19 minutes ago, BDA said:

This thread has gone very quiet. I’d like to think we go hard for this pick. Bring in some top end talent to bolster the list. 

footscray in the box seat from all reports

Surely two high teen picks from bulldogs or whoever else isn’t what gc is after, seems like they will just get wasted on bids for academy players 

surely they would prefer maybe one later teen pick (roughly pick 18 ish) and or maybe some 20s picks.

Wouldn’t they prefer 2024 first round picks 

6 minutes ago, Edm said:

Surely two high teen picks from bulldogs or whoever else isn’t what gc is after, seems like they will just get wasted on bids for academy players 

surely they would prefer maybe one later teen pick (roughly pick 18 ish) and or maybe some 20s picks.

Wouldn’t they prefer 2024 first round picks 

The Dogs have reportedly offered their future first round pick in addition to their two first round picks this year  

I think we should either buy Haynes& pick 15 off GWS or find a sweetener with Grundy for Swans pick 11.

Then offer our first three picks (all first rounders) to West Coast for Harley Reid. If he really is a generational player who will slot straight into our midfield, it frees up Petracca to move forward.

4 minutes ago, demoncat said:

The Dogs have reportedly offered their future first round pick in addition to their two first round picks this year  

That would be overs imv. Nearly double the potential points value by my guess.

16 minutes ago, Romey said:

I think we should either buy Haynes& pick 15 off GWS or find a sweetener with Grundy for Swans pick 11.

Then offer our first three picks (all first rounders) to West Coast for Harley Reid. If he really is a generational player who will slot straight into our midfield, it frees up Petracca to move forward.

Would you give up Sanders / McKercher plus 2 first round picks to get Reid? Because it's highly likely that one of those players will be available with our first pick. I wouldn't.

Dogs trading three 1st rounders for a small forward is crazy stuff even if they do get a 2nd rounder back

4 minutes ago, adonski said:

Dogs trading three 1st rounders for a small forward is crazy stuff even if they do get a 2nd rounder back

Unless they're after someone else. ie not Watson.

If the Bulldogs do beat us to Pick 4 as mooted, I think we should then target GC's newly acquired Pick 10 with our second round and later picks + most likely a future pick would be required.

Would be awesome to walk into the draft with picks 5, 10, 13 + Kynan Brown.

24 minutes ago, rodney_g said:

If the Bulldogs do beat us to Pick 4 as mooted, I think we should then target GC's newly acquired Pick 10 with our second round and later picks + most likely a future pick would be required.

Would be awesome to walk into the draft with picks 5, 10, 13 + Kynan Brown.

Well, the issue is that picks 5, 10, 13 will likely be 7, 13, 18.... because at this stage North will get Pick 3 as compensation for a Ben McKay move to Essendon  plus a likely Pick 11 as AFL Special Assistance, and Gold Coast will take 3 Northern Academy picks (Jed Walter at 2, Ethan Read at 9, Jake Rogers at 12; according to Cal Twomey's latest rankings). 13 could even become 19 if Jordan Croft decides to nominate as a Father/Son and is taken by the Bulldogs at Pick 11 (Cal Twomey).

That's the reason why Clubs are probably prepared to pay at what would appear at face value to be over the odds for Pick 4 becaise Pick 4 will only slide back to a minimal extent (likely Pick 6), whereas Pick 10 upwards and especially Pick 13 upwards will be pushed back a lot further. That and the fact that the AFL points allocations for various picks should tail off a lot quicker than it currently does.

So say looking at the Bulldogs, pre-draft the points trade situation will be 11 & 19 & 2024 First Rounder for 5. For Gold Coast they will get full points value for 11 & 19 (enhanced by the 20% discount) as they will use them on higher Academy picks. But from a WB perspective they'll be looking at what they'll be worth if they retain them (13 & 23) and what players are likely to be available at those levels. Similarly, looking at WB's 2024 First Rounder. What's that likely to be worth? No doubt WB will be thinking they'll finish higher than GC will be thinking, but in any case say we assess that as worth pick 13 (WB finish 6th in 2024). 13 wlll probably actually end up at 17 or something siimilar so nothing particularly exciting from either a GC or WB perspective.


      

20 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Well, the issue is that picks 5, 10, 13 will likely be 7, 13, 18.... because at this stage North will get Pick 3 as compensation for a Ben McKay move to Essendon  plus a likely Pick 11 as AFL Special Assistance, and Gold Coast will take 3 Northern Academy picks (Jed Walter at 2, Ethan Read at 9, Jake Rogers at 12; according to Cal Twomey's latest rankings). 13 could even become 19 if Jordan Croft decides to nominate as a Father/Son and is taken by the Bulldogs at Pick 11 (Cal Twomey).

That's the reason why Clubs are probably prepared to pay at what would appear at face value to be over the odds for Pick 4 becaise Pick 4 will only slide back to a minimal extent (likely Pick 6), whereas Pick 10 upwards and especially Pick 13 upwards will be pushed back a lot further. That and the fact that the AFL points allocations for various picks should tail off a lot quicker than it currently does.

So say looking at the Bulldogs, pre-draft the points trade situation will be 11 & 19 & 2024 First Rounder for 5. For Gold Coast they will get full points value for 11 & 19 (enhanced by the 20% discount) as they will use them on higher Academy picks. But from a WB perspective they'll be looking at what they'll be worth if they retain them (13 & 23) and what players are likely to be available at those levels. Similarly, looking at WB's 2024 First Rounder. What's that likely to be worth? No doubt WB will be thinking they'll finish higher than GC will be thinking, but in any case say we assess that as worth pick 13 (WB finish 6th in 2024). 13 wlll probably actually end up at 17 or something siimilar so nothing particularly exciting from either a GC or WB perspective.


      

Apparently they are no longer going to get pick 11, which is good news for us

20 minutes ago, 2021 said:

Apparently they are no longer going to get pick 11, which is good news for us

Sorry, this is a recent development I'm not across. Can you provide some info.  I had heard they'd missed out on being gifted Ryley Sanders or even having access to him under the old Academy rules. What is the latest on what they're likely to get as special compensation for their long-standing incompetency? It's of course a total joke that they wil get Pick 3 for Ben McKay who basically might be worth Pick 15 being generous. 

26 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Sorry, this is a recent development I'm not across. Can you provide some info.  I had heard they'd missed out on being gifted Ryley Sanders or even having access to him under the old Academy rules. What is the latest on what they're likely to get as special compensation for their long-standing incompetency? It's of course a total joke that they wil get Pick 3 for Ben McKay who basically might be worth Pick 15 being generous. 

It wasn't me posting this, but was DL:

Riley Beveridge reporting on SEN Crunch Time that the AFL are going to recommend an assistance package to North Melbourne of:

- End of first round pick in 2023

- End of first round pick in 2024

- End of second round pick in 2024

- No priority access to Riley Sanders 

** Pick 3 compensation for McKay is a separate issue. Will “likely happen” but won’t have anything to do with assistance package.  

3 hours ago, Romey said:

I think we should either buy Haynes& pick 15 off GWS or find a sweetener with Grundy for Swans pick 11.

Then offer our first three picks (all first rounders) to West Coast for Harley Reid. If he really is a generational player who will slot straight into our midfield, it frees up Petracca to move forward.

Swans won’t give up their 1st rd pick 

3 minutes ago, 2021 said:

 

It wasn't me posting this, but was DL:

Riley Beveridge reporting on SEN Crunch Time that the AFL are going to recommend an assistance package to North Melbourne of:

- End of first round pick in 2023

- End of first round pick in 2024

- End of second round pick in 2024

- No priority access to Riley Sanders 

** Pick 3 compensation for McKay is a separate issue. Will “likely happen” but won’t have anything to do with assistance package.  

Also apparently it was Tom Morris who said this, not Riley.

Also, one again, the following quote wasn' mine but from DL:

The AFL also gave North the right to an additional two rookies on the list - a measure aimed at allowing the club to keep younger players while bringing in more mature talent.

Sources familiar with the AFL’s draft assistance package for the Kangaroos said the future picks had to be used in trades this year or they would cease to exist.  North Melbourne have not had the problem of key players leaving the club.

Future picks that must be traded for players is the best possible assistance a poor performing club can get. I like that it's a future draft giving them two years to trade it: they aren't held to ransom as easily.

 

Other benefits better than early picks and more kids include some salary cap concessions, to help them attract players.

You could also give them alternate FA rules: no offset of FA in and FA out for bottom 4 sides. It means they can recruit FAs without diluting a band 1 or 2 compo.

An extra 2 list spots means they can bring in AFL ready journeymen to play now without losing the spots needed for development of juniors.

 

 

Edited September 24, 20231 yr by deanox

4 hours ago, demoncat said:

The Dogs have reportedly offered their future first round pick in addition to their two first round picks this year  

Sam Power was recently whingeing that their depth has been impacted by having to cough up multiple picks to pay for top end NGA/father-son picks… and then he does this 2 weeks later 

1 hour ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Well, the issue is that picks 5, 10, 13 will likely be 7, 13, 18.... because at this stage North will get Pick 3 as compensation for a Ben McKay move to Essendon  plus a likely Pick 11 as AFL Special Assistance, and Gold Coast will take 3 Northern Academy picks (Jed Walter at 2, Ethan Read at 9, Jake Rogers at 12; according to Cal Twomey's latest rankings). 13 could even become 19 if Jordan Croft decides to nominate as a Father/Son and is taken by the Bulldogs at Pick 11 (Cal Twomey).


      

I agree that the North compensation pick will affect the value of our picks. Our current pick 5 becomes Pick 6 based on the latest reporting.

But Academy and Father/Son picks don't affect our value. With Pick 6 we have the 6th free choice of 'open' (non-aligned) players. If Walters and Read and Rogers all get jammed in before us, it doesn't matter - we still have the 6th free choice of a known pool of players.

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Sam Power was recently whingeing that their depth has been impacted by having to cough up multiple picks to pay for top end NGA/father-son picks… and then he does this 2 weeks later 

Sam sounds like a cry baby.  Bulldogs getting elite talent at the pointy end of the draft with a 20% discount is what the other clubs should by whining about not the Bullies.

Not to mention the advantage of knowing what you are going to get in terms of elite talent eg talls means you can use draft other picks or FA's to fill other areas of your list.

I have heard it all.

5 hours ago, adonski said:

Dogs trading three 1st rounders for a small forward is crazy stuff even if they do get a 2nd rounder back

They have Jordan Croft lined up as a father son who is rated in the top 12, hence they can trade the picks.

25 minutes ago, manny100 said:

Sam sounds like a cry baby.  Bulldogs getting elite talent at the pointy end of the draft with a 20% discount is what the other clubs should by whining about not the Bullies.

Not to mention the advantage of knowing what you are going to get in terms of elite talent eg talls means you can use draft other picks or FA's to fill other areas of your list.

I have heard it all.

And them getting Jamarra for bag of chips cost us Mac Andrew. Sooks.

Not sure I get the reasoning why putting bids on GC academy players makes our draft hand look worse?  If someone puts a bid in on Ethan Read a little earlier (such as Nth for example) Sure all the other picks slide back as they match it, but so do all the players on the table as well... in addition all the picks that occur after the ones that the GC need to use to match the bid move forward. The only picks that hurt our position are those obtained via free agency compensation (such as the Ben McKay one) or any compo that is granted to Nth for being so poor.

Where picks being pushed back hurts us, is their points value gets worse, if we are trying to trade for pick 4, for example

On 9/17/2023 at 8:41 PM, Demons11 said:

I don’t necessarily agree with this, we have a top end team and have the luxury of letting kids develop in the 2’s rather than throwing them to the wolves.  We have all seen how playing kids to early, can hinder their development.  I’m also thinking that our picks can potentially be used on a ready made player and not kids but time will tell 

What I've seen in recent years is a shed-load of 18 year olds ripping it up in their first year. Can't think of one player in the comp in the last 10 years who could be described as being played to early resulting in hindered development.

26 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

And them getting Jamarra for bag of chips cost us Mac Andrew. Sooks.

You're a dead set minimiser @Clintosaurus. It was a bag of chips, a small diet coke and a stale wagon wheel.