The Pick 3 Thread

[Mach5 4,768]

I’ll start by assuming North would keep pick 2 off the table, refusing to let anyone pick ahead of them. 

I’d set up a poll if I knew how.

Would you trade pick 6, 11 & a F1/2 for pick 3?

It might give North the pieces to find a way to satisfy WC for pick 1. And I think we fell in love with Duursma a long time ago when he trained on with us.

I’d do it.
The players likely to be there at 6 & 11 don’t fill me with confidence.

No guts, no glory.

[adonski 13,267]

3 firsts to move 3 spots up the order? No chance

6 & 11 for 3 & 17? Yep 

[Lord Travis 10,819]

4 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Would you trade pick 6, 11 & a F1/2 for pick 3?

I wouldn't even trade 6+11 for 3, let alone throwing in future picks.

It's not worth losing pick 11 to move up 3 spots. Pick 11 is a good pick and higher than we're likely to have again for a few years if we remain competitive. It will net us a good KPD (O'Sullivan, Murphy) or outside midfielder (Wilson, Windsor) for the next decade. Losing a 200 game type just to have a crack at Duursma instead of Sanders/Watson/Curtin seems mental to me. 

[Canplay 635]

Nope

[DeeSpencer 26,675]

I don’t think North trade us 3, not when they have so many picks.

It would be WC trading us 3 after swapping 1 with North. 

I’m also on board with 6, Future 1 and 42 for 3, but not a fan of 6 and 11 and certainly not convinced by the need to trade 3 early picks. 

We need 2 quality kids coming in if we can get them 

[Little Goffy 14,963]

Nup.

6 & 11 much better than 3 & 17, let alone giving away anything else in the deal.

[darkhorse72 1,943]

More top picks the better, closer to 1, if the draft is "Shallow" why go back to 17.

Trust them to get 2 great players for 6/11

 

[Stiff Arm 4,420]

I think North will either give up 2+3 for 1, or far more likely, use 2 and 3 on Duursma and McKercher 

On top of their current crop, those two will help set them up for success over the next 10 years; that is, if North can maintain stability and not implode again

Edited October 22, 2023 by Stiff Arm

[Storm Boy 376]

15 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

I think North will either give up 2+3 for 1, or far more likely, use 2 and 3 on Duursma and McKercher 

On top of their current crop, those two will help set them up for success over the next 10 years; that is, if North can maintain stability and not implode again

I don't think North Melbourne will use picks 2 and 3 for Mid Fielders. North Melbourne need to recruit a Key Defender. O'Sullivan, Curtin and Murphy will be gone by pick 11 or 12. 

[The Jackson FIX 3,512]

55 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m also on board with 6, Future 1 and 42 for 3,

Not sure how appealing our future 1st is with two end-of-1st round picks coming their way next year courtesy of AFL handout

[Nascent 9,345]

37 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Not sure how appealing our future 1st is with two end-of-1st round picks coming their way next year courtesy of AFL handout

They've already traded those picks out to Gold Coast and Sydney. They needed to otherwise the AFL could have revoked them if they improved next year.

They don't have any extra future picks as it currently stands.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Nascent

[The Jackson FIX 3,512]

9 minutes ago, Nascent said:

They've already traded those picks out to Gold Coast and Sydney. They needed to otherwise the AFL could have revoked them if they improved next year.

They don't have any extra future picks as it currebtly stands.

Amazing the AFL let them trade them out if they were conditional 

[Nascent 9,345]

1 minute ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Amazing the AFL let them trade them out if they were conditional 

I'm not sure why the AFL didn't just state that those picks must be on-traded in the first place. It's pretty much what they implied.

[Demon Jack 7,194]

If pick 1 is out of the question, the only deal I could see us doing between now and the draft is one to bag another top 10 selection using our pick 11 and a future first. Pick 7 (GWS) or pick 8 (Geelong) would probably be the likely candidates. I suppose it'll depend on who we're after on draft night.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Demon Jack

[Left Foot Snap 2,609]

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Amazing the AFL let them trade them out if they were conditional 

They were conditional to make them trade them out, but at the same time not be held to ransom like last year when they 'had to' trade them.

[58er 6,872]

4 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I’ll start by assuming North would keep pick 2 off the table, refusing to let anyone pick ahead of them. 

I’d set up a poll if I knew how.

Would you trade pick 6, 11 & a F1/2 for pick 3?

It might give North the pieces to find a way to satisfy WC for pick 1. And I think we fell in love with Duursma a long time ago when he trained on with us.

I’d do it.
The players likely to be there at 6 & 11 don’t fill me with confidence.

No guts, no glory.

On the contrary I don’t have the confidence in Duursma as he has only seemed to play ordinary at Casey in any matches when given the opportunity. Don’t think we are blinkered or in denial like yourself. All of the “ experts “ are very keen on about 7 top choices. 

Others such as Curtin Caddy Wilson Windsor and the full back options are my preference for 6 and 11 to add class and ability to our needs on our  list.

Not having seen players live except for highlights can be unfair so I am sure JT and TL will do the job for us superbly as usual.

Your assessment of North keeping pick 2 and 3 being traded to us for our package is really a very crazy long shot and crucifies our chances of getting two very good players instead of only one ie your choice Duursma. 

Why worry about North when there is a class of seven players ( not only Duursma) at the top plus additional needy options for a draft pick for us at 11 as well. 

The only up trade we should consider is for us to WC for Reid as the choice IMO. Let’s not complicate it when the solution seems a simple NO to a rather wasted and restricted choice of a poll of fantasy rather than fact. 

Of course we all have our favourites and it is open to opinion always where draft choices are considered.

[David-Demon 570]

8 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I’ll start by assuming North would keep pick 2 off the table, refusing to let anyone pick ahead of them. 

I’d set up a poll if I knew how.

Would you trade pick 6, 11 & a F1/2 for pick 3?

It might give North the pieces to find a way to satisfy WC for pick 1. And I think we fell in love with Duursma a long time ago when he trained on with us.

I’d do it.
The players likely to be there at 6 & 11 don’t fill me with confidence.

No guts, no glory.

Sorry cannot agree, this is a strong draft hand, and with 2 early pucks as is we stand a better chance this year to gain good talent through our masterful recruiter's hands, 2 into 1 does not go. 

Look at Caddy, Archer, and William Green who I reckon is a great ruck prospect.

[rpfc 29,027]

To me, ND3 is like a Merlot.

I did not do all that death riding and trading for a Merlot.

[Wrecker46 3,130]

6 hours ago, 58er said:

 

Of course we all have our favourites and it is open to opinion always where draft choices are considered.

So does JT and i'll back him in. If we make a play for 1 or 3 it will be for a good reason.

[Redleg 42,156]

10 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

I think North will either give up 2+3 for 1, or far more likely, use 2 and 3 on Duursma and McKercher 

On top of their current crop, those two will help set them up for success over the next 10 years; that is, if North can maintain stability and not implode again

North now have a lot of list spots to fill and about 5-6 picks under 18, with 2 and 3 included.

As a strategy I agree, instead of losing most of them for one player, they could set themselves up long term by using them.

If they get Reid, are they going to fill 6 or more list spots with players drafted beyond say pick 23.

It makes no sense,

It makes more sense to use a high pick and split the other, getting say 6 and 11 from us and giving them even more high end talent.

We are in a slightly different situation, with a good list, that only needs cherry picked talent, here and there.

Whether we are chasing 1 or 3, or keep 6 & 11, is up to our list managers.

If we want Duursma, 3 is fine if North get 1, but if they don’t, he is not guaranteed at 3. So I would think if 3 is the target, it only happens in a 3 way deal with North and WC.

Not knowing the real potential of the draftees, my opinion is an uninformed one, but from the outside, purely based on depth of talent, I would prefer keeping 6 & 11 and trying to maybe upgrade 11 a little, unless of course, JT thinks Duursma or someone else will be a champion,

Edited October 22, 2023 by Redleg

[58er 6,872]

4 hours ago, David-Demon said:

Sorry cannot agree, this is a strong draft hand, and with 2 early pucks as is we stand a better chance this year to gain good talent through our masterful recruiter's hands, 2 into 1 does not go. 

Look at Caddy, Archer, and William Green who I reckon is a great ruck prospect.

Green or Archer probably won’t feature but I agree 2 picks are far better than one. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,547]

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

To me, ND3 is like a Merlot.

I did not do all that death riding and trading for a Merlot.

^^^

Quality movie.

[Gator 18,053]

9 hours ago, 58er said:

On the contrary I don’t have the confidence in Duursma as he has only seemed to play ordinary at Casey in any matches when given the opportunity. Don’t think we are blinkered or in denial like yourself. All of the “ experts “ are very keen on about 7 top choices. 

I don't think I could agree less.

Duursma has that rare knack of making footy look easy.  A bit like Mark Waugh with cricket and Federer with tennis.

Duursma reeks of class with his movement, kicking and marking.

He didn't ''star'' for Casey in 2 games as a 17 year old, but even then his talent was evident.  When he develops the size of an AFL player he's going to be an elite footballer.

If possible I'd move up to pick 3 to make sure of him.

[Mach5 4,768]

12 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Amazing the AFL let them trade them out if they were conditional 

It’s the AFL’s way of making them be traded without devaluing the picks in negotiations, e.g. “you have to trade these, you can’t keep them, so we are lowballing you because you have to accept”

[old55 23,860]

17 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'm also on board with 6, Future 1 and 42 for 3, but not a fan of 6 and 11 and certainly not convinced by the need to trade 3 early picks. 

We need 2 quality kids coming in if we can get them 

I like this plan. We paid heavily for 11 presumably because we think it's ahead of a quality cliff, let's use it.