The GCS Pick 4 Thread

[Nascent 7,283]

5 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Am I missing something here? Don't the Suns need points this year to get their Northern Academy players? Doesn't that mean that directly trading using future picks is going to be of no interest to them? There's been some suggestion by some posters that Melbourne could package a future first round pick in a swap. Now that could still happen if there's a 3-way trade with another club giving us a pick this year in return for a future pick, and we on-trade to Gold Coast. GC aren't going to want to trade up, only down, and they will do the deal with whichever club gives them the most points so elaborate calculations about points equivalents aren't really that relevant. We will need to come up with a deal that is advantageous to Gold Coast without being ridiculous from a Melbourne perspective.      

Best way I can put it is that Gold Coast already have the points they need to match bids for all their academy players. If they choose to, they could keep pick 4 and match a bid at pick 2. Won't matter either way to them.

So why would gold coast hand a rival a premium pick without any benefit to them? Remembering we couldn't crack a top 5 pick last year even with an offer if 3 x first round picks.

That's why people are suggest combinations of 15, 24, 34 and F1 etc. Covers their academy bid points for this year while adding an attracive pick for next year to make it worth their while.

Presumably they will have further academy players coming through in 2024 so they are further incentivised to add draft capital for the future.

[Deeko2 698]

22 hours ago, Nascent said:

Best way I can put it is that Gold Coast already have the points they need to match bids for all their academy players. If they choose to, they could keep pick 4 and match a bid at pick 2. Won't matter either way to them.

So why would gold coast hand a rival a premium pick without any benefit to them? Remembering we couldn't crack a top 5 pick last year even with an offer if 3 x first round picks.

That's why people are suggest combinations of 15, 24, 34 and F1 etc. Covers their academy bid points for this year while adding an attracive pick for next year to make it worth their while.

Presumably they will have further academy players coming through in 2024 so they are further incentivised to add draft capital for the future.

Well said Nascent and thanks for clearing it all up.

To me, it looks like a few teams can easily improve GCS' points with jagging P4 taking care of them for 2023.

The winner of the P4 auction I'd imagine will be the club who not only gets them the points this year, but gives up the biggest carrot for 2024 with there future first.

I'm all for getting rid of ours (guessing in the range of 16-20 after academy etc) but I'm not sure it will be appealing enough.

I'd be surprised if someone like North didn't load up there future first and maybe second to inject some further high end talent this year.

[Nascent 7,283]

1 hour ago, Deeko2 said:

Well said Nascent and thanks for clearing it all up.

To me, it looks like a few teams can easily improve GCS' points with jagging P4 taking care of them for 2023.

The winner of the P4 auction I'd imagine will be the club who not only gets them the points this year, but gives up the biggest carrot for 2024 with there future first.

I'm all for getting rid of ours (guessing in the range of 16-20 after academy etc) but I'm not sure it will be appealing enough.

I'd be surprised if someone like North didn't load up there future first and maybe second to inject some further high end talent this year.

This is why I think it will be harder for us to get the Gold Coast pick than some think. Many clubs will be able to accrue enough points for this year and as far as I'm aware, no clubs are restricted from trading out their future first next year.

Alot will come down to a clubs risk appetite and philosophy to trading futures.

Another factor making this a competitive auction is the reduced list sizes and rules that only mandates 1 national draft selection. Many clubs will be looking to only take 1 or 2 picks max and promote a rookie(s) to make the mandatory 3 list changes.

As a result, nearly every club could justify trading out the majority of their draft capital to get a top 4 pick, particularly in a draft that is said to drop off significantly after the first 6-7 selections (they say this regularly though).

 

[Colm 1,477]

Another thing to consider is that if we can’t get the deal done for GS pick 4 that doesn’t mean we can still get involved in it. If we trade for GWS pick 7, Cats pick 8 or Dogs pick 10 we strengthen their hand to get the deal done with GS. 
Still manage to have 2 top 10 picks. 

[Redleg 37,615]

21 minutes ago, Colm said:

Another thing to consider is that if we can’t get the deal done for GS pick 4 that doesn’t mean we can still get involved in it. If we trade for GWS pick 7, Cats pick 8 or Dogs pick 10 we strengthen their hand to get the deal done with GS. 
Still manage to have 2 top 10 picks. 

I suppose it all relates for us to if Reid is the target.

I would imagine 4 is the key pick to any Reid deal if WC or Roos are prepared to deal to get more bang for their buck.

I see it as WC being forced to take Curtin only, unless they can get a deal done to allow him to slide to 4.

Hawks will grab Reid at 3 if he is still there, so it’s probably Roos that may be able to swap 2 for a Reid deal but they would want back in quickly and 4 looks the foundation pick of any possible deal. Obviously extra will come with pick 4, for them to want to do a deal. We could possibly retain 5 if we gave them a player and our next pick, hopefully 18.

Then again we ignore Reid, trade up as high as possible and maybe have 4 & 5 to use in the draft.

Anyway we have a flag to win first, if possible.

[Fat Tony 4,409]

Like most on Demonland, I think Melbourne should be bidding to acquire the Sun’s pick #4.

That said, we should not overpay and, if the price is too high, I think we should also consider selling off our 2023 picks (including pick #5) for 2024 draft capital. The Sun’s bidding process will give us a good idea of the market for very early picks in this draft and we might find that there are two clubs out there that are willing to significantly overpay for early 2023 picks. It appears that the interest rate being paid by AFL clubs to bring picks forward is way too high.

Our list position means that we only really need to take one draft pick this year (plus upgrading Daniel Turner and F/S Kynan Brown).

Our current 2023 draft hand is #5, #15, #24, #34. And with Grundy, Jordon, Harmes and Tomlinson potentially on the move, we could turn these assets into multiple 2024 first and second round picks.

The list spots of Grundy, Jordon, Harmes and Tomlinson could be filled by free agents and with some of our younger players developing (Woewodin, Howes, Moniz-Wakefield and Laurie) the depth of our list could be mostly be replaced (except in the ruck where we can never get another player as good as Grundy to be depth).

While we have obviously had a lot of recent success in borrowing from the future in order to hit the draft due to our strong selections, there must come a tipping point where the cost of the margin loan is excessive. (Our success in doing this strategy might mean that there are more and more copycat clubs who are willing to mortgage the future, further increasing the interest rate.)

If we do move to extend our draft capital to 2024, one other benefit is that we could have multiple Deathride threads on Demonland!

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

38 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

That said, we should not overpay and, if the price is too high, I think we should also consider selling off our 2023 picks (including pick #5) for 2024 draft capital. The Sun’s bidding process will give us a good idea of the market for very early picks in this draft and we might find that there are two clubs out there that are willing to significantly overpay for early 2023 picks. It appears that the interest rate being paid by AFL clubs to bring picks forward is way too high.

 

The Jackson deal put most of our picks in to 2023.

2022 picks - Jefferson, Adams both long term projects 

2021 we took JVR and thank the lord we did because we’d be stuffed without him.

We need to take at least 1 high quality player now and get them in to the 22 as soon as possible. Either an elite tall if they’re too good to pass up or more likely some pace and class. 

Trading out of 15, 25, 35 whatever they are I get. I don’t get trading out of 5 unless JT hates the top of the draft

Edited September 4, 2023 by DeeSpencer

[Fat Tony 4,409]

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The Jackson deal put most of our picks in to 2023.

2022 picks - Jefferson, Adams both long term projects 

2021 we took JVR and thank the lord we did because we’d be stuffed without him.

We need to take at least 1 high quality player now and get them in to the 22 as soon as possible. Either an elite tall if they’re too good to pass up or more likely some pace and class. 

Trading out of 15, 25, 35 whatever they are I get. I don’t get trading out of 5 unless JT hates the top of the draft

It is about price. We love our holiday house, but if there was an auction nearby and the underbidder then came offered three times its market value, we would have to sell.

Taylor has proven he can find high quality AFL players later in the draft.

I am pretty confident that our tall stocks are reasonable. Daniel Turner will be an AFL player and needs opportunity. May and Lever are still going well. JVR is a baby and is the lynchpin going forward. Petty looks good at both ends. Smith has proven he can be an asset. TMac has another year on his contract.

We should look to the free agent market to replace Grundy, Tomlinson and Melksham.

A young tall is unlikely to help us win the flag next year. Even JVR, who is reasonably mature, took a year to come into the AFL. 

[Greendale 327]

I wonder if we have any interest in Ethan Read at pick 5? Need to improve the ruck stocks with Grundy going, and we've shown a willingness to pick mobile ruckman high in the draft with Jackson only recently. If we could threaten Gold Coast with a bid for him we might be able to move up to pick 4 without giving much at all. For them if they could push back the Read bid from 6 (after a Walter bid) to 10 or so they would save 400+ points.

[Colm 1,477]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

It is about price. We love our holiday house, but if there was an auction nearby and the underbidder then came offered three times its market value, we would have to sell.

Taylor has proven he can find high quality AFL players later in the draft.

I am pretty confident that our tall stocks are reasonable. Daniel Turner will be an AFL player and needs opportunity. May and Lever are still going well. JVR is a baby and is the lynchpin going forward. Petty looks good at both ends. Smith has proven he can be an asset. TMac has another year on his contract.

We should look to the free agent market to replace Grundy, Tomlinson and Melksham.

A young tall is unlikely to help us win the flag next year. Even JVR, who is reasonably mature, took a year to come into the AFL. 

May is still playing well but he’s showing signs that age is catching up with him and will be 32 at the start of next season. 
I think replacing him should be a priority at this draft with both Curtain and O’Sullivan top of the list. Both have mature frames already and could have an impact next season. 
We have shown in the past that we are a fan of the buy now pay later drafting and I think that’s the way we should go again. 
Im hoping we have two top 10 picks and get either Curtain( unlikely ) or Connor O’Sullivan and any one of Mckercher, Duursma or Watson. With bit of luck whoever we pick will be able to have an impact next year in the same way Jackson, Kossie and Rivers did. Recruit quality for now and the future. 

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

It is about price. We love our holiday house, but if there was an auction nearby and the underbidder then came offered three times its market value, we would have to sell.

Taylor has proven he can find high quality AFL players later in the draft.

I am pretty confident that our tall stocks are reasonable. Daniel Turner will be an AFL player and needs opportunity. May and Lever are still going well. JVR is a baby and is the lynchpin going forward. Petty looks good at both ends. Smith has proven he can be an asset. TMac has another year on his contract.

We should look to the free agent market to replace Grundy, Tomlinson and Melksham.

A young tall is unlikely to help us win the flag next year. Even JVR, who is reasonably mature, took a year to come into the AFL. 

JT’s philosophy has almost always been to get as high in the draft as he can. Every year he’s trading up or attempting to. The 2021 flag was almost all first and second round picks or players traded for them. So whilst he has found a couple of rookies in the best team now (McVee, Chandler) overwhelmingly he’s favoured nailing early picks. 

I remember thinking we overpaid massively for Pickett (until we did the second part of that deal getting the Riv pick). North fans were celebrating the home run. Now it looks a great deal.

Unless it’s a team that’s guaranteed bottom 6 next year (North, WC) I wouldn’t trade pick 5 just to get a haul of lesser picks and wait a year. The time to add high level talent is now so they’re ready to make a big impact sooner than later.

And a tall is less likely than a mid/small. I just wouldn’t rule it out because best available is always smart and the good ones can impact early (Ie. JVR, LJ). May and Gawn are our best big impact talls and a replacement for one of them would really help us from 2025 on. 

[Demonstone 19,180]

Last year we drafted Jed Adams, who  is a tall (197cm) key defender.  I hope he continues to develop.

[Fat Tony 4,409]

51 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

JT’s philosophy has almost always been to get as high in the draft as he can. Every year he’s trading up or attempting to. The 2021 flag was almost all first and second round picks or players traded for them. So whilst he has found a couple of rookies in the best team now (McVee, Chandler) overwhelmingly he’s favoured nailing early picks. 

I remember thinking we overpaid massively for Pickett (until we did the second part of that deal getting the Riv pick). North fans were celebrating the home run. Now it looks a great deal.

Unless it’s a team that’s guaranteed bottom 6 next year (North, WC) I wouldn’t trade pick 5 just to get a haul of lesser picks and wait a year. The time to add high level talent is now so they’re ready to make a big impact sooner than later.

And a tall is less likely than a mid/small. I just wouldn’t rule it out because best available is always smart and the good ones can impact early (Ie. JVR, LJ). May and Gawn are our best big impact talls and a replacement for one of them would really help us from 2025 on. 

Really? I think our philosophy reflected 1) the high end talent on our list (Petracca, Oliver and Gawn) which we could build a premiership window around and 2) that we had obvious holes in our team. In 2017/2018 we had an issue with our key defenders being sub-standard and we used first round picks to trade in established AFL players (Lever and May) and drafted Petty. In 2019 we then lacked decent small forwards and traded forward to select Kossie and landed Chandler in the rookie draft. In 2020 we brought in Ben Brown. And in 2021 we lacked up and coming key forwards and so we drafted Van Rooyen.

IMO our current team has no immediate concerns in any area of the ground. We could do with another star key forward but there is no 18 year old who is going to be that player for us next year. May and Gawn are both old, but I am not sure if we would be better off getting key backs and rucks in free agency.

We also currently have talented young players who are struggling to get into the AFL due to lack of opportunity. Laurie has hardly played. Howes looks the goods at VFL level but has not been given a chance. Jordon looks like leaving. Spargo cannot get a game in his prime years. Woewodin has shown a bit.

Hypothetically, if we landed 18-year old Jackson, Pickett and Rivers in this draft, how many games would they play in 2024? Is first-year Pickett ahead of Chandler or Spargo? (No IMO.) Is first-year Rivers ahead of McVee or Salem? (No IMO.) The aim is not to win Casey the flag.

My view is not that we should trade back. It is that we should be open to it. A possible trade could be #5 for WCE 2024 F1 and #19. That said, draft picks are liquid and can be flipped around, so you need to look at total value of any package of picks.

We need to make sure we spend our draft capital prudently and that does not mean we have to spend it all this year.

I would also argue that our success in trading forward has meant that the cost has gone up as other clubs will be looking to follow our lead.

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

3 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Hypothetically, if we landed 18-year old Jackson, Pickett and Rivers in this draft, how many games would they play in 2024? Is first-year Pickett ahead of Chandler or Spargo? (No IMO.) Is first-year Rivers ahead of McVee or Salem? (No IMO.) The aim is not to win Casey the flag.

My view is not that we should trade back. It is that we should be open to it. A possible trade could be #5 for WCE 2024 F1 and #19. That said, draft picks are liquid and can be flipped around, so you need to look at total value of any package of picks.

We need to make sure we spend our draft capital prudently and that does not mean we have to spend it all this year.

I would also argue that our success in trading forward has meant that the cost has gone up as other clubs will be looking to follow our lead.

I accept that most first year players aren't going to be playing immediately but that's actually an argument for selecting them earlier, not later. It's time in the system and multiple pre-seasons that get players ready. It's also true that the top sides are less likely to select draftees in their first year because they don't need to. Melbourne won't select players to win Casey the flag but experience playing in the VFL prepares them for the AFL. Using your logic, if  we push our selections back to 2024 none of them are going to be playing for Melbourne until 2026! 

There's also the uncertainty of future drafts. 2023 draftees will largely be a known quantity at 2023 draft time, whereas obviously that's not the case for potential 2024 draftees. But of course it all depends on what players are likely to be available at what draft position. If Melbourne misses out on a player they want of course they'll trade back by draft position and/or year.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Sydney_Demon

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:43 PM, Nascent said:

Best way I can put it is that Gold Coast already have the points they need to match bids for all their academy players. If they choose to, they could keep pick 4 and match a bid at pick 2. Won't matter either way to them.

So why would gold coast hand a rival a premium pick without any benefit to them? Remembering we couldn't crack a top 5 pick last year even with an offer if 3 x first round picks.

That's why people are suggest combinations of 15, 24, 34 and F1 etc. Covers their academy bid points for this year while adding an attracive pick for next year to make it worth their while.

Presumably they will have further academy players coming through in 2024 so they are further incentivised to add draft capital for the future.

If GC Northern Academy players go at the level Cal Twomey is predicting (2, 9 & 12) they will need 4,203 points after the 20% discount. They currently have 4,191. Apparently they're also potentially going to take another academy player Will Graham who's currently at 34 according to Rookie Me Central (another 434 points after 20% discount):

https://central.rookieme.com/afl/power-rankings/rolling-rankings-top-40-afl-draft-prospects/

I know they can go into deficit but I'm assuming that's not their preference. So, again I would suggest GC would prefer to trade totally for points rather than 2024 future picks. They won't want to go backwards on the 4,191 they currentky have. In fact that 4,191 will be reduced if North get Pick 3 as compensation for Ben McKay and 9 & 12 with become 8 & 11 and thus require more points if Ryley Sanders (Cal Twomey 7) is gifted to North as they are attempting to negotiate with the AFL.

It's a rolled gold certainty they will trade out 4, if they can get 1 point more than the 2,304 that's worth and there will be a number of teams who will want to trade up to 4 so that's a definite. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Sydney_Demon

[Nascent 7,283]

2 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

If GC Northern Academy players go at the level Cal Twomey is predicting (2, 9 & 12) they will need 4,203 points after the 20% discount. They currently have 4,191. Apparently they're also potentially going to take another academy player Will Graham who's currently at 34 according to Rookie Me Central (another 434 points after 20% discount):

https://central.rookieme.com/afl/power-rankings/rolling-rankings-top-40-afl-draft-prospects/

I know they can go into deficit but I'm assuming that's not their preference. So, again I would suggest GC would prefer to trade totally for points rather than 2024 future picks. They won't want to go backwards on the 4,191 they currentky have. In fact that 4,191 will be reduced if North get Pick 3 as compensation for Ben McKay and 9 & 12 with become 8 & 11 and thus require more points if Ryley Sanders (Cal Twomey 7) is gifted to North as they are attempting to negotiate with the AFL.

It's a rolled gold certainty they will trade out 4, if they can get 1 point more than the 2,304 that's worth and there will be a number of teams who will want to trade up to 4 so that's a definite. 

I have no doubt they will trade out pick 4, apologies for not making that clear. My belief is that they will trade pick 4 which will net them 2000 odd points plus a future selection(s). There will be enough competition for pick 4 to ensure that happens in my opinion.

[Travy14 1,505]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:13 PM, Nascent said:

Best way I can put it is that Gold Coast already have the points they need to match bids for all their academy players. If they choose to, they could keep pick 4 and match a bid at pick 2. Won't matter either way to them.

So why would gold coast hand a rival a premium pick without any benefit to them? Remembering we couldn't crack a top 5 pick last year even with an offer if 3 x first round picks.

That's why people are suggest combinations of 15, 24, 34 and F1 etc. Covers their academy bid points for this year while adding an attracive pick for next year to make it worth their while.

Presumably they will have further academy players coming through in 2024 so they are further incentivised to add draft capital for the future.

Suns do not have enough points, 3 of their academy players will go in the top 10.

GC have 4,191 points

Jed Walters will go at pick 2,  and then if the other 2 go at 9 and 10(I'm doing the least possible) it's 5,381 points.

they simple have to trade pick 4.  Even if they keep it and say Walters slips to 4 they will still need 4,898 points with the other two going at 9 and 10.  even if one slips out of the top 10 and goes 12 to 13 its less than 100 points difference. 

We 100% should try get into that pick and hope that Duursma slips, this kid looks like a Petracca 2.0

[rpfc 27,476]

17 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

JT’s philosophy has almost always been to get as high in the draft as he can. Every year he’s trading up or attempting to. The 2021 flag was almost all first and second round picks or players traded for them. So whilst he has found a couple of rookies in the best team now (McVee, Chandler) overwhelmingly he’s favoured nailing early picks. 

I remember thinking we overpaid massively for Pickett (until we did the second part of that deal getting the Riv pick). North fans were celebrating the home run. Now it looks a great deal.

Unless it’s a team that’s guaranteed bottom 6 next year (North, WC) I wouldn’t trade pick 5 just to get a haul of lesser picks and wait a year. The time to add high level talent is now so they’re ready to make a big impact sooner than later.

And a tall is less likely than a mid/small. I just wouldn’t rule it out because best available is always smart and the good ones can impact early (Ie. JVR, LJ). May and Gawn are our best big impact talls and a replacement for one of them would really help us from 2025 on. 

No, Taylor and Lamb go up to get someone. Like they tried to Humphries last year and like they did to get Oliver and Pickett. It’s not going up for the sake of going up - it’s to get a specific player.

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

1 hour ago, Travy14 said:

Suns do not have enough points, 3 of their academy players will go in the top 10.

GC have 4,191 points

Jed Walters will go at pick 2,  and then if the other 2 go at 9 and 10(I'm doing the least possible) it's 5,381 points.

they simple have to trade pick 4.  Even if they keep it and say Walters slips to 4 they will still need 4,898 points with the other two going at 9 and 10.  even if one slips out of the top 10 and goes 12 to 13 its less than 100 points difference. 

We 100% should try get into that pick and hope that Duursma slips, this kid looks like a Petracca 2.0

As I posted earlier, I agree that they don't have enough points, and that could be further exacerbated by them making a play for Will Graham who is likely to go in the mid-30s. One thing you appear not to have done though is apply the 20% discount. 

We should make a play for Pick 4, particularly as it will get us above the compromising of the draft lower down. Read & Rogers wil definitely go above Melbourne's 2nd Pick as in all likelihood will Jordan Croft, Western Bulldogs Father/Son.

If we are targetting Harley Reid I'm not sure though that bundling 4 & 5 is the best way of getting there. Far too many points and we would need something back the other way from West Coast. I still think making a play for the Bulldogs Pick 10 is a more realisable option as they will want to trade out that pick. Bundling Picks 5, 10 & 37 could be attractive for West Coast as they would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5. Concersely if Reid is not available 4 & 5 would get us 2 potentially excellent players. Pick 10 not so attractive unless it can be used as part of a trade.  

[Fat Tony 4,409]

1 hour ago, Travy14 said:

Suns do not have enough points, 3 of their academy players will go in the top 10.

GC have 4,191 points

Jed Walters will go at pick 2,  and then if the other 2 go at 9 and 10(I'm doing the least possible) it's 5,381 points.

they simple have to trade pick 4.  Even if they keep it and say Walters slips to 4 they will still need 4,898 points with the other two going at 9 and 10.  even if one slips out of the top 10 and goes 12 to 13 its less than 100 points difference. 

We 100% should try get into that pick and hope that Duursma slips, this kid looks like a Petracca 2.0

Hawthorn are reportedly keen on Duursma, so we might need to get ahead of their pick. 

[Travy14 1,505]

28 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

As I posted earlier, I agree that they don't have enough points, and that could be further exacerbated by them making a play for Will Graham who is likely to go in the mid-30s. One thing you appear not to have done though is apply the 20% discount. 

We should make a play for Pick 4, particularly as it will get us above the compromising of the draft lower down. Read & Rogers wil definitely go above Melbourne's 2nd Pick as in all likelihood will Jordan Croft, Western Bulldogs Father/Son.

If we are targetting Harley Reid I'm not sure though that bundling 4 & 5 is the best way of getting there. Far too many points and we would need something back the other way from West Coast. I still think making a play for the Bulldogs Pick 10 is a more realisable option as they will want to trade out that pick. Bundling Picks 5, 10 & 37 could be attractive for West Coast as they would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5. Concersely if Reid is not available 4 & 5 would get us 2 potentially excellent players. Pick 10 not so attractive unless it can be used as part of a trade.  

I think it will take at least 4 and 5 for Pick 1.  Just gotta look at the offers for pick 1 in the past, last year NM got pick 2 and 3 and the year before they got offered 3 first rounders by a couple of clubs.

Reid is said to be the best number 1 in a few years, think if you can get it then go for it.  Might be late picks back but not with much.  Experts are saying the draft might only go for 50-60 picks this year.

[Palace Dees 2,004]

24 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

As I posted earlier, I agree that they don't have enough points, and that could be further exacerbated by them making a play for Will Graham who is likely to go in the mid-30s. One thing you appear not to have done though is apply the 20% discount. 

We should make a play for Pick 4, particularly as it will get us above the compromising of the draft lower down. Read & Rogers wil definitely go above Melbourne's 2nd Pick as in all likelihood will Jordan Croft, Western Bulldogs Father/Son.

If we are targetting Harley Reid I'm not sure though that bundling 4 & 5 is the best way of getting there. Far too many points and we would need something back the other way from West Coast. I still think making a play for the Bulldogs Pick 10 is a more realisable option as they will want to trade out that pick. Bundling Picks 5, 10 & 37 could be attractive for West Coast as they would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5. Concersely if Reid is not available 4 & 5 would get us 2 potentially excellent players. Pick 10 not so attractive unless it can be used as part of a trade.  

I'm glad you pointed out the 20% discount consideration.  I was thinking the same thing. However,  when it comes to discussing the #1 pick, or even top 4-5 for that matter, point values are not really a factor  (Gold Coast's situation aside).  Clubs want to know what top end talent they can still get.  Eg. Is it wiser for a building club to get 2 potentially very good players than roll the dice on a potential champion.

If we were to get #4 and I was WC I'd take 4 & 5 - no returns. If I were Melbourne, I'd accept that deal. But I'd still be rapt if we went in with 4 & 5. 

[Nascent 7,283]

3 hours ago, Travy14 said:

Suns do not have enough points, 3 of their academy players will go in the top 10.

GC have 4,191 points

Jed Walters will go at pick 2,  and then if the other 2 go at 9 and 10(I'm doing the least possible) it's 5,381 points.

they simple have to trade pick 4.  Even if they keep it and say Walters slips to 4 they will still need 4,898 points with the other two going at 9 and 10.  even if one slips out of the top 10 and goes 12 to 13 its less than 100 points difference. 

We 100% should try get into that pick and hope that Duursma slips, this kid looks like a Petracca 2.0

5381 subtracting 20% for their academy discount makes it 4305.

4305 - 4191 = 114 points.

Their short the equivelent of pick 62.

Outside of pick 4 they have picks 28, 31, 42, 47, 56, 60, 65, 69

Most of these could easily be traded down to cover the points if needed.

That's before a potential 2nd or 3rd round pick comes in for Hollands.

They aren't desperate for points, but any deal will have to cover the points equivelent of pick 4. There's a few clubs interested allegedly that could cover the points. The team that gets pick 4 will have to offer more than just points this year in my view.

I'm all on board having a crack at pick 4, for either a bundled up package for Reid or two high end players. I'd be happy either way.

[Travy14 1,505]

29 minutes ago, Nascent said:

5381 subtracting 20% for their academy discount makes it 4305.

4305 - 4191 = 114 points.

Their short the equivelent of pick 62.

Outside of pick 4 they have picks 28, 31, 42, 47, 56, 60, 65, 69

Most of these could easily be traded down to cover the points if needed.

That's before a potential 2nd or 3rd round pick comes in for Hollands.

They aren't desperate for points, but any deal will have to cover the points equivelent of pick 4. There's a few clubs interested allegedly that could cover the points. The team that gets pick 4 will have to offer more than just points this year in my view.

I'm all on board having a crack at pick 4, for either a bundled up package for Reid or two high end players. I'd be happy either way.

I did forget about the 20% which is a joke!
 

Anything after pick 60 is barely worth 100 points and after 74 its 0 and no club wants anything outside 50 this year so half those picks are useless besides points.  if they can split 28 possible.  it looks like Chol is out the door too which will bring a pick in all be it not a great one.

I'm super keen on Reid or Duursma, but i also don't have the best track record of picking young guns.  In the past i was super keen on Parrish and Weightman.  We ended up getting Oliver and Kossie.

[BAMF 3,787]

24 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

I did forget about the 20% which is a joke!

You have to have some incentive for clubs to invest money into the academy though.

It would be interesting to see how many kids from QLD have been drafted each year pre and post introduction of the Gold Coast academy.