Macca

The Caulfield Correspondant (Wadda) is probably going to collate our picks (all-up style) but we've still got the Morphettville Marauder (Binman) to come. Well over 1500-1 already though (boosted) for the 5 picks. Worth a coffee outlay! And I hereby dub the newest member of the team the 'Moonee Valley Maestro' (JV7) Here is the official list of nicknames Dee Zephyr - Flemington Forecaster Binman - Morphettville Marauder Wadda - Caulfield Correspondent Gorgoroth - Randwick Rampager JV7 - Moonee Valley Maestro ProperDee - Warwick Farm Whisperer Macca - Hong Kong Wizard

Best Bet Saturday Caulfield Race 5 No.3 Soothing $3.10

Now I get it ... thanks Skuit. But I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by it all but their 'deficit' could be quite hefty, all the same. As an example the difference between pick 4 (less 20% discount) and picks 40, 59, 60, 80 & 94 is 875 points ... 1628 versus 743. Which is the equivalent of about pick 21. So they can secure another player and then Green if they got hold of pick 3. As it stands, they are almost certainly going to have to use pick 6 on Green. A club higher up in the order will probably bid on him And because of that, the swapping of picks involving our pick 3 is still on the agenda. It's back to the point where they (GWS) won't want to use pick 6 on Green. And again, if we've knocked back pick 6 and next year's 1st round pick then what's it going to take? And can a deal even be reached?

Example form might work best for those not up to par with the workings Let's just say that no club bids on Tom Green before GWS's pick 6. And then GWS then pick another player from the draft using pick 6 (not an academy player (Green for instance) or father/son player) And then a club bids on Green at pick 7. How does GWS then secure Green? At the moment they hold picks 40, 59, 60, 80 & 94 and that adds up to 743 points. Can they get points from elsewhere or by some other means?

Rookie upgrades no longer require a draft pick number. Rookies are upgraded prior to the draft and I believe each upgrade acts as a draft pick (without the number attached) At least, that's what happened last year so I'm assuming that's how they do it now. So unless we trade picks 3 & 8 ... it will probably be rookie upgrade, pick 3 and then pick 8. And we'll possibly make a bid on Tom Green at pick 3.

Yeah they can get Green with pick 6 if Green has been bid on earlier (picks 3, 4 or 5) but that's it. The scenario put forward was they trade up to pick 3 and then double-dip. (i.e ... pick another prospect at pick 3 and then use the points from their remaining picks to claim Green if Green is bid on after they've had their pick 3) The trouble with that is that picks 40, 59, 60, 80 & 94 doesn't carry enough points to end up being 80% of say pick 4. Those picks add up to 743 points. Pick 4 is worth 2034 point. Pick 5 1878 points & Pick 6 1751 points.

See post below (forgot to do the quote bit)

Leaderboard in the Tipping Comp 6 - JV7 5 - Dee Zephyr, Go the Biff 4 - Macca 3 - Dappa Dan 2 - DeeSpencer, Layzie, Clintosaurus, Gorgoroth 2 points on offer this as are all the odd-numbered weeks Good luck!

Not sure that's right though GTB ... it's what we were hearing but I don't reckon there's any incentive for GWS to obtain pick 3 unless they want a player other than Green. It's my reckoning that the existing picks they have are there to match a bid for Green anyway Right now they've got picks 6, 40 then 59, 60, 80 & 94.

This might have been mentioned before but even if GWS had have been able to get hold of pick 3 and then used that pick on a player other than Tom Green, they might not have had the currency in draft picks to match a bid of another club budding for Green (as early as pick 4). And as it stands they probably have to use pick 6 on Green regardless of whether another club bids on the player with an earlier pick. So us getting pick 6 and next year's first rounder from GWS for pick 3 could possibly only benefit us. Especially if GWS then had to use pick 3 on Green anyway and the 2 players that we were interested in drafting at 6 & 8 came from a pool of players rated anywhere within the 3 to 10 bracket. We'd end up with a bonus pick for next year. The reported deal with GWS might have been our idea. Stand corrected on the above if it's not an accurate assessment.

Assuming we go to the draft with picks 3 & 8 this gives the club a chance to add 4 good players to our best 12 (Injuries aside and assuming Tomlinson & Langdon perform up to standard) And the best we've done in the last 15 years in terms of adding good players is 2014 when we added Petracca, Brayshaw & Harmes (3 only) But the draft can cough up busts as well as gems so fingers crossed.

Unless they trade some of their existing picks (elsewhere) before dealing with us. Live trading on drafting day could be interesting but it's still difficult to see them satisfying us unless there's something else we don't know about. It looks reasonably obvious that pick 6 and next year's first rounder just wasn't enough for us to give up pick 3 to them.

I wouldn't necessarily be buying into the next year's first rounder in the deal. The deal could be of a more immediate nature. My thinking is more so this year and what GWS can give us or what they can find for us (this year) More picks outside of the 1st round and/or a player. As for next year, we've finally got moving with free agency so what's to stop us gaining 2 or 3 more RFA's next year? All things are possible. We don't necessarily need nor may we even want a first rounder next year especially if we go to the draft with 2 first rounders this season. And possibly a 2nd rounder this year as well. And trading in some established talent with one of our first round picks this year can't be ruled out either (even after we possibly trade pick 3) But I'm just guessing like most others Rusty. Could be quite a day tomorrow hey?

If we go by what happened last year all rookie elevations happened before the actual draft No draft pick number attached but a rookie elevation effectively acted as a pick. The wiki page with regards to the 2018 draft explains it all. Of course, wiki isn't always correct but in this case I believe it is. On another thread I speculated that our 3 choices could all be rookie elevations. But there are rules surrounding having to use 1st and 2nd round picks in the mysterious '4 year cycle' But if we end up dealing with GWS we could end up with more than just 1 pick back our way anyway. My guess is that we'll somehow end up with 2 picks in the top 10 and another pick in the 20's (from an overall perspective) And maybe a player as well - at what level, who knows? As others have stated (notably Axis & WJ) pick 3 is worth a lot more to GWS because of the academy prospect 'Tom Green' ... if they hold pick 3 no other club can bid on him except the Gold Coast and they (the GCS) are almost certainly going to draft Rowell & Anderson. So GWS get a free hit at pick 3 and then use another later pick (or picks) on Green (if, as expected, another club puts in a bid on Green) So we could expect a fair bit coming back for pick 3 (especially if the 2 clubs have had dialogue over the scenario previously)

We're creatures of habit too and we're well used to the club drafting at least 3 players and sometimes up to 6 players are drafted But I'm not sure we'll just end up with 2 picks anyway. 'Axis' has put forward a compelling argument that GWS will have to deal with us for our pick 3 and we might end up with pick 6 and another pick in the late first round or a 2nd round pick. Maybe even a 3rd rounder as well. Or a player (?) The whole 'package' isn't done with yet you'd imagine. Which was your original reasoning. So in the end, you may well be kinda/sorta right.

Don't worry DW ... I am absolutely sure many were in the dark as well. But promoted rookies taking up a draft pick may not have always been the case The media don't do a great job explaining it all to the footy folk either. I think I'm right in saying that our 3 picks could all be promoted rookies but that may not be altogether correct. You have to use a first round pick in the '4 year cycle' and I believe the same rule applies for a 2nd round pick. But if a club uses 2 picks in the first round some sort of carry-over applies. And the 4 year cycle is a bit ambiguous too. I've yet to see it explained where it makes sense.

There are an infinite number of picks ... for instance Richmond hold pick 95 but 96, 97, 98 and so on exist (in theory) Just imagine that Richmond use pick 95 on a player and there is just us left to draft a player. We'd then use pick 96. Which isn't listed but it's there (at least in theory) But there's a caveat ... all promoted rookies happen before the actual draft rather than afterwards. And each promoted rookie acts as a draft pick. So there's no actual draft pick number attached. So we can go to the draft with just 2 picks (3 and 8 or whatever combo) and a promoted rookie effectively acts as our 3rd pick (with no actual draft pick number attached) Go to the wiki page for the 2018 draft to see the draft as it's played out.

Felt like the Packers got away with one there ... thought that Darrius Sheoherd dropped sitter was going to cost us. But Rodgers does it again and the defence held Detroit to field goals. 170 rushing yards was very pleasing as well Only did the audio so will watch the highlights later. All the same I'll take 5 & 1 from 6. Even with a softish home field draw we've still played some decent opposition. Any observations from anyone who might have watched?

Thanks Rusty Down a bit but the eyes have it in terms of whether those taps to advantage this season became productive. I say no and I reckon the recipients of many of those taps to advantage were often immediately tackled or pressured. Time after time and game after game. The ideal scenario sees a tap to advantage quickly given off to a player streaming forward kicking it to the advantage of a forward leading into space. And then a shot at goal. It's not rocket science. But the opposition often roved to Gawn's taps so we got hurt the other way. Taps to disadvantage should be a stat. And that's no knock on Gawn. With such a dominant ruckman the coaching staff has to be able to turn that dominance into an advantage. And our midfielders should be properly drilled into getting to the right spots. Anyway, we'll see how we go with a revamped coaching structure. And we've at least seen personnel changes in those areas. That's a positive.

Racing at Caulfield on Wednesday ... 4 stakes races to be run and all 4 look to be decent betting races. The fields are decent too. The winner of the Coongy Hcp (Race 3) gets a berth in the Caulfield Cup and the last 3 races will attract the most attention ... Races 6, 7 & 8 Go to www.racenet.com.au for the full fields, form & odds.

With the earlier pick dipping out I've gone with the 2 live bets. 14-1 as well so good odds fellas

Watched the replay a number of times now ... I was watching Damien Lane like a hawk and once he took the fence position he was always riding for luck. But I'm guessing it was under instruction too. He went straight to the fence from the jump and that had to be a pre-planned move. But we'll probably never know for sure. And it looked like he was trying to get out along the back straight but Jamie Kah aboard Lord Fandango was giving no favours. 'Ride Like a Girl' hey? Jamie plays for keeps and good on her. The connections probably thought the gaps would appear for 'So You Win' but it was a very competitive field despite the seemingly easy win for Dr Drill But I was like you BM ... I talked myself out of backing Dr Drill and went for the swooper and the odds instead. Shortish straight though hey? They didn't dawdle up front either and So You Win was in the clear at the top of the straight but had no real acceleration. As previously stated, the bookies probably cleaned up as a lot of the money may well have come for So You Win (at the odds)

To be fair all the other clubs should then therefore be given their own zones to square things up. But where does it all end? Over time some zones end up being deemed to be more valuable than other zones (as it was from 1963 to 1986) so nothing is ever 'equal' Why should the Northern Teams get a leg up? 3 of them are already in a stronger position (player personnel wise) than what we are are (for instance) and before you know it the Suns will be stronger as well. I'm for the Demons ... the others can push off. Care factor zero. There seems to be a Victorian supporter edict that the Northern teams need help but if it's at the cost of my club, forget it. Actually, it is already happening but what can one do? SFA in real terms.

No worries Wadda I'm just in the jockey's corner. No big deal. A point of difference without any fanfare. As an example ... both DZ and I were on 'So You Win' in the Cranbourne Cup today - ridden by Damien Lane. The horse gets back as a matter of course but it ended up 3 or 4 back on the fence because of its racing patterns. And you what happens from there ... the jockey on the horse on its outside locks it in because that's what happens. Nearly every time. Before it could see real daylight Dr Drill had scooted away. Might have been rigged that way for all we know! ? But I factored that in beforehand. $5.50 with the bookies and it looked over the odds . But the bookies cleaned up. So I'm the mug (probably)

I have come to terms with the Frost departure Let's face it, the area that Sam is lacking in is his actual disposal efficiency and his decision making. Comparisons to Oscar are onerous as well ... we are highly likely to bolster our KPP stocks although I did think that with the Hogan departure. Petty can be the answer but he is very young. So let's hope the club realises where its deficiencies lie. We need another key back and another key forward. Upgrades. That's how I see it.