means our first pick would be at least a Pick 10.  We've effectively swapped a Pick 10 for 18 + 19.  Similar to last year/this year with North.  We basically traded Pick 9 for Pick 9, but got access to Kosi a year earlier, who I think will be a very good player for us.

So in answer to the first part of your post that I bolded, I think JM does know what he's doing.  I'm not a big fan of the bloke, but he seems an industry leader in the swapping and upgrading of draft picks.

they are not really first round 

will end up 22 or 23

4 minutes ago, Kent said:

they are not really first round 

will end up 22 or 23

So are they classed as first or second round?

 

It's clear there is plenty still to play out here.

We of course have the option of taking both picks to the draft and select two young kids.

Or, we sit back and wait to see if any further offers crop up earlier in the draft.  We can turn these two picks into something better and potentially select the player we have our eye on.

Either way, we've done a great job this trade period and we can do even better once the draft rolls around.

9 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

We had better have something in the works to move into the top 10.

Next years draft will be much better and we just traded away out 1st rounder.   This years batch of kids didn't even play all season.

i don't understand this reasoning. Yeah we can move into the top 10 but at the expense of pick 18,19 which are great picks to have. And its all based on points anyway so its all well and good to say lets get into the top 10 but we'd only do so in a way that the points system is of even value. 

I suspect we wanted to trade 18 and 19 for one of Essendon's 3 top 10 picks.

So they could offer a top 10 and 18 for Dunkley.

Thanks would have been the ideal outcome IMO.

Now it's messy.

Edited November 12, 20204 yr by Pollyanna