Akum

I'm wondering whether we've told Weideman that we'll take him at 7 no matter what his beep test, as long as his medical is OK. There seems to be whispers that if his beep test was under 13, other clubs are a lot less interested. I'm wondering too whether, if Weideman isn't available at pick 7, we might bid on Eric Hipwood, who's a similar type and maybe even better. Brisbane will be expecting him to go a few picks later, and may not be expecting to have to cough up so much for him. They've got another academy player (is it Ben Keays?) that they also have to find enough points for. I couldn't be bothered doing the maths, but it might put their points total under real strain and even force them to have to choose between Hipwood & Keays, given that they'd have already picked up Schache. So we might have a great chance of actually getting Hipwood if we bid for him at 7. If Brisbane do take Hipwood, then we take Harry McKay. He's a pretty good 3rd choice - he's younger and more raw than the others, but he may have at least as much upside. There seems to be a big gap between his best (highlight reel) and worst, but maybe that's just because of his rawness. I just think that the tall who's good enough to hold a place in the team as a KPF but who can help out in the ruck is such a valuable commodity, especially with the reduction in rotations, that we'll go for it. And we've got a crack at three of them in this draft.

Wasn't Weideman a ruck at U16 before he was a KPF? If so, he's yer actual KPF who can ruck - much more of a rare bird than a ruck who fills in as KPF. For several seasons now we've wanted someone who could win his place in the side as a forward, but also ruck competently. And because they're so had to find, we've had to settle for a second ruck who's been useless as a forward. Weideman is our first chance for years, and it may be years before we can get another. This to me is his one big advantage over Curnow for us. And why I think that if he's gone before 7, we might even pick Harry McKay before Curnow. I thought it strange that in the same year we 'retire' Jamar, we also push out Fitzy. Huge risk going into 2016 with only two ruck options plus a few 193cm stop-gaps. We'd only do that if we planned to pick up a ruck prospect or two in draft or trade, and we seemed to not be interested in a few that were available for trade. Makes me wonder too about picking up Gach Nyuon with a later pick.

How about the possibility that he's faking it to lower his value and get (past the Bummers) to us?? Wasn't there a report that he was very happy when he found out that we'd traded up to pick 7? JT: "We'll pick you at 7 no matter what your beep test is." Everybody else: "Not interested unless beep test better than 13" Well, it's a possibility. If you were a KPF, wouldn't you want to get to the team that has Hogan?

Let's put it this way: We get the first choice & the fifth choice out of Parish, Francis, Weideman, Oliver & Curnow. In terms of their chances of being a future A-grader (which, let's face it, is why we traded up to picks 3 & 7), there's not a lot to choose between them. We each have our own preferences, but they all show a lot of promise but a few concerns. In this draft, after these guys (and the first two and the academy picks) the chance of picking up a future star falls off a cliff within a few picks. So it's a good place to be.

I think our guys want Parish, plus one of Curnow or Weideman. So it goes like this. If we don't take Parish at 3, he'll go to the Bummers at 4. If we want Parish at all, we'll have no choice but to take him at 3. And if we take Parish at 3, it's very unlikely that both Curnow & Weideman will be gone by 7. Bummers likely to take either Curnow & Weideman, but not both as they're both tall forwards. They're far more likely to take one, plus someone different, probably Francis. Everyone seems to think that GCS are more likely to take someone like Milera, rather than who's left out of Curnow & Weideman. But if the unlikely happens & both Curnow & Weideman are gone at 7, we're then likely to take another tall forward, probably McKay. It will be a much harder decision if both Curnow & Weideman are available at 7, and we have to choose between them!

There's as much chance of that happening as the Dees winning the 2016 premiership!!

My only reservation about that is that the Board seemed to be on the verge of sacking Schwab, but then because of 186 changed their minds & sacked Bailey instead. We may have been better off then if they'd stuck to their original plan, though admittedly it's impossible to know whether we'd have been better off now.

... or pink! Though the "All-Pinks" doesn't quite carry the same aura.

If Weideman, Curnow & Francis are all gone between 4 & 6, Harry McKay seems not a bad fallback option for us at 7.

What I like about Parish is his ability to move the ball quickly and effectively from a tightly congested situation into space. He also seems to have very good awareness of when he's got a bit of time to run the ball out and when he's under pressure and needs to dispose of it quickly. With the Falcons and Vic Country, his teammates knew to provide options. My concern is that this will be completely lost on our midfield, though maybe the likes of Brayshaw, Salem & Petracca may be able to anticipate what he might do when he has the ball and run to the right places.

I can sort of see why they might take Curnow and Weideman. What I struggle to see is why they wouldn't take Francis. But if that IS what they do, what are the chances of GCS not taking Francis and us getting him at 7?

And wasn't Josh Mahoney himself telling us all along not to judge the trade period by any single trade, but to wait to see the overall picture? Some were fine with that because they understood that to be wise strategy. They just got swamped by the doomsayers.

JM et al have done extremely well to get on the front of the wave in working out how to use the points system. Everyone will be up to speed with it by next year, so this is the one chance to get the jump on the rest of the field and they've taken it. Getting 2 picks in the top 10 in a shallow draft also gets the jump on the rest of the field. We are one of a small group of teams that will have a much better chance of picking up 2 worthwhile players from this draft. In a deep draft (2016?), there's much less gap in talent between, say, pick 5 and pick 15; in a shallow draft, the gap is much greater.

... the "Didymus" here referring to "The Twin", i.e. testis. So he would definitely add balls to the team. The "Epi" part of "epididymus" means "next to" or "from" the twin. It's the tube that moves stuff from the testis toward the outside world. Thus endeth the anatomy lesson.

Couldn't agree more. Is it possible to work out: (a) The gains & losses for each club? (b) Which picks have gone from the 2016 draft?

So do the top picks have a pretty good idea of who's going where?

So if we upgrade VdB & Harmes, how many live picks does that leave us for the draft? We prob only need 3 & 7. Tho' wasn't there a F/S possibility too?

Sounds a bit Catholic ... maybe we should get Francis. No, wait ...

And about Prestia next year ... If he's still OOC at the end of next season, and he nominates us as his preferred club, then there's not much GCS can do about it, but they will have faith in our desire to work out a fair trade. And if he's OOC, you can be sure that many clubs will be chasing him. By this trade, we've put ourselves at the front of the pack, as long as we don't blow it by having a bad year on-field. If he decides to extend his GCS contract, then there's not much that we can do about it. But if we have a lot more wins, that will be less likely.

Interesting - classic win-win. So much better than trading with clubs that think they've always got to come out on top. The coup of the trading period so far, especially as it seems to work very well for both parties.

Could it be possible that there's a slight difference in quality of the merchandise being traded - Beams vs Howe?

Not only that, but when he was on the field, he was played at HFF or FP. Not the positions to accumulate a lot of posses, especially in the sort of season the Pies have had. There's far more spaces in our midfield than in the Pies' midfield. I assume that our intention in getting him is not to play him as Bucks did, but to give him a real chance to develop as a mid. That alone is likely to get more value out of him than he's shown to date.

Perhaps we were. But that's the chance you take. Unless you have a perfectly-functioning crystal ball ...

How about: GCS - give pick 3 to Pies & Prestia to Melb Melb - give pick 6 to GCS & Howe to Coll Coll - give Sidebottom (or player of similar value) to GCS So: GCS - get pick 6 & Sidebottom (or ...) for pick 3 & Prestia Melb - get Prestia for pick 6 & Howe [what we originally wanted?] Coll - get pick 3 & Howe for Sidebottom Not sure that Sidebottom is quite the right player here, but you get the idea. Maybe Witts or Grundy is a better fit - would have to be good enough so that if Pies want Howe and pick 3, it's going to have to hurt. Note that GCS come off better than they would if it was just a direct trade of pick 6 & Howe for Prestia - whichever Collingwood player they pick up would be far better than Howe. And we end up getting Prestia for pick 6 & Howe - what we always wanted.

This. Been overlooked in the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Quite possible that we'll go to the draft with pick 6 (pick 3 if we're lucky) and 2 late picks for rookie upgrades.