2014 Potential Draftee and Trade Watch

Remove this Banner Ad

year of the cat said:
You wouldn't think we'd draft one but they may look to take a tall who can play at both ends. There's something about both Cripps and Keitel that I like if we were to take one. Cripps may even last until the rookie draft.

I like Keitel's versatility and aggression. He was good forward over the U18 champs and just as good down back when asked to move into defence.

But I think our first priority will probably be mids. Unless we trade out either Vardy or Walker (which I would think unlikely), then you'd think they'd be focussing on the likes of Weller, Laverde, Blakely etc
Click to expand...

I really like mcgovern as a prospect and also reece mckenzie.

But kpf isnt a priority for us with our existing stocks and clark coming in. Need kpd
 
meto said:
We've got quite a few number No 2's would've thought, I just want that big centre bounce ruckman, or am I behind the times?
Simpson's at least 206 or more.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, and I agree.

Only referenced a 2nd ruck because I'm struggling to see where we're going to find a ready made No. 1 ruck in time for next year, so I'm assuming we'll end up relying on HMac for that role again.

If so, I'm hoping we find, and play, a youngster that could play 2nd ruck as he develops into being No. 1.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
Lowden would be better than simpson as a depth option so i would get him.this year's crop is very weak for rucks imo so i would trade.

Pivo,will baulderstone get to the rookie draft? If both sa clubs trade for rucks they would be less likely to get him, i dont think we will have late nd picks.

I think our 2nd rounder goes to clark,we will trade hunt for a 3rd rounder which i would on trade for a depth ruck,maybe our other 3rd rounder gets newton.

Now there is no frawley i like the idea to trade our 1st for 2 early 20's picks with gws. That way we can get a good mid and a key defender
Click to expand...
Well Port, by the reports, are right into Ryder (and it sounds like Ryder wants to get there) and Gorringe recently nominated his desire to get to Port as well so I think we can assume Port won't be looking at any other ruckmen.

Haven't read much about Adelaide but they look light on in that department so they'll be on the hunt (reckon they might throw their hat in the ring for Gorringe even though the kid wants Port).

From what Strangled Cat said I reckon Baulderstone is probably a more likely rookie selection. Adelaide might bite and they'd be selecting before us.

If we want a mature type who can come in for Rd 1 we'll need to trade for one or find one late in the draft.

I liked Frampton from WA but there is no way he is ready to go next year (no young kid really is for that position).

Giles is obvious but if the main 2 on our list are right, he falls in behind them and probably gets the shits up since the reason he leaves GWS is for more games.

Perhaps we enquire about Sinclair (but he is under contract meaning WC can screw us down).

The injury concerns over McIntosh and Simpson make life hard. Perhaps one of them calls time, that makes it easier but we don't know what is happening with either of them right now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So, based on the assumption that we'll be giving up #33 for Clark (and without knowing what we'll get for trades) that means we currently have #13 and #52 as our first 2 selections.

I think the draft is deep but I don't really fancy making our second pick in the 50s.

I gather Hawthorn are still into O'Rouke and I gather it'll cost them their first pick (which seems like a no brainer for them). I am beginning to think we should talk to GWS about swapping our first selection for their two picks in the 20s.

That would give them picks 3, 13 and 18 (before compo) and our first selections would be 20 & then 23 (before compo).

After crunching some data of 3 inside mids from their Champs matches I got this;

upload_2014-10-4_20-1-27.png

Two of the players are likely Top 10 picks. Yet the stats (while only being part of it) look pretty similar.

And one of these players is possibly going to be available in the early 20s.

If we can get a guy in the 20s who put up numbers similar to two guys tipped to go Top 10 why wouldn't we want to try and double down?

It has its risks but I'd rather have my first and second picks inside the Top 30 than one in the teens and the next in the 50s.
 
The Pivotonian said:
So, based on the assumption that we'll be giving up #33 for Clark (and without knowing what we'll get for trades) that means we currently have #13 and #52 as our first 2 selections.

I think the draft is deep but I don't really fancy making our second pick in the 50s.

I gather Hawthorn are still into O'Rouke and I gather it'll cost them their first pick (which seems like a no brainer for them). I am beginning to think we should talk to GWS about swapping our first selection for their two picks in the 20s.

That would give them picks 3, 13 and 18 (before compo) and our first selections would be 20 & then 23 (before compo).

After crunching some data of 3 inside mids from their Champs matches I got this;

View attachment 84523

Two of the players are likely Top 10 picks. Yet the stats (while only being part of it) look pretty similar.

And one of these players is possibly going to be available in the early 20s.

If we can get a guy in the 20s who put up numbers similar to two guys tipped to go Top 10 why wouldn't we want to try and double down?

It has its risks but I'd rather have my first and second picks inside the Top 30 than one in the teens and the next in the 50s.
Click to expand...

Assuming we are going to use our first pick on a mid then I suppose you can try and predict what you are likely to be able to get at 13/14 compared with what may be available at 20/21 and 23/24.

From the reading I've done I reckon there is a reasonable (but certainly not guaranteed) chance that Weller could be available at 13. I'd also say it appears very unlikely he will be there in the 20's. So if you really like Weller then consider him gone if we decide to trade to the 2 picks. Similarly, I'd say there is some chance one of the likes of Laverde and Ahern (who personally I think are both guns) could drop to 13 - perhaps unlikely but still a chance I think. Again, both should be gone by the 20's.

Who should be available in the 20's? Ellis, Neal-Bullen, Smith, Garlett, Cockatoo and Langford will probably all be around. Less certain is DeGoey and Blakely who could both be available or who may go earlier in the teens.

So I suppose it comes down to where you rate the talent and where you think the talent is likely to be rated. Do you rare the talent around this mark evenly or is there a significant gap between what you are likely to get at 13 and the 2 available at 20/23?

If you really want to grab DeGoey for example, do you keep pick 13/14 knowing you probably have him or do you risk losing him knowing you could pick up both Neal-Bullen (who I think is a little underrated) and Cockatoo for example. Or if you are lucky you could have available DeGoey, Neal-Bullen and Cockatoo and be left with choice!

I don't know the answer. Just havent seen enough of them to make those more precise judgements. I suppose as "arm-chair recruiters" there are players we really like the look of and some that don't appeal as much.

I think your point though Pivo regarding our picks is an important one. If we do indeed trade pick 33 away and fail to trade back into the draft then I think that there is real merit in considering a trade of 13 for 20/23. If we are able to get back a pick in the late 20's for example then it may be a little less attractive to consider the trade.
 
Neal-Bullen is hugely under-rated I think. There was so little talk about him I figured he was bottom aged.

When I saw he was draft eligible, after watching the Champs, I was stunned so few seemed to be discussing him.

Like a number of players he has some flaws but I think he could provide some value as an inside mid.

The trick is getting that pick between 25 and 40 - perhaps Hunt gets us that.
 
Turbocat said:
Don't want to tip you hand on X Y Z Piv? . 20 and 23 not bad , but Id like 18 and 20 better.
Click to expand...
Anyone who has read my posts through the year would know who player Z is.

And I reckon people could guess X and Y.

But those number make for interesting reading don't you think?
 
The Pivotonian said:
Neal-Bullen is hugely under-rated I think. There was so little talk about him I figured he was bottom aged.

When I saw he was draft eligible, after watching the Champs, I was stunned so few seemed to be discussing him.

Like a number of players he has some flaws but I think he could provide some value as an inside mid.

The trick is getting that pick between 25 and 40 - perhaps Hunt gets us that.
Click to expand...

Hunt or Varcoe may do it. I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see whether any other names get thrown out there during the trade period.

Glad you like Neal-Bullen. I'm a fan. South Aus didn't win the champs with a bunch of chumps in the midfield but for some reason they aren't rated that highly (within the BigFooty community anyway). I think he'd be a fine recruit.
 
year of the cat said:
Hunt or Varcoe may do it. I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see whether any other names get thrown out there during the trade period.

Glad you like Neal-Bullen. I'm a fan. South Aus didn't win the champs with a bunch of chumps in the midfield but for some reason they aren't rated that highly (within the BigFooty community anyway). I think he'd be a fine recruit.
Click to expand...
In Victoria it is very Vic centric.

I get why, the majority of players come from this state but it does mean a lot of players in other states get no coverage.

You can bet the recruiters don't miss them though.
 
The Pivotonian said:
Anyone who has read my posts through the year would know who player Z is.

And I reckon people could guess X and Y.

But those number make for interesting reading don't you think?
Click to expand...

Forgive my memory , a lot of Aluminium pots etc. If I have a few pings will you tell me if I was close.

Blakely is one the letters? Petracca and Brayshaw the others? Just a guess.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Pivotonian said:
In Victoria it is very Vic centric.

I get why, the majority of players come from this state but it does mean a lot of players in other states get no coverage.

You can bet the recruiters don't miss them though.
Click to expand...

Probably true . but we are not. We seem to favor out of state as much as local. What do you think of Dean Gore?
 
Turbocat said:
Probably true . but we are not. We seem to favor out of state as much as local. What do you think of Dean Gore?
Click to expand...
Don't mind him at all as a medium forward type (with an eye at getting him into the midfield in time).

Tidy finisher from memory.
 
Turbocat said:
Good kicking results at DC , under the radar type.
Click to expand...
The couple of games I say he looked like a guy who could hurt you with limited possies.

Him and Rose caught the eye a bit for SA with limited touches.
 
 
So we put in a bid for Abe Davis (pick 70) which was matched by the Swans.

Abe Davis
Tall forward/defender
193cm/90kg
27/1/96
UNSW-Easts/Sydney Swans Academy
"Abe has taken remarkable steps in the past 12 months. He was fantastic last year during the NAB AFL Under-18 Championships playing back, and this year he's predominantly played forward. He's a strong mark and competes hard, and when he gets good delivery he presents well and can kick goals. He's a good size and is really versatile but we'd like to see him play as a forward this carnival."

A pointer to our thinking or Geelong just seeing some potential in a NSW kid and throwing a late pick into the mix to see if we could land him?


 
The Pivotonian said:
So we put in a bid for Abe Davis (pick 70) which was matched by the Swans.

Abe Davis
Tall forward/defender
193cm/90kg
27/1/96
UNSW-Easts/Sydney Swans Academy
"Abe has taken remarkable steps in the past 12 months. He was fantastic last year during the NAB AFL Under-18 Championships playing back, and this year he's predominantly played forward. He's a strong mark and competes hard, and when he gets good delivery he presents well and can kick goals. He's a good size and is really versatile but we'd like to see him play as a forward this carnival."

A pointer to our thinking or Geelong just seeing some potential in a NSW kid and throwing a late pick into the mix to see if we could land him?

Click to expand...

Interesting. If they were prepared to use a pick on this kid then I wonder now how many picks they are intending to use come draft day? Maybe they just rated him?
 
The Pivotonian said:
So we put in a bid for Abe Davis (pick 70) which was matched by the Swans.

Abe Davis
Tall forward/defender
193cm/90kg
27/1/96
UNSW-Easts/Sydney Swans Academy
"Abe has taken remarkable steps in the past 12 months. He was fantastic last year during the NAB AFL Under-18 Championships playing back, and this year he's predominantly played forward. He's a strong mark and competes hard, and when he gets good delivery he presents well and can kick goals. He's a good size and is really versatile but we'd like to see him play as a forward this carnival."

A pointer to our thinking or Geelong just seeing some potential in a NSW kid and throwing a late pick into the mix to see if we could land him?

Click to expand...

How does this work?

In this instance, does the GFC only get one crack at it, and have no right of reply once their bid is matched?
 
Cataholic said:
How does this work?

In this instance, does the GFC only get one crack at it, and have no right of reply once their bid is matched?
Click to expand...
Yep, you get one crack at it.

If the team that has "the rights" to a player matches a bid (i.e. gives up their next available selection) the bidding team loses out.

There was some discussion about this earlier in this thread but I have read the AFL is likely to re-vamp the bidding system for Father-Son and Academy players from next year.

Be interesting to see what falls out of that.
 
The Pivotonian said:
Yep, you get one crack at it.

If the team that has "the rights" to a player matches a bid (i.e. gives up their next available selection) the bidding team loses out.

There was some discussion about this earlier in this thread but I have read the AFL is likely to re-vamp the bidding system for Father-Son and Academy players from next year.

Be interesting to see what falls out of that.
Click to expand...

Thanks TP.

I thought that was the case, but my knowledge of such matters is almost negligent so I thought it best to ask.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top