View Full Version : If Carlton lose their draft picks.....
Dry Rot
27 Oct 2002, 15:34
Currently we have picks 6 & 23 assuming Carlton retain their first 2 picks, and if Carlton lose them, then we have picks 4 & 19 (is this right?)
In the event the AFL pulls its finger out, Carlton have done what has been alleged and they lose their picks, does this change our trading/draft strategy?
I note that the Tigers are claiming that they would view their Carey/Johnson etc deal differently.
If nothing else, Carlton may be more inclined to trade to get some picks, but I can't see how this would affect us.
We wont lose this years...the trades that already happened would be null/void
Originally posted by saiak
We wont lose this years...the trades that already happened would be null/void
We forgot you are really Andrew Demetriou!
What makes you so certain?
Originally posted by Chops
We forgot you are really Andrew Demetriou!
What makes you so certain?
Think about it...too many clubs would be hard done by. Do you think that Richmond would've traded #4 if they knew it was going to be #2? C'mon!
Dry Rot
27 Oct 2002, 18:24
Originally posted by saiak
Think about it...too many clubs would be hard done by.
Too many? Can't think of many others (other than the Tigers) who will be complaining.
dogboy23
27 Oct 2002, 19:14
Originally posted by saiak
We wont lose this years...the trades that already happened would be null/void I agree it would render the trade period a complete farce.Would the saints have off loaded Everitt for draft picks if they had of known they were going to have the top pick?Maybe, maybe not the point is it is not a very good circumstance for a team like Richmond to have there whole trade stance compromised.
BluesPrez
27 Oct 2002, 20:01
Not only Richmond, but also Hawthorn who traded their first and 2nd round picks in the draft (no. 8 and 24 respectively). They would be spitting nails, as would West Coast who traded their no. 10 for Chick. That would have become no. 8 and I'm sure West Coast would have liked a young KPP for pick 8 and probably would have got Tim Walsh.
Oh, I forgot that Andrew Demetriou is the President of the AFL.....and I thought that Caroline Wilson works for the AFL as well.....
Demetriou has shown lack of integrity so far and has made enough gaffes to prejudice the investigation against Carlton, whether we're guilty or not.
Dry Rot
11 Nov 2002, 13:08
Interesting news this morning, with Carlton being formally charged:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53823
Sinkers_9
11 Nov 2002, 13:20
Originally posted by Dry Rot
Too many? Can't think of many others (other than the Tigers) who will be complaining.
I can't say I'm exactly devestated about it all :D
Why cant they lose their picks? , If I was club who traded early picks for players like Richmond I would want the satisfaction of Carlton being punished by losing Goddard and Wells.
They will have been found guilty twice so why should the AFL reward them by allowing them the first two picks.
Go Roos in 2003
Blues found guilty!
I suppose the Blues are in middle of writting their own "tragic history" and they'll be hoping for a hot summer because as one of their supporters says, their recent history won't "keep them warm at night".
Great stuff to see, Cheat and come last!
We can only hope Collins takes over, gets the hell out of the Telstra Dome and continues his "great" Collonial track record with Carlton.
And JG/Fansquad, you think Smorgans bad!
OldSchool
11 Nov 2002, 17:28
They should take this years picks from Carlton no doubt.
If couldn't care less about the other clubs having a whinge about all the "what ifs" regarding the trade period and the effect it had on the draft. Everyone knew that it was chance so it should be no surprise to anyone.
From the Doggies point of view it may not change our first pick but our second and third are now more valuable.
Gee I hope they have lost the picks.
Bob Murphy
11 Nov 2002, 18:14
Originally posted by saiak
Think about it...too many clubs would be hard done by. Do you think that Richmond would've traded #4 if they knew it was going to be #2? C'mon!
We are talking about richmond they are well known for trading first round draft picks
1990 4 draft pick trade for Terry keays (what a great get that was)
1991 3 " " " for Steve O Dywer (another great get he he he)
1998 8 " " " for Craig Biddiscombe
1999
2001 17 " " " With Nick Daffy for Greg Stafford
So as you can see Richmond are still up untill this day trading first round draft picks. So my answer is yes they still would traded draft pick number 2 for Kane Johnson
I would rather see Carlton lose their 2nd & 3rd round picks this year (their current suspended sentence) and their first round pick for the next 2 years.
This would keep Richmond & Hawthorn happy and still penalise Carlton, without decimating them.
My real motive....I want a key position player with our pick and at 6 we will still most likely get the best KPP going. If we move to pick 4 we will probably pick Schammer, Grima or the same KPP we would have picked at 6.
I would rather have pick 6 this year and improve by one spot for the next 2 years.
OldSchool
11 Nov 2002, 20:14
Originally posted by jim440
I would rather see Carlton lose their 2nd & 3rd round picks this year (their current suspended sentence) and their first round pick for the next 2 years.
This would keep Richmond & Hawthorn happy and still penalise Carlton, without decimating them.
My real motive....I want a key position player with our pick and at 6 we will still most likely get the best KPP going. If we move to pick 4 we will probably pick Schammer, Grima or the same KPP we would have picked at 6.
I would rather have pick 6 this year and improve by one spot for the next 2 years.
Regarding the Tigers and Hawks, as far as I am concerned it is buyers beware. We all realised that there was a chance that this could happen so they should have taken that into their consideration when the moved the picks on. There is far too many "what if's" for more liking.
Would suggest that at a compromise they should lose the draft concession then not be able to participate in the pre-season draft.
Then they should also lose the first round selection next season.
Jim, As for getting taller players, surely moving up two positions for our second and third picks would give us a better chance to secure players like Layco(k, Johnson and Lonergan.
We would also be in a great position in the third round where we have two picks because a lot of other clubs have already committed to father/son selections.
It will be interesting what the AFL does.
Originally posted by OldSchool
Would suggest that at a compromise they should lose the draft concession then not be able to participate in the pre-season draft.
Then they should also lose the first round selection next season.
Jim, As for getting taller players, surely moving up two positions for our second and third picks would give us a better chance to secure players like Layco(k, Johnson and Lonergan.
We would also be in a great position in the third round where we have two picks because a lot of other clubs have already committed to father/son selections.
Agreed a higher pick should mean a better player, big or small. Carlton have already traded their 2nd round pick for French(18 was it?)!
This infringment occured in 2000. Who knows how long or how much they have been getting away with. The sooner they suspended/fined, the sooner they will learn the leason.
OldSchool
11 Nov 2002, 21:27
Originally posted by Chops
Agreed a higher pick should mean a better player, big or small. Carlton have already traded their 2nd round pick for French(18 was it?)!
This infringment occured in 2000. Who knows how long or how much they have been getting away with. The sooner they suspended/fined, the sooner they will learn the leason.
They should lose their first two picks at the draft and then get the last picks at the pre-season draft. This will impact them for a few seasons at least. I would suggest that they will also be ineligible for any concessional picks in 2003..
I would expect that clubs like the Kangaroos, Lions and Bulldogs will benefit because they traded players for additional early picks and moving them all up two positions is sweet reward. Suddenly, losing Penny for pick 19 is now pick 17 and when you compare that Melbourne moved Woey on for originally pick 16, then we have not done too badly.
Dry Rot
11 Nov 2002, 21:51
Originally posted by OldSchool
Suddenly, losing Penny for pick 19 is now pick 17 and when you compare that Melbourne moved Woey on for originally pick 16, then we have not done too badly.
My thinking exactly. If we get Bassett (and he works out) and pick 17, Penny's departure becomes more of a misfortune than a calamity.
OldSchool
12 Nov 2002, 13:10
Originally posted by Dry Rot
My thinking exactly. If we get Bassett (and he works out) and pick 17, Penny's departure becomes more of a misfortune than a calamity.
Well said.
Moving our selections up two positions really does open the draft up for us and a lot of taller players could be available.
I might have to re-do my mock draft :)
Porthos
13 Nov 2002, 09:35
Originally posted by OldSchool
Well said.
Moving our selections up two positions really does open the draft up for us and a lot of taller players could be available.
I might have to re-do my mock draft :) I hope you have to :)
OldSchool
13 Nov 2002, 10:15
Originally posted by Porthos
I hope you have to :)
The suggestion is at the moment that Carlton will keep the picks as to not compromise the draft but then pass on both draft selections on the day. That will more or less stop the arguing about the legalities.
Carlton will then receive a slightly reduced penalty because of their co-operation.
Porthos, Do you rate Daniel Gilmour as a chance of being drafted ?
Porthos
13 Nov 2002, 12:39
Originally posted by OldSchool
The suggestion is at the moment that Carlton will keep the picks as to not compromise the draft but then pass on both draft selections on the day. That will more or less stop the arguing about the legalities.
Carlton will then receive a slightly reduced penalty because of their co-operation.Gee, I dunno...what if Carlton decide to be tricky buggers on draft day and name players? It'll be an official take away if its going to happen, I'd reckon.
Porthos, Do you rate Daniel Gilmour as a chance of being drafted ? I can honestly say I haven't heard of him, so as a result, I have no idea :D
OldSchool
13 Nov 2002, 12:52
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Porthos
[B]Gee, I dunno...what if Carlton decide to be tricky buggers on draft day and name players? It'll be an official take away if its going to happen, I'd reckon[B]
Carlton would sell it as doing the right thing by the AFL and the other clubs and as part of the required clean-up the club needs.
The AFL would remove any fine as part of the co-operation.
I think it works well and stops any of the legal arguments
stefoid
13 Nov 2002, 13:15
Originally posted by Dry Rot
Currently we have picks 6 & 23 assuming Carlton retain their first 2 picks, and if Carlton lose them, then we have picks 4 & 19 (is this right?)
In the event the AFL pulls its finger out, Carlton have done what has been alleged and they lose their picks, does this change our trading/draft strategy?
I note that the Tigers are claiming that they would view their Carey/Johnson etc deal differently.
If nothing else, Carlton may be more inclined to trade to get some picks, but I can't see how this would affect us.
no, we had 6,19,22
so if the blues go down, we will have 4,17,20
3 picks in the top 20 is not bad, especially considering Clayton saying a top 30 pick could easilly be as good as pick#1 in this years draft.
I dont think this will change who we will pick considering the first 3 picks are basically goddard, wells and salopek in any order.
However it does mean whoever it was (gilham?) is definately our boy with no unexpected queue jumpers like Brisbane robbing our craddle.
jumping 2 spots for our 2nd and 3rd pick is very significant I reckon. picks 17 and 20 is SO much better than picks 19 and 22!
p.s. suffer blue baggers, let the whining commence!
OldSchool
13 Nov 2002, 13:29
Originally posted by stefoid
jumping 2 spots for our 2nd and 3rd pick is very significant I reckon. picks 17 and 20 is SO much better than picks 19 and 22!
p.s. suffer blue baggers, let the whining commence!
It also opens up our third round picks because there is a number of father son selection already committed to by other clubs.