Farewell Luke Jackson

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

AFL Media, a guide to relevancy:-

Chapter 1:- ..................

Chapter 2:-...................

[layzie 33,991]

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

These trade guys are great.

Asked how will the deal get done, SOS gives no detail, but says he thinks it will get done.

It is riveting stuff.

If these guys were garbologists, the streets would be covered in rubbish.

I wonder if the criteria for being a Trade Expert is, having seen a game of footy?

If these guys were chimney sweeps there would be soot all over the mantle piece.

The late trade is by far my least favourite segment. Bunch of rent a clowns.

[Demonland 73,140]

[Pipefitter 2,168]

9 minutes ago, Demonland said:

That will do. 

[Nascent 9,283]

11 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Can't see it happening but would gladly take it.

[layzie 33,991]

16 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Hmmmm, let me think about it for a microsecond.. 

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

17 minutes ago, Demonland said:

If North are stupid enough to do that trade they should just fold

[BDA 22,875]

Terrible deal for North but they haven't been too clever recently so you never know

Effectively pick 2 as the Lions will take Ashcroft. Either an established player or 2 first round picks is better i reckon. Even a pick 2 might not work out so better chance JT turns 2 first round picks into at least one 200 gamer

Who would we take anyways? Sheezel? 

[deelusions from afar 1,861]

Don't know why North have to give up their second from next year in that deal.  Pick 1 for Logue, 13 and a future first is fairer IMO.

Though given they only have one high pick they can use, I think they would most likely want two early picks in this years draft rather than next year - unless next years draft really is that much better than this years'.

[Demon Disciple 12,273]

5 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Don't know why North have to give up their second from next year in that deal.  Pick 1 for Logue, 13 and a future first is fairer 

North shouldn’t have to give up their future 2nd in that swap. All things being fair, we’d be the ones needing to give up a future pick (if future second, then something later would need to come back imo)

[Jjrogan 1,439]

16 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

North shouldn’t have to give up their future 2nd in that swap. All things being fair, we’d be the ones needing to give up a future pick (if future second, then something later would need to come back imo)

Because assuming Freo finish 6th next year, North would then be receiving pick 13, pick 13 and Logue for pick 1.   Pick 13 + future pick 13 are equivalent of pick 2.

So it would mean norf give out pick 1 for pick 2 and Logue... need to give something back.

Fwiw, if you say Norf are stupid for doing this trade but if they did it, we should then take the pick 1 and split it up.... thats exactly what Norf is doing....  pick 1 is incredibly overvalued in most draft years (balances out in years where there is an out and out standout)  This year its pick 2 anyway so I reckon it will get shopped around.  

Edited September 30, 2022 by Jjrogan

[Demon Disciple 12,273]

I’d only split it if we were able to attain a top 5 pick from the deal

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

42 minutes ago, BDA said:

Terrible deal for North but they haven't been too clever recently so you never know

Effectively pick 2 as the Lions will take Ashcroft. Either an established player or 2 first round picks is better i reckon. Even a pick 2 might not work out so better chance JT turns 2 first round picks into at least one 200 gamer

Who would we take anyways? Sheezel? 

It reminds me a lot of our pick 2 for Salem, Tyson trade. 

When we did that we believed pick 2 was fairly equivalent to pick 9 and apart from missing Bontempelli that’s shown to be correct.

I just can’t see North going all the way back to pick 13, and I can’t really see us wanting to go up to pick 1 either. 

The sweet spot in this draft feels more like picks 6-9. And to be fair most years there’s probably a few special guys who generally go top 5, then some highly rated guys who mostly go within the top 12. Getting outside that range gets dicey.

[Jjrogan 1,439]

4 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

I’d only split it if we were able to attain a top 5 pick from the deal

Yea I agree.  We have a strong window for the next 5 years and Id take Aaron Cadman in a heart beat and throw the eggs into the basket. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but a shame we didnt opt for Mckay or Curnow or even Hipwood in the 2015 draft.  

[deelusions from afar 1,861]

22 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Because assuming Freo finish 6th next year, North would then be receiving pick 13, pick 13 and Logue for pick 1.   Pick 13 + future pick 13 are equivalent of pick 2.

So it would mean norf give out pick 1 for pick 2 and Logue... need to give something back.

Fwiw, if you say Norf are stupid for doing this trade but if they did it, we should then take the pick 1 and split it up.... thats exactly what Norf is doing....  pick 1 is incredibly overvalued in most draft years (balances out in years where there is an out and out standout)  This year its pick 2 anyway so I reckon it will get shopped around.  

That's assuming the points system is an accurate way of measuring the value of draft picks.  Only those that know the draft talent well enough could say for sure.  But if (hypothetically) West Coast traded pick 2 for picks 13 and 14 this year, most people would think they are nuts.

When we did the Salem / Tyson deal we effectively turned pick 3 into two top 10 picks as tyson was previously top 5.  That was a tough enough sell to supporters.

If you're wanting a key forward then it sounds like there's one standout and then it's a lottery.  

[grazman 7,451]

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

North shouldn’t have to give up their future 2nd in that swap. All things being fair, we’d be the ones needing to give up a future pick (if future second, then something later would need to come back imo)

I disagree, Freo aren’t giving up two firsts and a first 18 player  for Jackson …. That’s three players for one (albeit now marquee player) it’s just a little too high.  Clubs have learnt from the cost/benefit equation  of the Judd precedent when bringing in talent.  Pick #1 is fair for Dogga, but not for three best 22 players. 

 Similarly without trading the future second  North are sliding back from pick 1 but still in the first round this year and are  also getting an extra 1st rounder next year and a player who will be their FB for the best part of the next decade. It overvalues what in effect will be pick #2 anyway.  Neither Darcy Tucker orBrad Hill and his fat contract are wort a future second rounder. Without that future second rounder (likely pick 19-21) it doesn’t work. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by grazman

[grazman 7,451]

1 hour ago, Jjrogan said:

Hipwood in the 2015 draft.  

I think Hipwood was taken as a Lions Academy product.  

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

Should read a top 5 pick. 

[mmwd6 220]

How do we get that?

You'd think fremantle would only be able to upgrade their current pick by trading a F1 to whichever club they're getting that pick from. And if that's the case then they'll have no F1 to give us?

Will be a lot less than that by the end of it all. If they upgrade their pick then all they'll be able to add is a future second. 

 

[layzie 33,991]

That is such an awful deal for North

Edited September 30, 2022 by layzie

[Jjrogan 1,439]

7 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

That's assuming the points system is an accurate way of measuring the value of draft picks.  Only those that know the draft talent well enough could say for sure.  But if (hypothetically) West Coast traded pick 2 for picks 13 and 14 this year, most people would think they are nuts.

When we did the Salem / Tyson deal we effectively turned pick 3 into two top 10 picks as tyson was previously top 5.  That was a tough enough sell to supporters.

If you're wanting a key forward then it sounds like there's one standout and then it's a lottery.  

Without any other assumption of player value it is the one the industry uses.   There's a fair bit of historical data in it (although im not sure if points get revised yearly but perhaps they should)

2013 cripps went at 13 (boyd 1 kelly at 2)

2014 lever went at 14 (trac at 2)

2015 curnow went at 12 (schache at 2)

2016 jy sympkin 12 (taranto at 2)

2017 brayshaw at 2 clearly better than the early teens.  Poor draft year 

2018 Butters at 12. (Lukosios)

In some years 2 was better, other years picks 12/13 + something else was. Its kinda 50,50. Like you say it depends on the draft year and if theu think its an even draft its a fair trade for Norf. 

 

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

11 hours ago, Pipefitter said:

That will do. 

Freo big winners there imo

[Grouse 192]

Why are we only asking for a pick in top 7 and a future first? It better be from a struggling team and not freo. We took him with pick 3. He has to be worth pick 3 just to break even and then another high first for us letting such a talent / premiership player go. Pick 7 and freos future fist, possibly in the high teens is a huge fail imo. Just because freo don't have the ability to get it done we don't let him go cheaply. 

[djr 1,597]

On 9/29/2022 at 10:47 AM, Bay Riffin said:

Yeah not sure about that. They traded Kelly for two first rounders, and pick 24 and pick 37. They screwed every last drop for that deal. many other deals have been free agency and deals in their favour. I don't agree with the win / win philosophy. more of a 'we win' strategy. 

If you are a believer in the 'we win' strategy, who would ever trust you? Hate to go through life with that approach.