View Full Version : Use our picks as bargaining power, Ratts!
reg_lower91
2 Sep 2007, 02:24
I was just thinking about this possibility and wanted people's opinion...
Say we get picks 1, 3, 20, etc. I say we use pick 1 on Kreuzer, and then give up our picks 3 and 20. Maybe we could use them as bargaining power in the draft and pick up a couple of 23/24 year old backmen, or a backman and a midfielder. If we can pick up that little more stability and experience, rather than picking up another couple of developing potential stars, we will most definitely be playing finals by 2009. I think our most important picks are from about picks 30 and onwards. We should be looking to pick up good young players with these picks. After all, the likes of simpson, fisher, fev, hird, ect. were all take from about pick 40 and onwards.
Your thoughts?
marcmurphy3
2 Sep 2007, 02:27
Pick 3 in particular must not be traded unless it's for a gun.
No way!!!!!!!
I thought the point of getting high draft picks was to get potential super stars, and develop them?
If we are to trade #3, who for? I'd suggest keeping your top picks and maybe trading a lower one for a solid fringe or 2nd tier player - that way you'll have your young kids developing, your draft choices and a little more senior support which we've been sorely lacking. Either way, there needs to be balance - the kids need guidance, some protection and some experience if they are ever to reach their full potential. I'd gather a lot of the younger lists would be doing a lot worse at the moment if they had little to no senior support.
While we're still developing, we can't just load our entire team with boys.
Blue Dawn
2 Sep 2007, 02:32
Only trade pick 3 for Judd, otherwise you bring one of Cotchin/Palmer/Morton/Ebert into the club. Maybe trade 20 if it gets us someone like Charman.:thumbsu:
Rambo Stallone
2 Sep 2007, 03:06
If we get pick 1 and 3,you crazy to give them away.I just wish we had pick 1,3,6,9 then we could get some great players for the future with the chances that at least 2 will make it for certain.
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 10:35
There's no chance that I would trade pick 3, unless a superstar came into considerations, and we're talking serious superstars.
We're not going to give up the chance to pick up 2 of Kruezer, Cotchin, Morton, Palmer, Masten that easily.
DynamoUltra
2 Sep 2007, 10:44
Only trade pick 3 for Judd, otherwise you bring one of Cotchin/Palmer/Morton/Ebert into the club. Maybe trade 20 if it gets us someone like Charman.:thumbsu:
You want Judd, you'd be looking at pick 1 as a start.
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 10:45
You want Judd, you'd be looking at pick 1 as a start.
You can't trade priority picks, so therefore we can't trade pick 1.
LennyLeonard
2 Sep 2007, 10:50
You can't trade priority picks, so therefore we can't trade pick 1.
Since when can't you trade a priority pick? Fremantle traded priority pick to Hawthorn in 2001 for Trent Croad and Luke McFarlane
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 10:53
Since when can't you trade a priority pick? Fremantle traded priority pick to Hawthorn in 2001 for Trent Croad and Luke McFarlane
Since that trade where Hawthorn made complete fools out of Fremantle :D
Gilly1972
2 Sep 2007, 10:54
here''s a novel idea, let's use our draft picks as draft picks. :thumbsu:
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 10:54
here''s a novel idea, let's use our draft picks as draft picks. :thumbsu:
NO WAY!!!!! :eek:
;) :D
blues4flag
2 Sep 2007, 13:34
Only trade pick 3 for Judd, otherwise you bring one of Cotchin/Palmer/Morton/Ebert into the club. Maybe trade 20 if it gets us someone like Charman.:thumbsu:
You are seriously overvaluing the worth of a draft pick. Pick 3 alone is nowhere near enough to get Judd - pick 20 for Charman the Lions won't even look at.
Anyway, go for the gun youngsters. We've got a young list, no team will trade away a star for a speculative draft pick so we'll have to trade a draft pick and a quality player to get a star. Much rather develop our own kids and give it a serious shot. The best thing about getting all these low draft pick in the last 4/5 years is that we have seriously elite talent, all of whom will be around for years to come and will peak at roughly the same age. We could competitive for quite a while given the talent of our youth. :)
I was just thinking about this possibility and wanted people's opinion...
Say we get picks 1, 3, 20, etc. I say we use pick 1 on Kreuzer, and then give up our picks 3 and 20. Maybe we could use them as bargaining power in the draft and pick up a couple of 23/24 year old backmen, or a backman and a midfielder. If we can pick up that little more stability and experience, rather than picking up another couple of developing potential stars, we will most definitely be playing finals by 2009. I think our most important picks are from about picks 30 and onwards. We should be looking to pick up good young players with these picks. After all, the likes of simpson, fisher, fev, hird, ect. were all take from about pick 40 and onwards.
Your thoughts?
:eek::eek:
You guys have got to bite the bullet and draft. You'd be crazy to give up pick 3, it's too valuable.
I think the Blues will be at the bottom for another year yet and get another top 3 pick. In 2 years time your picks from this year will be looking good.
Look at the Hawks, they were smart not to trade. Even though they were shocking for a couple of years they are seeing the benefits now.
If you are going to trade you should be looking at your 2nd round picks.
Having 2 top 5 picks certainly gives you a lot of bargaining options. I don't think anyone can say 'we have to keep our picks' or 'we have to trade'. Surely its a matter of looking at all options and working out what suits us best.
Looking at things, though, we definitely need a top calibre ruckman, and we need more midfield depth. Using picks 1 and 3 to fill those needs with Kreuzer etc seems a pretty good fit for us - there would have to be a damn good trade option available to provide a better fit than that
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 13:48
You guys have got to bite the bullet and draft. You'd be crazy to give up pick 3, it's too valuable.
I think the Blues will be at the bottom for another year yet and get another top 3 pick. In 2 years time your picks from this year will be looking good.
Look at the Hawks, they were smart not to trade. Even though they were shocking for a couple of years they are seeing the benefits now.
If you are going to trade you should be looking at your 2nd round picks.
Actually, the Hawks traded the likes of Thompson and Hay for early draft picks-that's part of the reason why they are now a finals force.
Whether or not that means we need to trade Fevola, I'm not so sure yet.
DynamoUltra
2 Sep 2007, 13:50
Actually, the Hawks traded the likes of Thompson and Hay for early draft picks-that's part of the reason why they are now a finals force.
Whether or not that means we need to trade Fevola, I'm not so sure yet.
Correct, but that is totally the opposite of what the original poster suggested - trading your picks to get other players. We traded players to get picks.
Jeremias
2 Sep 2007, 13:55
Correct, but that is totally the opposite of what the original poster suggested - trading your picks to get other players. We traded players to get picks.
I know.
I'm saying that we shouldn't really trade picks for players, but players for picks, just like you did.
Bluebear
2 Sep 2007, 14:01
I was just thinking about this possibility and wanted people's opinion...
Say we get picks 1, 3, 20, etc. I say we use pick 1 on Kreuzer, and then give up our picks 3 and 20. Maybe we could use them as bargaining power in the draft and pick up a couple of 23/24 year old backmen, or a backman and a midfielder. If we can pick up that little more stability and experience, rather than picking up another couple of developing potential stars, we will most definitely be playing finals by 2009. I think our most important picks are from about picks 30 and onwards. We should be looking to pick up good young players with these picks. After all, the likes of simpson, fisher, fev, hird, ect. were all take from about pick 40 and onwards.
Your thoughts?
I think you're spot on Reg.
Most early picks are duds, and the REAL gold is late in the draft.
We could tade picks 3 and 20 for......like.......6 later picks........imagine the quality we could end up with!
4 Flags within the next 6 years for sure.:D
Not.:cool:
everyone knows we need a good young ruckman. Would people here give up one of our top picks for, say Hamish Macintosh?
Bluebear
2 Sep 2007, 14:16
everyone knows we need a good young ruckman. Would people here give up one of our top picks for, say Hamish Macintosh?
Moot question really.
Roos have just got him into form and looking at a flag.
He's not going anywhere........but of course we'd look if he wanted to leave.
I know.
I'm saying that we shouldn't really trade picks for players, but players for picks, just like you did.
Correct, but unfortunately for the Blues you don't have too much currency on your list to do so. Fev is there but if I was a Blue I would dred the day you trade him.
AndyWalkersGirl
2 Sep 2007, 15:25
I thought the point of getting high draft picks was to get potential super stars, and develop them?
If we are to trade #3, who for? I'd suggest keeping your top picks and maybe trading a lower one for a solid fringe or 2nd tier player - that way you'll have your young kids developing, your draft choices and a little more senior support which we've been sorely lacking. Either way, there needs to be balance - the kids need guidance, some protection and some experience if they are ever to reach their full potential. I'd gather a lot of the younger lists would be doing a lot worse at the moment if they had little to no senior support.
While we're still developing, we can't just load our entire team with boys.
Exactly. Really good post Thrawn.:thumbsu: