1 minute ago, Lewis said:

10 + 13 for Cats pick 7? 

Yuck

I wonder if we'd offer something like 5, 24 and Charlie Spargo to trade up with North for pick 3. 

North have an abundance of mids and we could really use Colby McKercher. 

they could grab their boy Riley Sanders with pick 5, plus a premiership role player and a second rounder as a bonus

1 hour ago, Lewis said:

10 + 13 for Cats pick 7? 

After the dogs get pick 4 for 10 + 17?

 

16 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

After the dogs get pick 4 for 10 + 17?

 

Dogs apparently have a future first on the table too, no doubt for later picks in return. But it takes a lot of top picks to climb high in the order. You don’t get them for unders. 

1 hour ago, Dwight Schrute said:

I wonder if we'd offer something like 5, 24 and Charlie Spargo to trade up with North for pick 3. 

North have an abundance of mids and we could really use Colby McKercher. 

they could grab their boy Riley Sanders with pick 5, plus a premiership role player and a second rounder as a bonus

North won't take Sanders. They wanted him for free. That's all. Hand out syndrome.

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Dogs apparently have a future first on the table too, no doubt for later picks in return. But it takes a lot of top picks to climb high in the order. You don’t get them for unders. 

Yeah, but you’re giving up pick 13 to shuffle pick 10 up by 3 spots. It’s not about unders, this would be idiotic. This is like Carlton giving up pick 2 for Liam Stocker level ineptitude.

28 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Yeah, but you’re giving up pick 13 to shuffle pick 10 up by 3 spots. It’s not about unders, this would be idiotic. This is like Carlton giving up pick 2 for Liam Stocker level ineptitude.

The proposal would be something like 25 + 33 + Grundy pick to GC for 10. Gives them more points.

 

the great trade and pick negotiations start soon !!! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

1 hour ago, old55 said:

The proposal would be something like 25 + 33 + Grundy pick to GC for 10. Gives them more points.

Well that’s a different conversation then.

9 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

North won't take Sanders. They wanted him for free. That's all. Hand out syndrome.

They cannot actually. After Pick 40.

On 9/28/2023 at 4:36 AM, FrothiesLiam said:

Riley Bonner was delisted by port potential cover for hibberd

Pass we don't need any extra half backs thanks I don't think. 

11 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

I wonder if we'd offer something like 5, 24 and Charlie Spargo to trade up with North for pick 3. 

North have an abundance of mids and we could really use Colby McKercher. 

they could grab their boy Riley Sanders with pick 5, plus a premiership role player and a second rounder as a bonus

Sanders not available till after pick 40.

North won't get him. ( same rule as for Mac Andrews.)

1 minute ago, 58er said:

Sanders not available till after pick 40.

North won't get him. ( same rule as for Mac Andrews.)

They can take him with pick 5 or any of their picks as long as he's still on the table.

As we could have taken Andrews if he had lasted to our pick.

12 hours ago, Nascent said:

Without reading the article I presume it infers we will trade for pick 10 from the Suns after the dogs nab pick 4 with 10 and 17.

What we do with 5, 10 and 13 is what is of interest to me. Either take 3 players or trade up using two of those picks are the two obvious choices.

You take them to the draft for a team that has sat in the top 4 for the last 3 seasons to get 3 players inside the top 15 is a massive opportunity to have an extended period contending, especially considering the compromised Drafts coming up

13 minutes ago, drdrake said:

You take them to the draft for a team that has sat in the top 4 for the last 3 seasons to get 3 players inside the top 15 is a massive opportunity to have an extended period contending, especially considering the compromised Drafts coming up

We end up with 3 potential guns, A Sanders/Watson etc.. at 5, O'Connor at 10 and a slider at 13. Plus Brown F/S with a later pick. Then recruit rookies like Orlando Turner & maybe Riak Andrews NGA, plus Jacob's bro Sam as a developing tall

Summary of Ralph's article:

Hawthorn has shown the most interest in Mabior Chol ahead of North Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane.
Chol’s contract is around $425,000 a season for two more years and clubs might have to offer him three or even four seasons. He would likely be available for a future second-rounder.

The Hawks are after a key position forward who can play ruck after Jacob Koschitzke nominated Richmond.
The Suns will Nick Malceski as a development coach.
----
The AFL would need to check off any St Kilda-Essendon free agency-trade swap involving Jade Gresham and Dylan Shiel.

Clubs cannot trade a selection in one deal then trade it back with another. St Kilda would not be allowed to top up Gresham’s salary to ensure they secured first-round compensation, but Essendon would be allowed to pay some of Shiel’s deal.
---
Western Bulldogs are leading the race to secure pick 4 from the Suns. The Dogs are offering picks 10, 17 and a future first-rounder — and would likely secure a third-rounder back from the Suns — which adds up to around 3500 draft points if the Dogs finished eighth next year.

At this stage North Melbourne’s suite of end-of-first-round picks are not enough to get pick 4. Even if the Roos offered up their current pick 14 and two of those end-of-first-round picks their trade package would only come up to 3000 points.

Adelaide and Melbourne will then be keen to secure pick 10 in the event of Suns-Dogs trade, with both the Crows and Demons have multiple second-rounders. (Adelaide has picks 21 and 24 to the Demons’ 25 and 33.)
---
Sydney has no recourse to dock co-captain Callum Mills’ salary after the Mad Monday incident that saw him tear his rotator cuff.

The Swans could cite him under the code of conduct but the maximum fine under AFLPA rules is $5000.
Mills is on a six-year $800,000 per year deal to 2029.

Richmond has an official minder with a group of players who have been on an informal footy trip in Thailand.
Coach Adem Yze strongly defended the practice over the weekend, saying he made some of his strongest bonds with teammates on footy trips.
----
Andrew Mackie confirmed that all of Tom Hawkins, Rhys Stanley, Gary Rohan and Zach Tuohy will play on at Geelong.
Brandon Parfitt decided not to explore rival interest.

The Cats are playing hard ball on Esava Ratugolea.
---
Clubs looking at Shaun Mannagh, who kicked six goals and had 27 possessions for Werribee in the loss to Gold Coast in the VFL Grand Final.

The former Ovens and Murray league star is 26 and in his 21 games this year he averaged 25 possessions and 1.9 goals a game, including four goals and 40 possessions against Southport and seven goals from 25 possessions against Sandringham.

Clubs believe he could play as a pressuring forward who wins his own ball at AFL level.

5, 10, 13 quite likely to be 7, 13, 18 in the actual Draft after Academy (3), F/S (1), FA compensation (1) picks intervene.

I'm in favour of trying to trade up.

1 hour ago, 58er said:

They cannot actually. After Pick 40.

Yes, I'm saying they wanted him for free, they are not going to use pick 3 or so on him, or trade up for a pick to get him as is being suggested around the place. I think their interest was in a freebie not Sanders.

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

5, 10, 13 quite likely to be 7, 13, 18 in the actual Draft after Academy (3), F/S (1), FA compensation (1) picks intervene.

I'm in favour of trying to trade up.

The FS, Academy picks you now these players will effect the draft number but it won't effect the pool of players available at that pick.   If pick 5 goes to 7 we will still have access to the same pool of players to select.

Edited September 28, 20232 yr by drdrake

1 minute ago, drdrake said:

The FS, Academy picks you now these players will effect the draft number but it won't effect the pool of players available at that pick.   If pick 5 goes to 7 we will still have access to the same pool of players to select.

Not sure I agree with this logic. Take O'Sullivan for example. He’s rated as pick 10 on most boards. But he will be gone well before that pick comes round as it will push out to 13/14. 

16 minutes ago, drdrake said:

The FS, Academy picks you now these players will effect the draft number but it won't effect the pool of players available at that pick. 

I do understand your argument and you are technically correct, pick 18 delivers the 13th best available pool player who is actually 18th best player in the draft.

If we can trade up then we can get access to a player whose quality is closer to the pick used. For example, as it stands pick 5 will deliver the 7th best player in the draft (after the Walters bid is matched and North's McKay compensation).  If we can trade up into that range with 10 and 13 we decrease the deficit.

Edited September 28, 20232 yr by old55

7 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Yes, I'm saying they wanted him for free, they are not going to use pick 3 or so on him, or trade up for a pick to get him as is being suggested around the place. I think their interest was in a freebie not Sanders.

But he Sanders was the freebie if it was given. They wanted him as he was adjudged as part of their  North Academy by the AFL. They definitely wanted him because of that and were wanting no restrictions on him.

But fortunately AFL for once didn't give this as a freebie. Just shows how AFL are hypocritical even on their own decisions. What a wasted piece of posturing by both. 

5 minutes ago, Colm said:

Not sure I agree with this logic. Take O'Sullivan for example. He’s rated as pick 10 on most boards. But he will be gone well before that pick comes round as it will push out to 13/14. 

Yes but @drdrake point is O'Sullivan is actually 8th best player in the available pool because Walters and Read aren't available.

Still see my argument above that the earlier the pick the less detrimental effect this has.

3 minutes ago, 58er said:

But he Sanders was the freebie if it was given. They wanted him as he was adjudged as part of their  North Academy by the AFL. They definitely wanted him because of that and were wanting no restrictions on him.

But fortunately AFL for once didn't give this as a freebie. Just shows how AFL are hypocritical even on their own decisions. What a wasted piece of posturing by both. 

So we agree then.

1 minute ago, 58er said:

But he Sanders was the freebie if it was given. They wanted him as he was adjudged as part of their  North Academy by the AFL. They definitely wanted him because of that and were wanting no restrictions on him.

But fortunately AFL for once didn't give this as a freebie. Just shows how AFL are hypocritical even on their own decisions. What a wasted piece of posturing by both. 

He was never going to be a "freebie". North wanted the rules bent so they could match a bid before 40. They still would have had to pay the points with the discount.

I'm pleased the AFL didn't allow this.