Wade Derksen

[brendan 3,434]

Didn’t we get a future 3rd back in bombers trade could use that 

[Mickey 4,582]

7 minutes ago, brendan said:

Didn’t we get a future 3rd back in bombers trade could use that 

AFL rules don't allow you to trade future 2+ round picks if you've traded out your future first. Because we used our future third in the Adelaide trade, and our future first in the pick 9 trade, our other future picks are currently untradeable 

[Demon Disciple 11,909]

4 minutes ago, Mickey said:

AFL rules don't allow you to trade future 2+ round picks if you've traded out your future first. Because we used our future third in the Adelaide trade, and our future first in the pick 9 trade, our other future picks are currently untradeable 

you can, AFL just needs to tick it off. With 2 year future pick trading coming in next year, i doubt it wouldnt be signed off

[mo64 5,767]

Gut feel is that GWS will relent once Stringer deal goes through. Derksen's trade value should be no more than a late pick swap. A pick in the 60's should suffice.

Not sure who his agent is, but if he's desperate to leave for family reasons, the agent would be putting pressure on GWS with threats of future dealings with the club.

Edited Monday at 23:38 by mo64

[Mickey 4,582]

7 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

you can, AFL just needs to tick it off. With 2 year future pick trading coming in next year, i doubt it wouldnt be signed off

I thought that related just to trading F1s? I.e., you haven't taken at least 2 1st round picks in 4 years, so you can't trade another future 1st. I may be wrong.

[BLWNBA 874]

22 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Gut feel is that GWS will relent once Stringer deal goes through. Derksen's trade value should be no more than a late pick swap. A pick in the 60's should suffice.

Not sure who his agent is, but if he's desperate to leave for family reasons, the agent would be putting pressure on GWS with threats of future dealings with the club.

It would require a bit of work at this stage to complete IMO, given our current draft hand and that we've offered Pick 49 to the Lions. We also have the consideration of needing points for the potential acquisition of Kalani White next year, should he nominate us, so I'm not too sure how we'd wrangle a mid-late future next year for Derksen (especially given the changes to the draft index). 

I'm not definitively stating it can't be done, but it's precariously placed should GWS relent. 

Edited Tuesday at 00:00 by BLWNBA

[BangBnagBang 621]

Only option we have to play with is future picks swaps. 

Melb F2 and F3 for GWS F2 and F3. We need to end with a F2 and a F3 no matter who's pick it is.

[dazzledavey36 53,677]

If GWS weren't willing to budge with all the picks we had there's no way they'll settle with what's left.

Shut the door on this one, let's have another look in 12 months time.

[Nascent 8,911]

We'll be able to get this done if GWS come round to the idea, which is unlikely. 

However it would most likely result in us splitting pick 9 of which there are a few options and I doubt will be popular.

9 for Richmond's 14, 20 and 51

51 for derkson

Or

9 for GWS 15, 21 and derksen

Or

9 for freos 11, 30

30 for derksen and GWS f2

 

[Demon Disciple 11,909]

no to splitting of pick 9, unless it's of the @Ethan Tremblay variety. If we were to bring in Tauru with #9, i'd say hed be further advanced than Derksen anyway.

[BLWNBA 874]

Tim Lamb on Derksen: "that's looking very unlikely ... we'd like to bring Wade to the club, but the way things are tracking it's looking [a bit too difficult]". 

[Young Blood 2,436]

I wonder with Derksen being out of the picture how this will effect our pick 9 drafting strategy/priority.

I get the feeling that Smilie might end up at 9 where I think our recruiters would be so so tempted to get him and double dip into this drafts high level mid stocks. Imagine having both a Langford + Smilie on the list to add to our bulls.

BUT of course I am with probably most on here that solidifying our key position stocks by drafting Armstrong or Tauru would make more sense.

It would have just been interesting if Derksen was able to get to us whether we might have adjusted our priorities at pick 9 as I really believe Derksen will be a solid key position player at AFL level.

Edited Tuesday at 01:58 by Young Blood

[Demonland 70,903]

 

[Bingo 297]

6 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

I wonder with Derksen being out of the picture how this will effect our pick 9 drafting strategy/priority.

I get the feeling that Smilie might end up at 9 where I think our recruiters would be so so tempted to get him and double dip into this drafts high level mid stocks. Imagine having both a Langford + Smilie on the list to add to our bulls.

BUT of course I am with probably most on here that solidifying our key position stocks by drafting Armstrong or Tauru would make more sense.

It would have just been interesting if Derksen was able to get to us whether we might have adjusted our priorities at pick 9 as I really believe Derksen will be a solid key position player at AFL level.

I think you take best available and re-visit Derksen next year when out of contract. We have a few option in JVR, Jefferson, Disco, Petty etc and we could possibly take a delisted free agent for a stop gap such as Membry or Tabiner that can play the same role. 

I'd prefer to take the best 2 mids available...our midfield was terrible this year and think the natural growth of our forwards will make that area of the ground less of a priority.

Edited Tuesday at 02:04 by Bingo

[spirit of norm smith 15,756]

"I think that is looking fairly unlikely. We have thrown a few scenarios at the Giants. We'd like to bring Wade (Derksen) to the club but it will be difficult to sort out." - Tim Lamb, Melbourne List Manager

[Deemania since 56 6,584]

On 18/09/2024 at 13:54, Demon Jack said:

Happy to give this guy a crack considering the lack of established options coming into trade period. 

What would GWS want for him? 

I want him (with that penetrating, accurate kick and his mobility, his toughness and an ability to lead and mark) as our next CHF - with the right coaching and a walloping pre-season, he could be our next big forward 'coz he reminds me of Park the Greg, only more mobile.

Edited Tuesday at 02:15 by Deemania since 56

[Demonland 70,903]

 

[Supreme_Demon 3,582]

37 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

A bit disappointing but oh well....hopefully next year.

[Its Time for Another 4,117]

2 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

I want him (with that penetrating, accurate kick and his mobility, his toughness and an ability to lead and mark) as our next CHF - with the right coaching and a walloping pre-season, he could be our next big forward 'coz he reminds me of Park the Greg, only more mobile.

Oh no. He doesn't kick that badly does he. 

[Deemania since 56 6,584]

2 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Oh no. He doesn't kick that badly does he. 

 

2 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Oh no. He doesn't kick that badly does he. 

On the upside, I'd just guess he would kick far better than Greg Parke could; he has a long boot, it seems and can identify the space between the two big sticks of importance. His marking and central pack work seem to be quite similar to Parke's (a player it was hard not to love) and in terms of toughness, mongrel and positioning outside of the packs looks similarly well. Do we have a coach to get the best of him as he develops? 

[layzie 33,585]

Would have been great if we could have kept one of those 40s or 50s picks. Plenty of list spots to fill and one would have been great for Derksen.

If sure someone will come along and tell me how wrong I am because this list spot here is for Mentha and this one is being kept open for Kalani or something like that. 

[Mouseymoo 74]

19 minutes ago, layzie said:

Would have been great if we could have kept one of those 40s or 50s picks. Plenty of list spots to fill and one would have been great for Derksen.

If sure someone will come along and tell me how wrong I am because this list spot here is for Mentha and this one is being kept open for Kalani or something like that. 

They weren't going to trade him so we moved out assets into other deals. 

Will that suffice? 

[DeeSpencer 25,206]

18 minutes ago, layzie said:

Would have been great if we could have kept one of those 40s or 50s picks. Plenty of list spots to fill and one would have been great for Derksen.

If sure someone will come along and tell me how wrong I am because this list spot here is for Mentha and this one is being kept open for Kalani or something like that. 

Mentha - KFW (cat B)
Sharp - ANB
Campbell - Schache
Kentfield - BBB

5 - Gus
9 - Hunter
Tomlinson?, J Smith?, maybe Hore?

You’re right to say Derk would’ve been a good fit to cover one of the tall spots. But we might be seeing now why GWS had no desire to give any depth up!

Hore probably stays now. Delisted players, a late or rookie pick or a train on play for the last 2 spots.

 

[Demons11 6,847]

7 hours ago, Nascent said:

We'll be able to get this done if GWS come round to the idea, which is unlikely. 

However it would most likely result in us splitting pick 9 of which there are a few options and I doubt will be popular.

9 for Richmond's 14, 20 and 51

51 for derkson

Or

9 for GWS 15, 21 and derksen

Or

9 for freos 11, 30

30 for derksen and GWS f2

 

If 9 is involved with any trade that includes Derksen then we may as well shut the club down tomorrow 

[adonski 11,262]

Tim Lamb made the call...