Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

Yeah right, like last time we had pick 2. Christian Petracca or Caleb Marchbank plus Liam Duggan? You must be laughing so hard!

 
7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

What planet are you on? haha

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

Ha! That's gold!

 
15 hours ago, old55 said:

Yeah right, like last time we had pick 2. Christian Petracca or Caleb Marchbank plus Liam Duggan? You must be laughing so hard!

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Milera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!

Edit:  corrected Matera to Milera

Edited by Lucifers Hero

I think we have two clubs (NM and WC) playing chicken at the moment to see who will give way first. I think we leave them alone and do our own thing and see what happens.

Would the Hawks be willing to trade their pick 4 (and a guarantee we would not pick Watson) for pick 6 and our future first? 

We then have a nice hand at the draft - 4 and 11, which I'd be happy with - but it may also make WC be a bit more inclined to relinquish Pick 1 (certainly more so than our previous offer to them) if WC's main aim is to be more certain of getting Curtin and another good first round player. So, if we are lucky, it might net us Pick 1.

 


24 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Matera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!

Exactly, it depends on the players we think are going to available at the picks.  If we trade 6 and 11 for 2 it's because we think 2 will be a star.  Making the blanket statement that 6 and 11 are always better than 2 is what is laughable.

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Matera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!


Milera?

On 30/10/2023 at 15:44, rpfc said:

6 and 11.

Two ‘Top Ten’ picks.

Two Top TEN picks.

TWO Top Ten Picks.

nathan fillion castle GIF

i think people see 11 as a "top ten pick" because of the 2 gold coast academy kids and potentially even the bulldogs f/s

so its kind of like pick 9 if you were to take the GC academy kids out

 
2 minutes ago, FrothiesLiam said:

i think people see 11 as a "top ten pick" because of the 2 gold coast academy kids and potentially even the bulldogs f/s

so its kind of like pick 9 if you were to take the GC academy kids out

Ummm, that makes our ND11 into ND13 or ND14…

 

Also this whole question is about getting one the best ten kids and ND11 won’t before the academy players and it won’t after. 


Just now, demoncat said:

More info from the article linked:

D5EDB9ED-9B98-45C4-9884-474663E02FF7.thumb.jpeg.092fb1780a81232fd60991ee07f71f86.jpeg

Unclear whether the above makes West Coast more likely to accept our offer, but suggests at the very least North would be unwilling to offer anything further (which I personally agree with from their list build perspective)

On 30/10/2023 at 16:49, Neil Crompton said:

I think we have two clubs (NM and WC) playing chicken at the moment to see who will give way first. I think we leave them alone and do our own thing and see what happens.

Would the Hawks be willing to trade their pick 4 (and a guarantee we would not pick Watson) for pick 6 and our future first? 

We then have a nice hand at the draft - 4 and 11, which I'd be happy with - but it may also make WC be a bit more inclined to relinquish Pick 1 (certainly more so than our previous offer to them) if WC's main aim is to be more certain of getting Curtin and another good first round player. So, if we are lucky, it might net us Pick 1.

 

Wouldn’t work because if we didn’t take Watson at 4 the Dogs would take him at 5

1 hour ago, demoncat said:

More info from the article linked:

D5EDB9ED-9B98-45C4-9884-474663E02FF7.thumb.jpeg.092fb1780a81232fd60991ee07f71f86.jpeg

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

38 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

I don't think you can use that arithmetic methodology directly on this issue.  Following that logic, it would be better to have O.Baker (4/10), S.Weideman (4/10), K.Turner (2/10), D.Smith (2/10) and F.Rosman (2/10) than C.Petracca (10/10).  The point is that Petracca and Reid (allegedly) are in a whole higher echelon than all those other players.


42 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer

But surely they need to split pick 1 right?

Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years

The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1 

Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…

 

7 minutes ago, Deemac said:

I reckon we will truly trade up to get Dursma if we can’t get Reid 

I think we'll definitely attempt to get Duursma but not sure North will be fun to deal with.

West Coast would be wanting more from North than us. They will know who will be available at our picks and it's their decision if the players are enough. They may also be in a position next year if they get our F1 to bundle up with theirs to get pick 1 next year. Finn O'Sullivan looks like he will be really good. Unless they finish last and get him anyway.

1 hour ago, Clintosaurus said:

West Coast would be wanting more from North than us. They will know who will be available at our picks and it's their decision if the players are enough. They may also be in a position next year if they get our F1 to bundle up with theirs to get pick 1 next year. Finn O'Sullivan looks like he will be really good. Unless they finish last and get him anyway.

 

I agree

 

NM need to keep those picks and keep on the rebuild phase, Reid isn't changing the results

 

As for us, Reid will be a great pickup who will play Rnd 1


So West Coast want the moon and the stars for pick one, do they?

I'd be willing to do my bit for the mighty Demons and moon them.

2 hours ago, Demonstone said:

So West Coast want the moon and the stars for pick one, do they?

I'd be willing to do my bit for the mighty Demons and moon them.

I will go one better and show them my black hole 😁

14 hours ago, demoncat said:

I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer

But surely they need to split pick 1 right?

Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years

The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1 

Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…

 

Spot on.

No doubt WC are holding out for us to trade with North. I’m guessing a leak of our offer for pick 3 comes out before the draft. And it’ll be a deal North will refuse.

Maybe we’ll find a way to move up slightly. Geel or Hawthorn with our f1.

Either way, I agree we’re more likely to benefit from a single elite pick than WC or North who need many to build.

 

Would hope we’d wait until after pick 1 was taken to execute a trade for p3 or 4.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    When looking back at the disastrous end to the game, I find it a waste of time to concentrate on the final few moments when utter confusion reigned. Forget the 6-6-6 mess, the failure to mark the most dangerous man on the field, the inability to seal the game when opportunities presented themselves to Clayton Oliver, Harry Petty and Charlie Spargo, the vision of match winning players of recent weeks in Kozzy Pickett and Jake Melksham spending helpless minutes on the interchange bench and the powerlessness of seizing the opportunity to slow the tempo of the game down in those final moments.

    • 4 replies
  • CASEY: Sandringham

    The Casey Demons rebounded from a sluggish start to manufacture a decisive win against Sandringham in the final showdown, culminating a quarter century of intense rivalry between the fluctuating alignments of teams affiliated with AFL clubs Melbourne and St Kilda, as the Saints and the Zebras prepare to forge independent paths in 2026. After conceding three of the first four goals of the match, the Demons went on a goal kicking rampage instigated by the winning ruck combination of Tom Campbell with 26 hitouts, 26 disposals and 13 clearances and his apprentice Will Verrall who contributed 20 hitouts. This gave first use of the ball to the likes of Jack Billings, Bayley Laurie, Riley Bonner and Koltyn Tholstrup who was impressive early. By the first break they had added seven goals and took a strong grip on the game. The Demons were well served up forward early by Mitch Hardie and, as the game progressed, Harry Sharp proved a menace with a five goal performance. Emerging young forwards Matthew Jefferson and Luker Kentfield kicked two each but the former let himself down with some poor kicking for goal.
    Young draft talent Will Duursma showed the depth of his talent and looks well out of reach for Melbourne this year. Kalani White was used sparingly and had a brief but uneventful stint in the ruck.

    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: West Coast

    The Demons return to the scene of the crime on Saturday to face the wooden spooners the Eagles at the Docklands. Who comes in and who goes out? Like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

      • Shocked
      • Like
    • 78 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    This season cannot end soon enough. Disgraceful.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 475 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Captain Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Christian Petracca, Kozzy Pickett, Jake Bowey & Clayton Oliver. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Like
    • 25 replies
  • GAMEDAY: St. Kilda

    It's Game Day and there are only 5 games to go. Can the Demons find some consistency and form as they stagger towards the finish line of another uninspiring season?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 566 replies