Usage for hash tag: 9,

...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!!!

After reneging, Suns obviously wanted #9, but Martin is not worth compromising a top 10 pick over.

Or is it enhanced if it helps us to get Martin in PSD. We traded pick #4 for Stocker, #9, and by way of refusing to trade #9 to GCS we also get Martin gratis.

...before Carlton. 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...

If we get all the 1st round picks then no-one else can bid. #7, #8, #9, #10 thanks Belly. If he can't achieve that then I think we need to let him go.

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.

I agree, but it might need to be in 2020 because pick #7, #9, #10 and Henry (with Acres, Aish) might have already filled up our available spots. A pick in the 50s might not do a thing for us

At the moment yes. But when we get #5, #9, Parker and Blakely for Daniher we will all hail the mighty Dodo

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

...We've held multiple first round picks multiple times at one point in an offseason. We ****ed nearly all of them up through s**t drafting/terrible trading. We had unbelievable currency for 4 straight offseasons 99-02 1999: #15, #17 2000: #6, #8, #14 2001: #7, #14 2002: #2, #9, #18 2005...

...2008, I can't think of one player who's wanted to leave the Swans and hasn't been able to get there. If the Swans are asking for more than pick #9, then they're probably over valuing Papley's worth, but I would have thought for Carlton- pick #9 for a player of Papley's age and class would be...

or (maybe) Swans are playing hard-ball with EssenDONE no way they want to give 'em #5 and #9, so why 'do' Papely early and have #9 in hand (when they could do it as late as possible) - would be a possible reading...

...#25 to break deadlock with trading for Ah Chee and appease GC (if required) OUT: Lewy, Cutler, #16, #21, #34, #Future 1st, #Future 3rd IN: #5, #9, Ah Chee Leaves us with picks #5, #9, Ah Chee plus sufficient later picks to hopefully cover academy pickups. Could look further to deal with...

Possible Four Way Trade? Carlton IN: Papley, Martin and #58 Carlton OUT: #9, #72 and #2020 2nd Geelong IN: #9 and #2020 2nd Geelong OUT: #14 and #17 Gold Coast IN: #17, #72 Gold Coast OUT: Jack Martin, #58 Sydney IN: #14 Sydney OUT: Papley Effectively #9 for Papley, #2020 2nd Round for...

Dream scenarios, if the departures as expected are true; OUT: Daniher, Fantasia, 31, 37 IN: #5, #9, #10, Howard Or, OUT: Daniher, Fantasia, 31, 37 IN: Cameron, Papley, Howard

How on earth did you get pick 35 as the valuation there? I'd call it 25-35 just for the future second alone, and you're dealing with a different draft pool with different peaks, dips and plateaus. Don't pluck a number like that out without a clear model for the deferred income, and especially...

Current Picks: #9, #41, #46, #69, #82, #2020 R1, #2020 R2, #2020 R3 Potential Trade Assets: Levi Casboult Targets: Tom Papley, Eddie Betts, Jack Martin. Trade 1 - Eddite Betts Carlton In: Eddie Betts, Out: #82 Trade 2 - Jack Martin (Option A) Carlton In: Jack Martin and #55, Out: #46 and #2020...

Whatever we do, we should not release this and next years firsts regardless of how many seconds may come back to us. SOS is going to have to make do with #9, a future second and if need be, Casboult or Kennedy to make Papley & Martin happen.

...Reid - Pick #35, 2007 National Draft Shane Mumford - Pick #57, 2007 Rookie Draft Phil Davis - Pick #10, 2008 National Draft Matt De Boer - Pick #19, 2008 Rookie Draft Jeremy Cameron - 2011 Pre-Listing Selection Adam Kennedy - 2011 Pre-Listing Selection Nick Haynes - Pick #7, 2011 National...