ArtificialWisdom

Yeah but you need some kind of balance, even if it's reading the play to intercept mark, or be capable of crumbing off the pack. Winning your own ball isn't always about getting the in and under hard ball. Someone like Weightman doesn't show all that much ability to win it under the pack either, but his leap means he can take a high mark and he can crumb and goal. That's demonstrating ability to win the ball in other ways. Stephens clearly has alot of qualities we need, and like I said I haven't seen enough of him to say he can't win the ball. He may well turn out to be a much better footballer that Weightman. But this is what makes drafting so hard.

Of he does indeed nominate for the PSD I expect that the club will at the very least talk to his management (if they haven't already). But I do expect him to turn it down and say he wants to be a Carlton player. I doubt we will pick a player who publicly wants to play for someone else. But looking forward to hear rumours about him touring our facilities. That would build some real excitement before the draft

Some nice highlights. But playing devils advocate here: I've always heard discussions about a correlation between top end talented juniors who win their own footy going on to be successful at AFL level. I don't know enough about Stephens and this may just be a limited sample, but the centre clearance at 1:20 is the only time in that video that he won the ball himself, and he fumbled, the rest came from a team mate winning it. I'd like to see more of him winning the footy himself.

Slow for the league. I've been happy with our trade period.

The specifics of him saying it's coming back to the MCG makes me think we won't have a Marvel home game.. at least for 2020. Who knows how long the AFL will let that go.

Honestly, even if nothing happens. This rumour has made this thread good fun in a really slow trade week

Any deal with the Giants as it stands gifts them 2 top 5 picks for us getting back pick 6 and some change. Frankly I believe there's nothing the Giants can offer that will be equal to the 2 players they will get which means on theory we should be able to push them to a trade that looks ridiculous on the surface, but it's actually perfectly reasonable to both clubs. My theory (it's kinda out there) is take pick 3 off the table let them deal with Adelaide to get pick 4, this at least gets them infront of pick 5. Then we decide which 2 players we like (Assuming it's Serong and Young). Then on draft night when it comes to pick 3 call the GWS camp and say 'we are going to bid on Green, would you like to give us Pick 4 and a future first?' They do that, then the Giants can take whoever they want likely take one of Serong/Young, match our bid for Green then we take whichever of the 2 players is left. Draft order would end up being something like: Rowell (GC), Anderson (GC), Serong (GWS), Green(GWS), Young (Melb), Essendon, Adelaide, Fremantle, Weightman (Melb) We get both players we want and get back into the 1st round next year

Clearly it's the only thing stoping us from going back to back

Wait you'd rather a punt to draft a depth player at 26 than a punt to draft a best 22 player at 8?

True, but it also might just be so neither club gets cold feet. It's a brave trade for both clubs, best to do the deal now rather than agreeing now and waiting until draft night

On that point specifically. The reason the Giants want pick 3 is so they can get a top 5 draftee in and then match any bid that follows for green. Effectively 2 top 5 picks for 1. But to do that they need either pick 3 or 4 as well as a suite of picks possibly in the 2nd and 3rd round after that give them enough points to match any bid If that's not what their doing then I have no idea why they even bothered to get pick 6. 12 and 18 would have covered the bids easy Edit: It would appear @Nascent has beat me by a minute

Agree, not a hope of that happening. There'd have to be another club involved... But then again, that club could be us Giants also need picks between 3 and their next pick at 40 to pay for Green. No sense getting to pick 3 if they don't have points after. Currently their other picks all add up to 733 points. Well short of the 1500+ needed if he goes top 5.

When asked about the Frost trade he said they looked at it and Langdon as a package and said "keeping our draft hand was important for what we want to do during the trade period" Sounds to me like we're not finished yet

Could also just be that Freo thinks we will finish lower than the Hawks. In all honesty I think us and the Hawks will be fighting for similar spots in and around the bottom part of/just outside the 8. It will likely end up being the difference between pick 29 and 31

Kept Hawks future 2nd and gave away ours. Here's hoping the Hawks finish in the bottom 4.

This is why I like Josh Mahoney, he looks at the big picture. Happy to take what's probably a loss on the Frost deal to get a win on the Langdon deal. Staying in both this and next year's 2nd round is a big win

This was my thought too. Pick 6 unlikely to be enough but will get Mahoney to the negotiation table. He specified top 10 was requirement when splitting 3. 6 ticks that box. Looking forward to see what comes with it. Wondering if they'll get another club involved still. Both us and gws are already dealing with the Hawks.... Would Hawks part with pick 11 too get all 3 of Patton, Frost and Bonar? Would likely require some late/future pick shuffling. To answer my own question: No, not likely but just for fun GWS: Out 6, Patton, Bonar In: 3 Hawks: Out: 11 In: Patton, Frost, Bonar Dee's: Out: 3, Frost In: 6, 11 Man it's too early for crazy trades

Some mentioned Players and their biggest bag against the Dee's Gunston. 3 Bruest (not really a key) : 5 (and 2 4s) Curnow: 2 Casboult: 3 O'Brien: 3 Hawkins: 7

Yokozuna did specify he/she was excited by the prospect. Is that enough to rule out Hawkins?

Or Harry McKay. Surely with McGovern, Martin Papley and Betts they can't fit then all in Edit: just read some old posts and see he's been ruled out

Ah My bad I didn't see your change. I get the concerns but I also think that we are in the position to back ourselves with 2 top 10 picks now. Next trade period we can work on getting back up the draft, that's what good clubs do. There's every chance it back fires horribly, but I think we have to eventually take that risk to get to success.

Pick 30 belongs to the Hawks. So it can't be included in our trade outs. Still a fair price but make 8th and pick 9 jumps to 12 and the value goes from 38 to 50

Could also just get pick 50 from the Hawks for Frost and give pick 42 in the 4 way trade. That would make your calculator look nicer but the ins and outs for the club would remain the same

It's risky, yes. But the way I see it, if we don't make the 8 next year we won't need to worry because week have plenty of players ready to walk out on our club to make up for any missing picks. If we make the 8 then nobody will care about a hand full of draft points here or there.

Don’t worry guys and gals, I've got this. Splitting the pick isn't too hard. Our whole trade period: Tomlinson FA. Done Langdon for 22. Seems fair for everyone Frost & 42 to Hawks for 30 & 50. Pick 30 will be useful in the following monster 4-way trade: Ess OUT: Daniher IN: Picks 3, 25 Syd OUT: Papley, Picks 5, 25 IN: Daniher, Fut 1st (Melb) Carl OUT: Pick 9 IN: Papley, Pick 30 Melb OUT: Pick 3, Fut 1st, pick 30 In Pick 5, 9 With us only taking 3 picks to the draft that leaves us with 5 9 and 50. As opposed to 3 42 and 61