On 16/11/2023 at 13:53, Demon Disciple said:

How do they describe Daniel Rich? He’s a right footer isn’t he?

Left.

43 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Word is that Adelaide have been particularly keen to move to 7 to grab Curtin

I reckon we’d be trying to move up but might be difficult to match Adelaide’s assets (10, 14 and 20)

Then if WC want Curtin, it’s probably needing to trade with us. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Then if WC want Curtin, it’s probably needing to trade with us. 

It does seem like GWS’ willingness to trade pick 7 could shape a lot of the draft 

Could mean West Coast get the Reid-Curtin double if they trade their future first, or could see them miss out if GWS trade back with Adelaide 

I’d still love for them to trade pick 1 to us and pick Curtin themselves at 6 if they think he’ll slide to then (and it seems like he will) but from all reports they’re set on taking Reid - Curtin or no Curtin

Edited November 19, 20231 yr by demoncat

4 minutes ago, demoncat said:

It does seem like GWS’ willingness to trade pick 7 could shape a lot of the draft 

Could mean West Coast get the Reid-Curtin double if they trade their future first, or could see them miss out if they trade back with Adelaide 

I’d still love for them to trade pick 1 to us and pick Curtin themselves at 6 if they think he’ll slide to then (and it seems like he will) but from all reports they’re not set on taking Reid - Curtin or no Curtin

I think you mean they "are" set on taking Reid, as far as the reports have gone. Most reports saying they will keep 1.

Still think if we want Reid and they are prepared to trade pick 1, we are the real chance.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think you mean they "are" set on taking Reid, as far as the reports have gone. Most reports saying they will keep 1.

Still think if we want Reid and they are prepared to trade pick 1, we are the real chance.

Woops - mistype 

Edited now 

The idea that North (Clarkson) are keen on Curtin gives me hope that Duursma will slip through to 4 and we can get 4 from Hawthorn, however I think if that plays out they might elect to keep 4 anyway.

So many variables, but I think they are all pipedreams. Windsor & Tholstrup appears to be the likely outcome, and one we should be happy with.

I like the aggression and physicality of Tholstrup 

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

32 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

I think we can apply occums razor here

Tholstrup wasn't going to be available at 14 and we traded up.

There may have been other hopes and designs for that pick to move even higher, but I think it's wrong to say Tholstrup would have been available to us at our original pick.

Multiple articles pointed to interest from rival clubs starting with the Bombers at 9, St kilda 12 and Sydney 13.

Edited November 20, 20231 yr by Nascent

On 11/10/2023 at 00:16, Binmans PA said:

What does leave us with picks wise?

??

14 minutes ago, David-Demon said:

??

In October, I was asking what trading in pick 11 left us with picks wise...

9 hours ago, kallangurdemon said:

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

I think it was to make the Reid offer as appealing as possible and it just didn’t pan out.  Whether our Tholstrup would have been available at our original pick… I guess we’ll never know.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. But we gave up two decent picks to get Tholstrup instead of Leake who was taking at our original pick. Seems a lot to pay. 
 

Would we have used 27 and 35.

Seems to me that with keeping Melksham, McDonald and Brown that list spots were constrained this year by comparison to next when we could easily have 5 spots available.

I'll never understand keeping Schache as a back up ruck though

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Would we have used 27 and 35.

Seems to me that with keeping Melksham, McDonald and Brown that list spots were constrained this year by comparison to next when we could easily have 5 spots available.

I'll never understand keeping Schache as a back up ruck though

Probably not be we could have turned them into one or two good picks for next year. 

When you factor in where the bids came, 14, 27 & 35 became 17, 34 & 40 (40 got swallowed up by bid matches).

Depending on when you do the math we gave up the equivalent of either pick 17 to land move up to 10 pre draft or pick 25 to get up 4 spots to 13 as it stands.

On 20/11/2023 at 08:56, Binmans PA said:

In October, I was asking what trading in pick 11 left us with picks wise...

sorry.

18 hours ago, Colm said:

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. But we gave up two decent picks to get Tholstrup instead of Leake who was taking at our original pick. Seems a lot to pay. 
 

Won’t know about that for about3/4 years just like the Kelly trade off!

I am happy but really this draft was much deeper than most if you believe Montagna Ablett and Shifter!! Still raving about depth into the 60’s draft no’s!! 

6 hours ago, 58er said:

Won’t know about that for about3/4 years just like the Kelly trade off!

I am happy but really this draft was much deeper than most if you believe Montagna Ablett and Shifter!! Still raving about depth into the 60’s draft no’s!! 

Yeah I tend to think time will show that this was a quality draft. Both for top end talent and depth. Cal rated his top 10 in this years draft higher than 2018. I think the first round quality also went pretty deep. Wilson went pick 18 and should have a solid AFL career. 
 

A lot of list managers and recruiters said that the next tier of player( from say pick 18 onwards) was very even rather than poor. Take Collingwood for example they would be stocked to get DeMattia at 25 and Tee Jiath at 37. 
 

I think the trade up from 14-11 was more about putting our hat in the ring for Reid or another one of the top 4. I guess you have to be in it to win it but unfortunately we lost. We didn’t have the list spot this year anyways but we could have had a much stronger hand next year. 

I always favour the idea of trading into this year. Everyone knows the AFL like to change the rules, so you never know what’s coming. I suspect pick purchasing will gain momentum, and that will, once again, change the possibilities.

A bird in the hand and all that.