TRIGON

Whilst in a broader philosophical sense I agree with you, in this case I think it's about trying to get Ben Brown without overly diluting our potential 1st round pick prospects.

If we combine conventional U.S.A Election logic with Trump style logic then everyone's the winner. Agreed, we have to add additional sweeteners. Essendon says hi.

I agree with your valuation. When it comes to evaluating the List Manager's performance we need to comprehend the currency they had and the situation they were in. Getting May for pick 10 may simply not have been achievable.

What would you have paid for him Patches and how would you have made that happen?

Aside from Lever (where I think we over-payed) what other scenarios come to mind?

I think that would be overs because the situation is different; Brown's been pushed out the door and Cameron's a required player Agreed, If we're offering two of those picks then we may be struggling to get back into this year's 1st round. In that case we should be chasing their future second round pick as part of the outcome.

Whereabout in the draft would you expect him to go?

Maybe so, but what do YOUR sources say?

Wait for it....

Well with academy bids etc it's hard to know if it will get pushed out or sucked in.

Yes, good point you raise. Can anyone shed light as to whether it's allowable?

The above equation is correct, what I'm suggesting is: Looking to trade for Dog's 1st round pick, send Pick 26 to North (keep picks 33+50 to trade with Dogs) Not looking to trade up in the draft then send Picks 33+50 to North and keep Pick 26 (draft for quality, not quantity).

Think the points discussion applies to the specific Ugle-Hagan situation that the Dogs find themselves in this year. Otherwise I tend to agree with you, that higher picks are worth more than two middling, especially so if you are trying to add the icing to the list and not starting a major rebuild.

That depends. If our intention is to trade with the Dog's for their 1st round pick then trading pick 26 to North for Brown means that we have more currency to trade to the Dogs. Pick 26 = 729 Points, Pick 33 + 50 = 836 Points. If we're not trading up (or can't) then I'd be inclined to go with the option you mentioned; it gives Jason Taylor more opportunity to draft quality (instead of quantity).

Agreed A bit like the 'fire sale' of Jack Watts. If 33 for Ben Brown happens then it's a fairly similar result.

Tallied together that's 836 points ~ Pick 22. Is that North's price for Ben Brown?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/524063/dees-set-to-swap-picks-with-crows-in-bid-to-unlock-big-ben-trade

Depends on how they view their stocks of other talls? Maybe Wright is going to need some help?

Couldn't agree more and I'd add that judging players only on what you can see via the broadcast is also limited. You get to see 'what' they're doing but not always the 'why'. You also miss a lot of the hard work that goes into defensive patterns etc.

Sadly I have to agree. It's where we're currently at and what we need to change. Good list, poor team.

That could go both ways; he's been there and knows what they're like.

It's been suggested here on Demonland that Jack was a St.Kilda supporter as a youth, so it could be an emotional decision...the old club colours, the team song, the smell of a freshly singed dwarf.

Saints currency in picks, as things currently stand, is 17, 64, 77, 93 Pick 17 should get it done, quick and clean.

When Essendon's a central cog it gums up the works.

Yep, and re Daniher they could have got pick nine in the 2019 AFL draft along with the Swans first-round pick this year. Instead they got pick 7. Dildodoroed themselves.