Draft night - How it may work out?

[Palace Dees 2,264]

I can't help it!  I just know there is going be be more wheeling and dealing up to and come draft night. I cant see Richmond taking all 8 picks into this draft. I expect they will trade at least one of their 20's picks for a future first rounder, but I'm thinking also, they may consider the following:

We swap picks 5 & 9 for their picks 6, 11 and 24 (first pick in R2 - very valuable) 

This will leave Richmond 1, 5, 9, 10, 18, 20 and 23 (or a future first rounder - giving them 2 in '25)

Given the expected order is so hard to predict, it shouldn't upset our plans too much, except give us an extra qualty pick (Alex Dodson 🤞)

I see it as a win for both clubs.

I have no doubt we could get a '25 first rounder for pick 24 if we chose to sell before day 2, if we wanted to. 

Edited October 29 by Palace Dees
additional info

[Nascent 9,054]

5 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

I can't help it!  I just know there is going be be more wheeling and dealing up to and come draft night. I cant see Richmond taking all 8 picks into this draft. I expect they will trade at least one of their 20's picks for a future first rounder, but I'm thinking also, they may consider the following:

We swap picks 5 & 9 for their picks 6, 11 and 24 (first pick in R2 - very valuable) 

This will leave Richmond 1, 5, 9, 10, 18, 20 and 23 (or a future first rounder - giving them 2 in '25)

Given the expected order is so hard to predict, it shouldn't upset our plans too much, except give us an extra qualty pick (Alex Dodson 🤞)

I see it as a win for both clubs.

Funnily enough, I'd think they would prefer to give us pick 23 than 24. Like you said, 24 is valuable and they can probably flip it for a future 1st with another team.

[Palace Dees 2,264]

1 minute ago, Nascent said:

Funnily enough, I'd think they would prefer to give us pick 23 than 24. Like you said, 24 is valuable and they can probably flip it for a future 1st with another team.

Agree. That's why I was editing when you posted. I'd prefer 24 over 23 for that reason, but 23 would still be great. 😁

[old55 23,309]

9 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

I can't help it!  I just know there is going be be more wheeling and dealing up to and come draft night. I cant see Richmond taking all 8 picks into this draft. I expect they will trade at least one of their 20's picks for a future first rounder, but I'm thinking also, they may consider the following:

We swap picks 5 & 9 for their picks 6, 11 and 24 (first pick in R2 - very valuable) 

This will leave Richmond 1, 5, 9, 10, 18, 20 and 23 (or a future first rounder - giving them 2 in '25)

Given the expected order is so hard to predict, it shouldn't upset our plans too much, except give us an extra qualty pick (Alex Dodson 🤞)

I see it as a win for both clubs.

I have no doubt we could get a '25 first rounder for pick 24 if we chose to sell before day 2, if we wanted to.

The only incentive for Richmond to make that trade is because they want the same player we want at 5 and the same player we want at 9 (they also have 10). 

Maybe they do, but if so, we'd never make that trade and give up the players we want just to get pick 24.

Richmond are picking straight after us, we're not trading with them.

[Palace Dees 2,264]

3 minutes ago, old55 said:

The only incentive for Richmond to make that trade is because they want the same player we want at 5 and the same player we want at 9 (they also have 10). 

Maybe they do, but if so, we'd never make that trade and give up the players we want just to get pick 24.

Richmond are picking straight after us, we're not trading with them.

According to those that know, 24 or 23 in this draft more valuable than usual, including next years. Also, phantom drafts differ wildly, as I'm sure you know, so there is no obvious order. Because of the depth of talent, even if we lose the clubs next higher rated player in one of those swaps, I expect the next option would only be a 1 or 2% rating behind.  

All hyperthetical of course and I'd be happy if it did or didn't happen. Just slightly happier if it did. 

[Nascent 9,054]

15 minutes ago, old55 said:

The only incentive for Richmond to make that trade is because they want the same player we want at 5 and the same player we want at 9 (they also have 10). 

Maybe they do, but if so, we'd never make that trade and give up the players we want just to get pick 24.

Richmond are picking straight after us, we're not trading with them.

I suspect you're most likely correct but there's another reason that Richmond and us would agree to a trade like this, or something similar.

That is to deny other teams the opportunity to deal with us and beat them to that player.

Most clubs would probably have a good understanding of which teams are targeting which players. This could lead to a discussion with Richmond to highlight the mutual benefits of a trade. 

Richmond might like a player at 10, for examples sake lets say its Travaglia and we also have no interest in taking him. We could be in discussions with GWS for 15, 16 with GWS targeting Travaglia as their man. Richmond may look to package up pick 11 with 23 (or whatever extra pick would sate us) for pick 9 to prevent this from happening.

We saw this last year when Essendon traded with Geelong to get Caddy. Essendon were one spot behind Geelong and gave them a 2nd round pick to move up that one pick. Geelong were clearly not going to take Caddy, took the extra currency and selected O'Sullivan. It was later stated that Essendon made that move to prevent rivals from getting access to Caddy by attempting to trade with Geelong.

[Undeeterred 3,113]

On 20/10/2024 at 14:46, FreedFromDesire said:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I'm torn a little on this - I completely understand what you're saying ,especially about our history of 'competitive' types, but I would also say there's been a few examples where we've gone more for skill - Weideman, Laurie, Jefferson, Fritsch - So, even though they're mostly not great examples of outcomes, it does show we may potentially look for a mix. Personally, I've had about quite enough of 'contest and defence' and I think our crowd numbers, membership numbers and results against the trends of other AFL teams say we need to tip the balance back somewhat. So in saying that, given you've watched Reid play, how bad would you say that competitiveness aspect is? Is it a big enough factor that you wouldn't look at him? Or is it passable enough that his skill and composure makes up for it?

That’s not a great list to quote in support of an argument.

Fritsch is the only one who’s anywhere near it, and he was (from memory) a pick in the late 20s/early 30s

[Mickey 4,629]

For what it's worth, the latest in The Age yesterday said other recuiters thought we were unlikely to swap picks

[FreedFromDesire 912]

9 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

That’s not a great list to quote in support of an argument.

Fritsch is the only one who’s anywhere near it, and he was (from memory) a pick in the late 20s/early 30s

With all due respect, I'm not sure if you've gone through the topic of the conversation we were having as it was purely a discussion about probability of selecting different types of players within the context of what our list currently needs if we're to keep up with the rest of the league in terms of football style. It wasn't about who has been a good pick etc.

[demoncat 1,250]

1 hour ago, Mickey said:

For what it's worth, the latest in The Age yesterday said other recuiters thought we were unlikely to swap picks

I think that’s for the best at this point

5 gets us whatever top end mid slides out of Lalor, FOS, Smith, Langford or Draper

And 9 is right in the middle of that next bracket of talent where there will be a range of high quality players available regardless of who Richmond and Saints pick with 6, 7 and 8

We’ve done our wheeling and dealing - now take the best talent and run

[Colm 2,045]

10 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

According to those that know, 24 or 23 in this draft more valuable than usual, including next years. Also, phantom drafts differ wildly, as I'm sure you know, so there is no obvious order. Because of the depth of talent, even if we lose the clubs next higher rated player in one of those swaps, I expect the next option would only be a 1 or 2% rating behind.  

All hyperthetical of course and I'd be happy if it did or didn't happen. Just slightly happier if it did. 

I’m in the same boat as you- happy if we stick with 5&9 but if JT is happy to do that trade then I’d be very happy with that too. 
I proposed the same thing a while back but had us getting 18 or 20. 23 or 24 makes more sense. 
Given the evenness and depth of this draft I feel the end of the first round is a real sweet spot for JT to really pick up a gem there similar to getting Rivers in 2019. 
 

[58er 6,331]

On 20/10/2024 at 14:53, Adam The God said:

If that's who is gone by pick 11, I'd be splitting it with GWS for their two firsts.

That’s not hopefully the  pick realistically for us. One tall and one mid is best for our needs and both styles are there for us to share our best needs as well.

My best are *Tauru/Armstrong at5andLindsay/Langford*/ Smith at 9.

Good luck JT. 

preferred player* 

[58er 6,331]

9 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

That’s not a great list to quote in support of an argument.

Fritsch is the only one who’s anywhere near it, and he was (from memory) a pick in the late 20s/early 30s

UD Jefferson is not miles off but very close and why  isn’t The Duke Caleb Included as he is skill personified. ? Agree with 

 

10 minutes ago, Colm said:

I’m in the same boat as you- happy if we stick with 5&9 but if JT is happy to do that trade then I’d be very happy with that too. 
I proposed the same thing a while back but had us getting 18 or 20. 23 or 24 makes more sense. 
Given the evenness and depth of this draft I feel the end of the first round is a real sweet spot for JT to really pick up a gem there similar to getting Rivers in 2019. 
 

Boy oh boy why not go to 54 and 55 JT might find two diamonds in the back paddock. FFS players are judged by experts on their firm and skill over say 2 years and especially the last 10 games. 
Yes this draft is agreed that it is much deeper than other years but also that there is elite skill in say the top 15 to 20. But if the best players are available for our list why risk a 20 plus pick if others before are judged better even if you might get 2 for 1. 
Melbourne needs a couple of A graders so why go in a lottery. 
We need to get  at least one highly skilled running mid ( not a bull) who kicks well and IMO one of Tauru or Armstrong for our forward or key positions to join our other versatile KPPlayers. 
Let’s hope JT can snare two beauties from 5 an9. 

BTW Fritta was 28 I think and Riv 32.  Tmac 53!! 

[Colm 2,045]

4 minutes ago, 58er said:

UD Jefferson is not miles off but very close and why  isn’t The Duke Caleb Included as he is skill personified. ? Agree with 

 

Boy oh boy why not go to 54 and 55 JT might find two diamonds in the back paddock. FFS players are judged by experts on their firm and skill over say 2 years and especially the last 10 games. 
Yes this draft is agreed that it is much deeper than other years but also that there is elite skill in say the top 15 to 20. But if the best players are available for our list why risk a 20 plus pick if others before are judged better even if you might get 2 for 1. 
Melbourne needs a couple of A graders so why go in a lottery. 
We need to get  at least one highly skilled running mid ( not a bull) who kicks well and IMO one of Tauru or Armstrong for our forward or key positions to join our other versatile KPPlayers. 
Let’s hope JT can snare two beauties from 5 an9. 

BTW Fritta was 28 I think and Riv 32.  Tmac 53!! 

Sliding back one or two draft spots in a very even draft may still see us picking the same players. 
Agree we have a need for quality but we also have a number of areas to improve on as shown by your want for a key forward and others preferring two mids. 
Getting a third pick in the first round could allow us to pick up someone like Shanahan or one of the Whitlock’s if we don’t go for a tall with our first two selections. 
If we turned our second and third pick into Kossie and Rivers level of players then we would come out in front. 
As I said I happy if we stick with what we have either. Hard to lose with the hand we have. 

[old55 23,309]

11 hours ago, Nascent said:

I suspect you're most likely correct but there's another reason that Richmond and us would agree to a trade like this, or something similar.

That is to deny other teams the opportunity to deal with us and beat them to that player.

Most clubs would probably have a good understanding of which teams are targeting which players. This could lead to a discussion with Richmond to highlight the mutual benefits of a trade. 

Richmond might like a player at 10, for examples sake lets say its Travaglia and we also have no interest in taking him. We could be in discussions with GWS for 15, 16 with GWS targeting Travaglia as their man. Richmond may look to package up pick 11 with 23 (or whatever extra pick would sate us) for pick 9 to prevent this from happening.

We saw this last year when Essendon traded with Geelong to get Caddy. Essendon were one spot behind Geelong and gave them a 2nd round pick to move up that one pick. Geelong were clearly not going to take Caddy, took the extra currency and selected O'Sullivan. It was later stated that Essendon made that move to prevent rivals from getting access to Caddy by attempting to trade with Geelong.

Good point well made!

[58er 6,331]

10 minutes ago, Colm said:

Sliding back one or two draft spots in a very even draft may still see us picking the same players. 
Agree we have a need for quality but we also have a number of areas to improve on as shown by your want for a key forward and others preferring two mids. 
Getting a third pick in the first round could allow us to pick up someone like Shanahan or one of the Whitlock’s if we don’t go for a tall with our first two selections. 
If we turned our second and third pick into Kossie and Rivers level of players then we would come out in front. 
As I said I happy if we stick with what we have either. Hard to lose with the hand we have. 

Yes I understand those players you mentioned have had good wraps but I guess we haven’t got the patience if the right players are available at 5 and 9. TBH if we got Tauru and then 2 others mids/ highly skilled forward I would be happy also. I am bullish with both Sharp and PupBrown in our mid mix as well as Riv and Kossie and Judd in cameos. I also want Windsor placed in the centre position for his skills direct style and also potential goal kicking adding potency to our attack. Think he is a natural Chad Warner in waiting. The more play he is in the better our footy. Same with Kossie in some ways. 

 

[old55 23,309]

I think there's a couple of possible pick trade scenarios I can imagine for us.

We might rate 9 though the mid teens on a par and trade 9 for say 15 and 16 with GWS if they really rated someone at 9. That would give us 5, 15 and 16 in the draft.

We might really fancy someone who won't make it to 5 and trade up to 2 with North who would likely be happy to do so. To do that we probably need to make the above trade with GWS and then 5 and 16 to North for 2. That would give us 2 and 15 in the draft.

But I'm hoping we're happy with who is going to be available at 5 and 9 and sit there. It's a sweet spot to be. And we can take a "smokey" late as suggested by Tim Lamb during the trade period.

[Mouseymoo 130]

I feel like the circled are out only real suitable trade partners seeing how the perceived value adds up. 

Pick 5 for Rich 10&11

Pick 9 for GWS 15&16, or WC 12&26 (of they want Allen) 

Or some similar combo. Of course the opposite is true for them - do they want to reduce their picks in an even draft? 

 

[spirit of norm smith 16,167]

Jay Clark - Herald Sun.  Reports being called out …

Essendon is weighing up a move to off-load Melbourne’s future first-round choice for a first-round pick in this year’s draft, while there's a club looking to move down the order. 

Edited October 30 by spirit of norm smith
K

[Nascent 9,054]

Just now, spirit of norm smith said:

Reports being called out …

Essendon is weighing up a move to off-load Melbourne’s future first-round choice for a first-round pick in this year’s draft, while there's a club looking to move down the order. 

Which report and who's looking to move down? North?

[Ted Lasso 19,191]

7 hours ago, Mouseymoo said:

I feel like the circled are out only real suitable trade partners seeing how the perceived value adds up. 

Pick 5 for Rich 10&11

Pick 9 for GWS 15&16, or WC 12&26 (of they want Allen) 

Or some similar combo. Of course the opposite is true for them - do they want to reduce their picks in an even draft? 

 

I don't hate the idea of 5 for 10/11

i'd be reluctant to give up access to Jagga Smith or Harvey Langford, but a total package of say  Travaglia, Lindsay and Reid would be pretty tempting 

[adonski 11,608]

St Kilda has told clubs it is open to splitting one of its top-10 selections in this year’s draft as part of a strategy to capitalise on the depth in this year’s talent pool.
The Saints have picks seven and eight in this year’s draft and have indicated they could be interested in trading one of them for two picks later in the first round.

The two clubs best-placed to do a deal with the Saints are Richmond (which has 18, 20 and 23) and GWS Giants (15, 16 and 21).
This article contains features which are only available in the web versionTake me there
It means the Saints could take a top-line midfielder at pick seven and then snare two players in the back-end of the first-round with its Josh Battle compensation selection.
It would be a bold call from the Saints but recruiters are excited about the level of talent on offer through the back end of the first-round.

The move would effectively see the Saints take three players potentially inside the top-20 of a draft scouts are calling the strongest in several years.

[spirit of norm smith 16,167]

2 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Which report and who's looking to move down? North?

Essendon is weighing up a move to off-load Melbourne’s future first-round choice for a first-round pick in this year’s draft.

However the move will have to come after a bid for Essendon small forward and next generation academy prospect Isaac Kako.

It means if a bid comes around pick 10 for Kako, Essendon could trade Melbourne’s future first-round pick for something in the teens of this year’s draft.

The Bombers’ first pick is otherwise slated to be number 28, but Essendon will eagerly eye a jump into this year’s crop if a trade partner can be secured

 

St Kilda has told clubs it is open to splitting one of its top-10 selections in this year’s draft as part of a strategy to capitalise on the depth in this year’s talent pool. 

The Saints have picks seven and eight in this year’s draft and have indicated they could be interested in trading one of them for two picks later in the first round.

The two clubs best-placed to do a deal with the Saints are Richmond (which has 18, 20 and 23) and GWS Giants (15, 16 and 21).

[Mouseymoo 130]

1 minute ago, Ted Lasso said:

I don't hate the idea of 5 for 10/11

i'd be reluctant to give up access to Jagga Smith or Harvey Langford, but a total package of say  Travaglia, Lindsay and Reid would be pretty tempting 

Pressure's on though, because if you do then they BOTH have to be locks in the 22 otherwise you've passed on a potential star 

[Ted Lasso 19,191]

13 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

Pressure's on though, because if you do then they BOTH have to be locks in the 22 otherwise you've passed on a potential star 

I would say all 5 players in question are potential stars, as are basically the first 20-25 of this draft, so really the pressure is on either way because we will have 2-3 cracks at this draft and if we get it right we go a long way to building our next premiership, if we get it wrong it'll be richard tambling level