...club swooped in at the Rookie Draft and picked them up instead, happy to be corrected
So, that said, this is our list situation now...
In 2019, we had 47 players, 40 senior listed, 5 rookies (including Sutcliffe mid-season addition) and 2 Category B rookies
Jack Trengove, Matthew...
I couldn't care less for next years second, but am glad we didn't allow next years first to leave us, given the options we had.
It will be important.
Everything tells me that if we are to move on our #9, it will be to Gold Coast. we'll see.
...we'll have the following -
Main List - 36
Rookie A - 3
Rookie B - 1
Hard to see us reeling in another DFA, so dependent on what we do with the #9, it seems to me as though we're more likely than not to finish with a 40/4/1 split. If we do split that #9, it's almost definite that we'll...
...your viewpoint. What else do you see?
I'm not as interested in the numbers as for the opportunities.
If we don't have a clear target with the #9, why wouldn't we chance at two picks under 20 if we feel there may be something worthwhile there?
We've already moved on plenty and need to...
...a deal of sorts with what should now be their trading enemy.
Can anyone else see a deal being done here where we give up #9 and a future 2nd/3rd for #15 & #20?
Unless the CFC have a really good idea they'll be getting the player they want at #9, then this scenario could be quite a good one...
...partners? Brisbane could bring us #16 and #34 for 9/43, Geelong either #14 and #36 or #17 and #24 with some other swaps, Gold Coast chasing #9, but doubtful we could attain #15 and #20 in return. Perhaps Hawthorn's #11 and 30/42 if they want to get ahead of a McGinness bid. Port have #12, #18...
...cut of his jib, reminds me of a Liam Ryan.
Just a thought...if the players we are targeting in the ND have already been selected before pick #9, should consider brokering a deal with GCS...our pick #9 for 2019 pick #20, and their 2020 second round pick (likely again to be pick #20 before...
Kemp is da man for mine.....if he's still available at #9, would be a great win imo.
If we ended up bringing in Eddie, Pitto, Jack, Kemp....and hopefully jag a Sokol or Riccardi with a later pick, I'll have a very happy christmas!!!
So we trade #10 for #9 (I don't hate the idea of trading our 2020 1st for #9 straight up)
Then we trade #8 for #9 (unless we have secured #9 straight out, then we just swap #10 for #8)
Then assuming Carlton/Melbourne bid on him with #10 we leave the draft with:
#7, #8, #9, #10
It’s the real criticisms of Silvagni in this period. We allowed Sydney an option on #9, which really means Dodoro in this case.
And... is it any surprise that Scot Lucas would push the Papley to * approach.
Just as an example of a possibility, Geelong may have a player they love and want to move #14 up to #9, so they give us #24 for #57?
Something like that. But if a player we love slides to 9 (eg Caldwell and Stocker last year), I doubt we trade down.
Hypothetically, there could be very little splitting who is 'best available' #9, and who is at whatever pick we slide to. Alternatively, given how clubs will rate players differently, it might be exactly the same kid on our list.
Sometimes we put too much relevance on the points. There might be a big difference in getting who we want at #9, compared to #16, so you can’t just look at it as the points differential. Our future 2nd by itself should have been enough. Throwing in a 3rd was already decent overs for an out of...
You’d think that Newnes will be looked at now with another list spot to fill.
Hoping that Martin is a PSD pickup.
#9, 43, 57 & 70 at the draft (if not packaged up on draft night, or before to jump up the queue a little further).
Deluca likely to get another run at it.
Three 2020 second round picks... hmm..
If we can bump off two of those for another first this year that would make the trade:
Langdon, Hill, 2020 3rd for #10, #11, Aish, Acres
Which isn't so bad.
Even sending all three for a pick inside pick #10.
Maybe #7, #9, #10