Welcome to Demonland - Pick 17

[spirit of norm smith 15,143]

17, 37, 49

[Deeoldfart 7,993]

20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

God we are good 

We are God at this business!

Edited October 6, 2021 by Deeoldfart

[adonski 10,814]

If it all blows up in our faces, you'll all have a flag to dry your tears on

[The Stigga 1,081]

Official 

 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/683080/mega-pick-swap-four-clubs-sign-off-on-monster-trade

 

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by The Stigga

[Winter Dan 426]

1 hour ago, Mickey said:

 

Ow, how about we entice Dawson to the dees instead, now that we have the capital to do the deal? Might end up better for us than Cerra. 

[Demons1858 1,715]

3 hours ago, Demon Forever said:

My only concern is: Wasn't it Josh Mahoney who did the wheeling an dealing with Pick upgrades?

I think it was TIm Lamb leading, going by the clubs vids of trade nights when they picked up Jacko, Kozzie, and Rivers

[FritschyBusiness 1,463]

Surely this is to try and get Mac Andrew

[picket fence 16,657]

1 hour ago, Deefiant said:

One of these years this will come back to bite us....

Yeah try..................after another 57 of them!!!!!!!! which by then will see us net in the vicinity of say 10-15 Premierships!!😍

Edited October 6, 2021 by picket fence

[george_on_the_outer 7,430]

1 hour ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I'm not the best at working out the pros and cons of pick swaps but we're effectively receiving pick 17 this year and giving up pick 18 next year yeah?

That's it!

And it means we get next years player in this year and can put 12 months of development into them. 

What don't people understand about being in a Premiership window? 

It is about the now, we make the team better NOW. 

We would only "lose" at the draft if we drop to the bottom of the ladder in 2022.  Do any of the critics of this tactic think that will happen next year?

[Dee-licious 1,947]

I was hesitant about the 49, but then realised that this will come right in with Collingwood and WB having the picks in the 40s before it (so really, what is the difference - we are picking around the 44 mark then anyway). Love returning to the first round and seeing what we can do. We know that we have a Woey and a AMW if we want them in the later order, and we might get 2-3 picks before their names are read out. 

Plus, that top 15 is not a bad top 15. Hopefully one shakes out to us. 

[DeeSpencer 24,731]

29 minutes ago, A F said:

 

What do you mean no room to make up ground? I swear someone posts the equivalent of this every year. "I don't like this! What will we do next year?" 

We'll do what we do every year. We'll trade our future first. And then some Demonlander will come on here again and worry how we're going to get it done again the next year.

We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

[adonski 10,814]

We truly have adopted an anti-Jeelong list management philosophy 

[The Stigga 1,081]

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

 

I agree with what you are saying but geez there is such fear of getting reamed with picks.

You get reamed if you pick the wrong player with any pick

 

 

[picket fence 16,657]

Whats the bet we may even try to package picks 37 and 49 into something like pick 25??? or even 17 and 37 into ??? or 37 and 49????? my head is spinning and I never was any good at Maths!!

Edited October 6, 2021 by picket fence

[Adam The God 29,358]

31 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

The point is we get a first rounder this year, so continue to build our list. A year in our system for a young, hopefully elite draftee. It's a no brainer.

As for giving Taylor the best possible picks, that's what we're doing. 17 is infinitely better than a pick in the mid 30s...

Edited October 6, 2021 by A F

[durango 1,989]

Obviously Tim has had a hand in the previous pick trading so losing Mahoney was not a death nell on our pick trading system.

[old dee 23,491]

For the past umpteen years this time of the year has been the most  interesting  time of the football year.

This year I could not care less, we are the premiers on the back of some very good recruiting.

The FD has iced these details in the past I trust their ability this year and will be interested when it is concluded just for a change. 

[Whispering_Jack 29,191]

1 hour ago, COVID Dan said:

Wonder if this is a move to get points for our NGA Mac Andrews?

Doubt that there’s any logic in chasing pick 17 to get a Mac Andrew in this draft.

Let me reiterate that it’s no reflection on him as a player but my assessment is that he’s one of a number who would fit in the mid-20s in this draft. From where he’s come since the start of 2021 that would be flattering but he’s been heavily hyped to the point where some people who consider themselves to be good judges are even putting him in top five contention.

If that’s based on information dropped by someone on an AFL club’s recruiting staff, then good luck to him. My own assessment is that he sits around pick 25.

If someone bids at that range I would be happy to see us match the bid. If he comes to Melbourne it would be terrific for him to learn the ropes as an understudy to Max Gawn, Luke Jackson and Majak Daw. It would be a great environment for him to learn the trade. 

From my observations, I wouldn’t use pick 17 to secure him because there are others who will fall within that range who can play midfield or in key positions and who are far more developed as footballers, some of who will be right to go in season 1.

[deespicable me 1,467]

After the Sam McClure puff peice about the 'nastiness" between Melbourne and the Dogs, which is all fine if it pumps up the rivalry, but how about the Dogs and Dees really go to battle by offering each others future first round pick to each other to take the rivalry up a notch. Maybe add in a $100,000 from each club to a charity of the winners choice.

I know it can't be done this year but it would be fun to see. Say Carlton and Essendon. Swans and GWS. Freo and West Coast.

Actually I don't think the AFL would approve.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,840]

Good to see that we are decisive and swift in our actions in the trade period still post Josh Mahoney. We target what we want to do and execute efficiently without  haggling over a couple of draft spots. I dont care for the trading out of next years draft. Keep doing it and next year never comes :)

Edited October 6, 2021 by Lil_red_fire_engine

[Mickey 4,469]

With how this team has recruited, they could draft Paddy McCartin at 17 and I'd believe he'd come good...

[Demons1858 1,715]

53 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

So looking purely at the draft spots we lose out here. Although other factors are clearly at play I am sure i.e. strength of this years & next years draft, father son selections pushing spots back, academy points needed, potentially packaging some of these picks up and swapping them again with other clubs, a particular player in mind etc. Will hold faith for now as the team have runs on the board

Edited October 6, 2021 by Demons1858

[buck_nekkid 5,818]

It’ll be picks a plenty for the dogs and pies, so we might not move back with these second rounders very much at all.  Suggest that our NGA and FS prospects this year will hope to be picked up after the first round anyway - maybe after the second.  IF we can grab talent early and not need to cash out on NGAs and FS until late, we can win big with this.  We may even try to get the second rounders and move further forward again…..

[Redlagged 806]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bizarre that people are questioning this and again not surprised that it's the same individuals as usual. 

Same list management who's done this strategic for a number of years are also the same ones who have just built a premiership team by doing this.

Some will never be satisfied. 

Spot on

[picket fence 16,657]

🍗Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner is my take!!🍗🍗

Edited October 6, 2021 by picket fence