old55

Occam's Razor says we want him at 3. Taylor explicitly said we don't play games in the draft - although he was referring to a bid on Green, I think you can generalise the concept.

GWS get 20% discount on the bid pick points. They have to use their next highest picks in order. They would get Green and 43 as change from 14 and 17 on a bid at pick 3.

Yeah all made by couch amateurs. You gotta trust the experts you pay to do the job. Taylor said there was a 2 day conference to work through the candidates and Goodwin was involved so there are plenty of checks and balances. If Taylor and co think it's Jackson then the club needs to back their judgement.

Yes that's another way players can move up media and fan ranking without actually playing. What recruiters think gets into the public domain. Re-read AW's post, he said "how can he move up without playing?"

That's a good link thanks. So he played 5 Colts games after the U18 Championships so judging him solely on the Championships is flawed. Taylor said in his interview that he really focused on particular players - probably Jackson. He got a lot of hit outs in those games so understandably played a lot of ruck. I'm happy to take him if Taylor rates him. Pretty big excitement factor.

Only in media and fans eyes. Pro recruiters will have had a view all along but it's not in the public domain. "Sliders" is a nuff nuff concept, if 10 clubs in a row don't select a player then that's where they're rated, but it only takes one club to really like a particular player for him to go earlier than expected so a "bolter" is possible.

Lots of "no" there. Who should we be going after?

I was suggesting it was the other way around - who we intend to draft influences who we target in DFA. If we're taking Young we've got less need for HB depth and Murray and if we're not taking Jackson we have more need for tall depth hence Brown. Yeah what DeeSpencer said.

Could be we're looking at Young ahead of Jackson in the draft and therefore Brown ahead of Murray DFA. List spots are limited and we have 3, 8, 97 and Bennell to accomodate. That leaves 1 free Senior list spot.

I'll be very surprised if we bid Henry at 3 or 4. He wasn't mentioned by Taylor at either 3 or 8 in the Road to the Draft interview. Jackson, Young and Green, then Kemp and Robertson IIRC.

I dont think that's certain. See Lucifer's Hero post earlier. I also don't think it's certain GWS would match a bid on Green at 3. They might have traded up to 6 for Jackson.

Maximum deficit is the points value of the last pick in the first round so they can cover the deficit with a future 1st even if they win the flag.

Close but no cigar. The team matching the bid has to supply picks worth 80% of the pick bid on the player. They get a 20% discount. So if we bid Green at 3 = 2234pts, GWS have to supply 1787 pts to match. Coincidentally pick 6 is worth very nearly that.

Yes I think GWS best strategy: We bid on Green, they trade 6 to GC for 2020 mid 1st round priority pick and say 15 this year and cover the bid with 15 and their later picks. We don't bid on Green, they trade 6 and next year's 1st for 4 and select ahead of the bid.

Cochrane is unpredictable and he extracted maximum value for O'Meara when he got obsessed with it. He could easily do the same here and take a stand and redraft Martin.

Que? I doubt he'll be better than any of Oliver, Brayshaw, Viney, Harmes in R1 2020. But as you say it gets thin after that so I think he would be a good addition to the list.

OK Only players like Martin who are out of contract and have delisted themselves need to go in the PSD

AFAIK, the PSD is open to uncontracted AFL players and players who were not selected in the ND or RD. So Sokol has to register for the ND or RD first. Uncontracted delisted AFL players can be picked up in DFA or SSP so they don't need to go into the PSD like they used to, e.g. Bennell, Murray. Only players like Martin who are out of contract but not delisted can go in the PSD. So I think this pool is small to non existent. Therefore no-one. I could be wrong ...

No-one

Agree, the scenario af GWS trading 6 for 15 and 20 gives them 2024 points. They need 1787 to match a bid from us at pick 3, so they get 237pts change or pick 53. So it's 6 for 15 and 20 for Green and 53.

Interesting that GWS pick 6 (1751) is almost exactly 80% (1787) of our pick 3 (2234). If we bid Green at 3 and GWS try to trade down to later picks to match they will need to strike a deal heavily in their favour to get any benefit. I don't think it's worth it and they wasted their time and points trading up to 6 from 12 and 18. They'd be better off with those picks now. They clealy failed to offer us a decent trade involving a player for 3 and it has backfired.

Maybe. You're going to walk out of an interview with Kinnear Beatson, Simon Dalrymple and John Longmire because you know better.

That this would make you walk out of the interview is pretty revealing. It's worth including just for that.

Correct. A club can go into points deficit for the next year up to the value of pick 18 the last 1st round pick.

I liked his game against Sydney, he kept it simple and found a way to get involved with his 9 tackles which generally stuck.