Mach5

I think our eggs will be in a Sean Darcy-shaped FA basket.

Don’t think he’s been wrong yet. Weideman is the example trotted out, but his pick was the relative steak knives in the deal with primary target being Oliver. Even back in the Brayshaw/Petracca draft, we tried to move Trengove for Lever.

Which is maybe why we’re trying to work out a deal with Hawthorn for pick 4.

I’d say we’re not expecting either of them to be the finished article right now, but that Windsor is equipped with relatively raw tools to be an impact player.

Or a Costa/Gartland special on a large parcel of land out near Ceres.

Beatson from Sydney did allude to trading 12 to North for 17 & 18 being in the works, and it seemed predicated upon North finally giving up on pick 1.

Not sure what it is about Curtin that sets him apart. Seems very vanilla to me.

Selecting a player because another club is perceived as rating him highly makes absolutely no sense to me. Further, WestCoast’s List Management Dept is so adept, we are currently witnessing one of the worst sides on in the AFL era with little indication of an upturn. That they are rumoured to be shopping a F1 destined to be top 2 in the draft is another reason to doubt their judgment.

It’d have to be an educated gamble with a sound understanding of next year’s draft crop composition and how it caters to our list needs. It wouldn’t be based on the vague hope that the top 5 is stronger next year (like it would be for me).

I think no matter how the cards fall, the 2 options of that 6 that would fall to us would be Sanders & Curtin, and I don’t think we’d prefer either over others available.

What I want to happen: 6&11 for 3&15. We take Duursma & Tholstrupp or Leake (but more likely Wilson). North tries to bundle 2&11 for pick 1. What I predict: 6: Caddy 11: Leake

I’d think we can’t in Cal’s scenario because we’ve already committed that list spot to Turner, and if he’s not elevated we lose him.

I’d imagine even a midfield draftee needs time to learn our gameplan, particularly their role within our defensive structures. In particular I’m reminded of hearing Dermott Brereton talk about seeing Sanders play and (paraphrasing) how his biggest “obstacle” in performing at AFL level at the moment was that he was good and he knew he was good, but some time in a good system will drill that out of him fairly comfortably. Not a criticism of the player’s ability to “make it” but rather a general comment on things that could hold back a kid early in their career.

I can imagine a player in his stage of career may not be too keen to change location, and if he has managed his money throughout a long career, might prefer to retire than relocate to a new club.

Christ, no contest, Tholstrup every day. Wilson is a mid-2nd rounder.

Might as well get this one up, as there have been rumours of our interest. Not much to add. I’m sure someone can link the obligatory highlights clip? Currently seems like it’d be a reach for him at pick 11, but we’ve seen the same accusation levelled at JT/TL for selecting Pickett at 12 and that was a pure win for us.

In addition, I think we take this approach (attempting to find out who over clubs will select) very seriously, particularly JT & TL with their investigative skills. I recall the draft video from the LJ/Pickett/Rivers draft when JT was supremely confident Riv would fall to us around 5 or so picks later, based on us knowing which players other clubs liked.

I’m not sure it’s that. I think clubs recruiting teams definitely see themselves as amateur (professional) sleuths, and try to dig up dirt to get an idea of what other clubs will do with their selections. I also think it’s our duty to obfuscate and conceal our true intentions, particularly after situations like when it appeared Geelong traded to immediately before our pick to gazump us on Holmes.

I thought we were past the days of drafting saviours? Yes, yes, I know it’s not what you said, but I wouldn’t view it a fail if a pick 6 isn’t a lock for the 22 of a perennial finals side in his first year.

My guess? Darcy.

I think there’s likely an element of subterfuge so that other clubs have no idea who we’re going to pick, thereby giving us options, with teams ahead of us having maybe a false sense of security their target will be still available if they trade with us to get us up the order, and teams behind us thinking they may need to trade up in the order to secure a target that we actually have no interest in. It’s due diligence, but I also think there’s a healthy element of ducks & drakes to this.

A taller Burgoyne, he’s worth the price we’d need to pay for pick 2.

We then slip back a couple of picks to take CO who we convert into the gun key forward we’ve been after...

Evidently you’d be quite surprised. But you probably think we came out of the SEN incident smelling like roses?

Keep fishing mate 🎣