49 minutes ago, old55 said:

If Adelaide are interested in Schubert then maybe 8 + 37 for 16 + F1. Would 16 be early enough for Pickett?

Pick 16 would be in the general vicinity of where we'd be looking to move, based on what I've heard (apologies if I'm repeating what is posted on BF). Nominally if GC finished around the same mark next year and we received Pick 8 from them, Pick 8 and 37 would see us giving up 1740 points of capital in return for Pick 16 (924 points). I think we'd definitely want some back-end shuffling our way, but of course I'd caveat that by saying it really depends how much we rate Pickett.

What I'm about to say is completely my take, but I would go as far to say that if we're unable to move capital around in order to take both 7 and 8 to the draft this year, in addition to moving into that second order of say Pick 12 - 20ish, then we may even considering taking Sumner-Pickett at 8. I think we're really enamoured by him so we could potentially see both Cummings and Sumner-Pickett come to us if we're not able to move.

57 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Pick 16 would be in the general vicinity of where we'd be looking to move, based on what I've heard (apologies if I'm repeating what is posted on BF). Nominally if GC finished around the same mark next year and we received Pick 8 from them, Pick 8 and 37 would see us giving up 1740 points of capital in return for Pick 16 (924 points). I think we'd definitely want some back-end shuffling our way, but of course I'd caveat that by saying it really depends how much we rate Pickett.

What I'm about to say is completely my take, but I would go as far to say that if we're unable to move capital around in order to take both 7 and 8 to the draft this year, in addition to moving into that second order of say Pick 12 - 20ish, then we may even considering taking Sumner-Pickett at 8. I think we're really enamoured by him so we could potentially see both Cummings and Sumner-Pickett come to us if we're not able to move.

Would be boarder line malpractice to draft him at #8 - he has not had a better campaign than Dovaston & is simply being inflated on name alone here

1 hour ago, BLWNBA said:

Pick 16 would be in the general vicinity of where we'd be looking to move, based on what I've heard (apologies if I'm repeating what is posted on BF). Nominally if GC finished around the same mark next year and we received Pick 8 from them, Pick 8 and 37 would see us giving up 1740 points of capital in return for Pick 16 (924 points). I think we'd definitely want some back-end shuffling our way, but of course I'd caveat that by saying it really depends how much we rate Pickett.

What I'm about to say is completely my take, but I would go as far to say that if we're unable to move capital around in order to take both 7 and 8 to the draft this year, in addition to moving into that second order of say Pick 12 - 20ish, then we may even considering taking Sumner-Pickett at 8. I think we're really enamoured by him so we could potentially see both Cummings and Sumner-Pickett come to us if we're not able to move.

Thanks for the intel @BLWNBA

I wonder where that leaves us on Dovaston then? Because I just couldn’t understand us taking LSP over Dovaston in the scenario you put forward

My opinion is that I’m happy to trade for an extra first round pick to take LSP but only if we retain 7 and 8 (and leave our future first untouched)

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by demoncat

17 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Thanks for the intel @BLWNBA

I wonder where that leaves us on Dovaston then? Because I just couldn’t understand us taking LSP over Dovaston in the scenario you put forward

My opinion is that I’m happy to trade for an extra first round pick to take LSP but only if we retain 7 and 8 (and leave our future first untouched)

I can kinda get around it. LSP looks to be a better athlete with some more class, albeit in a much smaller sample size.

Agree with hoping we trade in GCS' first and leave the other picks alone, that'd be a good result. Aggressive without being too reckless

34 minutes ago, heath55 said:

Would be boarder line malpractice to draft him at #8 - he has not had a better campaign than Dovaston & is simply being inflated on name alone here

Perhaps, but I vividly remember the outrage on here in the 2019 draft when we not only traded our pick 8 down to 10, but then proceeded to take Kozzie with that pick.

Most thought he was a 2nd - 3rd round pick at best and only had average form line in the sanfl ressies.

If the recruiters take him at 8 I'll back them in, they know what they're doing.

If he's our target but we're able to slid down the order a bit and pick up future selections, even better.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by Random Task

Looking at everyone's assets I don't see how we can get a mid teens pick without trading 7/8 down..

30 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Thanks for the intel @BLWNBA

I wonder where that leaves us on Dovaston then? Because I just couldn’t understand us taking LSP over Dovaston in the scenario you put forward

My opinion is that I’m happy to trade for an extra first round pick to take LSP but only if we retain 7 and 8 (and leave our future first untouched)

It reminds me a bit of the Kozzie draft, where Kozzie was rated way out, and Cody Weightman was rated as the number one small. We all know how that turned out.

31 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Thanks for the intel @BLWNBA

I wonder where that leaves us on Dovaston then? Because I just couldn’t understand us taking LSP over Dovaston in the scenario you put forward

My opinion is that I’m happy to trade for an extra first round pick to take LSP but only if we retain 7 and 8 (and leave our future first untouched)

So just to be clear, the part about looking at LSP at Pick 8 is purely my opinion, I could be totally wrong on that. It's just based on how I see the stars aligning if we're unable to bring forward the Gold Coast F1. It's not necessarily what I'd do, but I personally wouldn't be taking Dovaston either.

What I would say is that we have at times been happy to 'over-pay' for a player we've identified and set our sites on though. Pickett was projected to be a pick between the 25 - 40ish mark and Tholstrup was 15 - 30ish.

7 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

So just to be clear, the part about looking at LSP at Pick 8 is purely my opinion, I could be totally wrong on that. It's just based on how I see the stars aligning if we're unable to bring forward the Gold Coast F1. It's not necessarily what I'd do, but I personally wouldn't be taking Dovaston either.

What I would say is that we have at times been happy to 'over-pay' for a player we've identified and set our sites on though. Pickett was projected to be a pick between the 25 - 40ish mark and Tholstrup was 15 - 30ish.

Just out of interest - who do you like at 8 if not Dovaston?

I’m guessing we take whoever slides out of Robey/Taylor/Grij/Sharp/Cumming at 7 and use 8 on a needs based player (with Dovaston as a small fwd making the most sense to me personally)

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by demoncat

I’ll back JT to make the calls. With no word on him resigning with the Dee’s beyond this year, the 2025 draft maybe his parting masterpiece.

37 minutes ago, adonski said:

Agree with hoping we trade in GCS' first and leave the other picks alone, that'd be a good result. Aggressive without being too reckless

That's the plan by all reports, I don't see us moving either of 7 or 8.

1 minute ago, demoncat said:

Just out of interest - who do you like at 8 if not Dovaston?

I’m guessing we take whoever out of Robey/Taylor/Grij/Sharp/Cumming at 7 and use 8 on a needs based player (with Dovaston as a small fwd making the most sense to me personally)

The clear standout for mine is Robey, but that's hardly unique I think there's almost general consensus on that. Presuming he's gone, I'd be happy with two of Grlj, NHH, Lindsay, X Taylor (doesn't overly fit needs and list though), O Taylor, Sharp or CDT (no chance he'll be there though).

I agree we need a small forward, but from the limited footage of Dovaston I've seen, I just wasn't overly drawn in by what I saw.

4 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

That's the plan by all reports, I don't see us moving either of 7 or 8.

The clear standout for mine is Robey, but that's hardly unique I think there's almost general consensus on that. Presuming he's gone, I'd be happy with two of Grlj, NHH, Lindsay, X Taylor (doesn't overly fit needs and list though), O Taylor, Sharp or CDT (no chance he'll be there though).

I agree we need a small forward, but from the limited footage of Dovaston I've seen, I just wasn't overly drawn in by what I saw.

If Essendon don't trade up with WC we could be a strong chance to trade 7 & 8 for WC 2 & 13. Robey and Pickett. I'd be good with that..

3 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

If Essendon don't trade up with WC we could be a strong chance to trade 7 & 8 for WC 2 & 13. Robey and Pickett. I'd be good with that..

I'd imagine we would have to offer up a future 1st as well to get that deal done.

Just now, Random Task said:

I'd imagine we would have to offer up a future 1st as well to get that deal done.

Probably. Guess it depends if WC see something they like that will go before 13 and they see the first 7 as similar.

It's clutching at straws tbh

19 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

If Essendon don't trade up with WC we could be a strong chance to trade 7 & 8 for WC 2 & 13. Robey and Pickett. I'd be good with that..

I'd suspect we'd be looking at another future first to move like that, but if it netted us Robey I'd be very, very tempted to seriously look at that.

Surely we are not looking to use pick 8 on this kid... Surely not...

Although after the McAdam deal I wouldn't be that surprised

1 hour ago, BLWNBA said:

I'd suspect we'd be looking at another future first to move like that, but if it netted us Robey I'd be very, very tempted to seriously look at that.

I think we'd need to offer our F1 + 8 or 7 + 8 + GC F1 for 2 + 13. That would probably net Robey and Pickett, but it would be a pretty high price.

13 minutes ago, old55 said:

I think we'd need to offer our F1 + 8 or 7 + 8 + GC F1 for 2 + 13. That would probably net Robey and Pickett, but it would be a pretty high price.

Agree and given we've knocked back discussions with some other clubs for similar trades it would be very unlikely we'd go down this route IMO.

3 hours ago, demoncat said:

I wonder where that leaves us on Dovaston then? Because I just couldn’t understand us taking LSP over Dovaston in the scenario you put forward

Because Dovaston is clearly a better prospect or because there was some talk we liked him a week or so ago - and it seems odd to suddenly shift?

5 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Because Dovaston is clearly a better prospect or because there was some talk we liked him a week or so ago - and it seems odd to suddenly shift?

I don't think we've really been linked to Dovaston in the media (not that it means much still a few weeks out)

24 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Because Dovaston is clearly a better prospect or because there was some talk we liked him a week or so ago - and it seems odd to suddenly shift?

Because Dovaston is a better prospect

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by demoncat

10 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Because Dovaston is a better prospect

Could take both 👀

5 minutes ago, adonski said:

Could take both 👀

That’s the dream 🤞

he does things that dovaston just cannot do. do not see why dovaston is rated at all really. verrrrrry vanilla. LSP could be a great player, or not, but i'd rather have a crack. no doubt he wouldn't be boring!