News Taylor Adams coming to Pies? Hine: "Yeah, I think so"

[TradeDraft]

Twitter and FB, nothing official from clubs though.

Not mentioned yet on Trade Radio.

Yeah from Facebook or Twitter you have to take it as a Grain of Salt.

 

[DaVe86]

Boy oh boy we like to make things complicated don't we.

I think at the start of the trade period most people were quite open for pick 11 for Adams.

Then Shaw came along and we were quite happy for the Cats pick 15. Then with the GWS nomination a straight swap seemed reasonable. Therefore I think a happy result for us would simply be Shaw for Adams & we keep 10 & 11 and we had 27 for White or whoever else. A swap with GWS 35 would be the same result. We were all high fiving that last week.

However as is the nature of these things everyone likes a deal where they think they have had a win.

The talk of WCE 6 for 27 & 11 is interesting, but probably need it sweetened with a later pick (say 40). If that was done we would then want to keep the 6.

We could then look at moving pick 10 & shaw to GWS for their pick 19, Adams and maybe a swap of later picks in our favour to perhaps still lure White with - e.g. 35 for 40.

If this went ahead we would have Pick 6, 19, 35 & Adams but lose picks 10,11,27 & Shaw.

Thats a whole lot of running around for effectively getting the #6. To do this we would want to have a very specific purpose for doing so.

Is 6 & 19 better than 10 & 11, I guess that is the question. On my basic knowledge of this years talent pool I would say there is not much difference, unless we have a specific player in mind that we are desperate to add to our list. Players like Scharenburg, Lennon or Billings could be such types that are a bit unique & may not be around at 10. Or a Kelly or Aish may slide to this pick. The pick 19 will still get us a good player with the possibility of guys like Sheed, Crouch, Acres even Bontempelli sliding.

I'm of the opinion that pick 10 + 11 is better than 6 + 19.

I'm not a draft expert like some others, but based on all the research I am doing I am happy to pretty mcuh get anyone who is ranked between 6-15 at the moment.

The beauty of having back to back picks is that we can have a plan.

Ie: One outsider, one insider
Or we can get McCarthy as a tall and a midfielder

Or we can go for one explosive risky pick, and one safer pick like a Crouch or something.

On the other hand, if you have a big space between picks, it's hard to have a plan because you don't know who is gone by your next pick.

It may be a case where guys like Bontempelli, Crouch, Lennon, McCarthy etc are all available at pick 10, and we simply just pick the 2 best available.

Whereas at pick 6 we might get a guy like Sharenberg or Aish...but would have no idea what is available by pick 19. All our favoured kids may be taken.

I'd keep it simple. Shaw for Adams and walk away saying we probably broke even.

 

[Iskender Time]

Yeah from Facebook or Twitter you have to take it as a Grain of Salt.

But you have a welcome thread typed up in a browser tab ready to press post as soon as the confirmation comes in, right?

 

[TradeDraft]

But you have a welcome thread typed up in a browser tab ready to press post as soon as the confirmation comes in, right?

Sure Do. Been 30 Minutes since that was Posted. So I am doubting it's True Now

 

[danielnajdek]

Ah yes the old and trusted FB page.

 

[4#Didak#4]

I'm of the opinion that pick 10 + 11 is better than 6 + 19.

I'm not a draft expert like some others, but based on all the research I am doing I am happy to pretty mcuh get anyone who is ranked between 6-15 at the moment.

The beauty of having back to back picks is that we can have a plan.

Ie: One outsider, one insider
Or we can get McCarthy as a tall and a midfielder

Or we can go for one explosive risky pick, and one safer pick like a Crouch or something.

On the other hand, if you have a big space between picks, it's hard to have a plan because you don't know who is gone by your next pick.

It may be a case where guys like Bontempelli, Crouch, Lennon, McCarthy etc are all available at pick 10, and we simply just pick the 2 best available.

Whereas at pick 6 we might get a guy like Sharenberg or Aish...but would have no idea what is available by pick 19. All our favoured kids may be taken.

I'd keep it simple. Shaw for Adams and walk away saying we probably broke even.

I agree I am a massive fan of back to back picks it served us so well last year! We can't go to far wrong with 10 & 11.

However, I am more than happy for the mastermind Hine to decide if one of those 4-9 rated picks is a must have for us though. I would say Aish & Kelly won't slip, but outside that its open and Lennon, Scharenburg & Billings are a bit different to the rest (other than McCarthy & maybe Kolo...) who are pretty much evenly rated.

If the deal did go through this way I would have my money on Hine seeing one of those top 10 kids as being massively underated and on top of his rating list where others don't have him & a big chance at 6 - much like he did with Pendles at #5. If I was a betting man I would say its someone like Lennon, Scharenburg & Billings that he would be after. Lennon in particular is growing on me as a type we could use & a type that has some special attributes that could make him a great player. He would almost certainly be there at 6.

 

[Lord Wilberforce]

I'm of the opinion that pick 10 + 11 is better than 6 + 19.

I'm not a draft expert like some others, but based on all the research I am doing I am happy to pretty mcuh get anyone who is ranked between 6-15 at the moment.

The beauty of having back to back picks is that we can have a plan.

Ie: One outsider, one insider
Or we can get McCarthy as a tall and a midfielder

Or we can go for one explosive risky pick, and one safer pick like a Crouch or something.

On the other hand, if you have a big space between picks, it's hard to have a plan because you don't know who is gone by your next pick.

It may be a case where guys like Bontempelli, Crouch, Lennon, McCarthy etc are all available at pick 10, and we simply just pick the 2 best available.

Whereas at pick 6 we might get a guy like Sharenberg or Aish...but would have no idea what is available by pick 19. All our favoured kids may be taken.

I'd keep it simple. Shaw for Adams and walk away saying we probably broke even.

The article in the HUN was suggesting that we'd only be giving up 10 OR 11 in combination with a later pick. So 6 and 10/11 looks better than 6 and 19.

 

[larrikan]

Hine will already know what picks he needs and for who...what we think about pick numbers is irrelevant.
What might seem wrong to us will be part of a master plan that will benefit us.

At least we know our team is in there fighting. Some clubs seem to sit on their hands and do nothing.

Well, just waiting for the welcome to Collingwood Taylor Adams thread now

 

[johncitizen]

This is great!!! From the Herald Sun..They are going for Boyd in my opinion..Pulling the trigger?

The deal would ensure Collingwood would spearhead its draft assault with picks 6 and 10, but the Pies last night suggested they would want more before pulling the trigger.

 

[GETSOMENUTS]

Well, just waiting for the welcome to Collingwood Taylor Adams thread now

So long as we dont cough up any sweetener. They should be sweetening the deal on our end

 

[TradeDraft]

.Well, just waiting for the welcome to Collingwood Taylor Adams thread now

Don't Hold your Breath

 

[the distributer]

I'm of the opinion that pick 10 + 11 is better than 6 + 19.

I'm not a draft expert like some others, but based on all the research I am doing I am happy to pretty mcuh get anyone who is ranked between 6-15 at the moment.

The beauty of having back to back picks is that we can have a plan.

Ie: One outsider, one insider
Or we can get McCarthy as a tall and a midfielder

Or we can go for one explosive risky pick, and one safer pick like a Crouch or something.

On the other hand, if you have a big space between picks, it's hard to have a plan because you don't know who is gone by your next pick.

It may be a case where guys like Bontempelli, Crouch, Lennon, McCarthy etc are all available at pick 10, and we simply just pick the 2 best available.

Whereas at pick 6 we might get a guy like Sharenberg or Aish...but would have no idea what is available by pick 19. All our favoured kids may be taken.

I'd keep it simple. Shaw for Adams and walk away saying we probably broke even.

If we get Adam for Shaw then we really have to look at MaCarthy with one of our picks IMO, that will give us 2 mids (Adams included) and a KF prospect, unless of course Hine-Rendal don't rate McCarthy- or- want to wait for next years KF crop.

 

[Pendles!]

If we get Adam for Shaw then we really have to look at MaCarthy with one of our picks IMO, that will give us 2 mids (Adams included) and a KF prospect, unless of course Hine-Rendal don't rate McCarthy- or- want to wait for next years KF crop.

I get the feeling they will wait until next years crop, but if they think McCarthy is best availible at our pick then they will take him.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

What is all that about? All I've heard is 200 game player who is captaincy material and an all round stand up bloke.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-bar-altercation/story-e6frf3e3-1226253844794

 

[TradeDraft]

Been Over a Hour so I am saying that Rumor was the Usual Crap from FaceBook

 

[4#Didak#4]

The article in the HUN was suggesting that we'd only be giving up 10 OR 11 in combination with a later pick. So 6 and 10/11 looks better than 6 and 19.

Problem is that our second rounder is burnt and we get no real return for it other than move up 4 spots on our first rounder and I don't think that is worth it. The second rounder is a valid bargaining chip & is the key for Jesse White if we want him. Late picks delivered by WCE will not get the job done with White unless we can bend Sydney over.

So the scenario you are suggesting is really 6, 10 & a middling third rounder instead of say 10,11 & Jesse White. I think the latter is way more bankable. We could however swing 6,19 & White which is more on the money if we liked that #6 so much.

 

[jimmy35]

The Swans want * all for White relax.

 

[4#Didak#4]

The Swans want **** all for White relax.

The Swans have stated they want a second round pick for him, at worst an early third round.

I am not that fussed if we get him or not, but the cost suggested by the HUN of moving up 4 or 5 spots in the draft order is not great, based on some suggestions that cost would be White or our second round pick.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Why do we care about White, he'll be playing reserves with lynch and Paine

Agreed

 

[jimmy35]

The Swans have stated they want a second round pick for him, at worst an early third round.

I am not that fussed if we get him or not, but the cost suggested by the HUN of moving up 4 or 5 spots in the draft order is not great, based on some suggestions that cost would be White or our second round pick.

To you or is that out of the paper?

 

[Lefthanded]

The Swans want **** all for White relax.

What they want and what they'll accept are two different things. Want > accept
Last year they wanted to involve him in the trade for Tippett and he's had a bit of a breakout year (by his standards) so worth more now. I think late 2nd round to early 3rd is fair price and hence hasn't happened yet as it's less than our 2nd round and better than our 3rd.

 

[jimmy35]

What they want and what they'll accept are two different things. Want > accept
Last year they wanted to involve him in the trade for Tippett and he's had a bit of a breakout year (by his standards) so worth more now. I think late 2nd round to early 3rd is fair price and hence hasn't happened yet as it's less than our 2nd round and better than our 3rd.

Like Mumford they're happy to let White get to where he wants to go for minimal cost. He's surplus to their requirements.
You can be sure the Pies know it too, hence the lack of urgency.

 

[Lefthanded]

Like Mumford they're happy to let White get to where he wants to go for minimal cost. He's surplus to their requirements.
You can be sure the Pies know it too, hence the lack of urgency.

We don't actually know what Sydney got or will get for Mumford yet do we? One difference I heard with him was that he could just go into pre season draft where GWS are 1. Would be slightly more complicated than that for White (who would also be on less coin than Mumford so not as much of a priority for Swans to offload).

Hoping you're right! (Just seems that if it was simple it would have been done pre Adams / Shaw.)

 

[doona]

Like Mumford they're happy to let White get to where he wants to go for minimal cost. He's surplus to their requirements.
You can be sure the Pies know it too, hence the lack of urgency.

We cant afford Mummy, GWS have the PSD pick 1 so we have no choice. Plus the AFL will not care.

With White, we stated we want a 2nd rounder or early 3rd. A fair price. I think we will let him walk in the ND or PSD rather then take unders in a shallow draft.

If you get him in a draft, we loose nothing because we wouldnt use the pick you were offering. If we play hard ball get what we want, we win. If he ends up at another team in the draft we loose nothing you dont get a player you have been chasing (He is an upgrade on Lynch, Massively).

So, although we want the trade to happen, if you want him deal. If you are indifferent, risk the draft.

 

[jimmy35]

We cant afford Mummy, GWS have the PSD pick 1 so we have no choice. Plus the AFL will not care.

With White, we stated we want a 2nd rounder or early 3rd. A fair price. I think we will let him walk in the ND or PSD rather then take unders in a shallow draft.

If you get him in a draft, we loose nothing because we wouldnt use the pick you were offering. If we play hard ball get what we want, we win. If he ends up at another team in the draft we loose nothing you dont get a player you have been chasing (He is an upgrade on Lynch, Massively).

So, although we want the trade to happen, if you want him deal. If you are indifferent, risk the draft.

3rd or 4th for White depending on the washup from other trades and movements and depending on what picks the Pies end up with. As I understand it the Pies will give best available.