News 2019 Rumour File - discuss rumours here! (Part 2)

[Kane McGoodwin]

If we really wanted that 2020 1st from them and melbourne have passed on bidding on green on the night then before we name green as a bid could we not swap pick 4 for 6 and their 2020 1st and maybe we give them a 2020 2nd (bulldogs not ours) or 2020 3rd back to help offset the big points loss they will take. Really it should be almost a no brainer from their end unless they think they will get a better player with their late 1st they will likely get next year than a top 4 pick this year. And that is not likely to be the case. Therefore why waste resources trading back down just to save a 2020 1st rounder when they can get 2 x top 5 rated kids now.

Why do we want to bank 1st rounders next year?

Next year is compromised & we have 2 bid prospects so points more an issue for us.

Further we need the best picks this year given we need to replace plenty of players, so pushing back picks to next year is crazy.

We should only be trading pick 4 if it allows us to get 2 top 10 picks this year. We have never had an opportunity to draft a top 5 player before so would need significant overs to give up the opportunity.

 

[Elite Crow]

They stuffed up!

Unlikely

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Unlikely

We will see...

 

[spenze]

I am of the opinion that we should just hold it.

Given the way we have travelled recently, just dont be cute. Its bound to backfire. Hell, the pick swap nearly didnt come off in the end.

Yeah, holding it sounds like the best plan. If it was getting sold off, I'd want something far better than mid first range picks

 

[Crow till I die]

Why do we want to bank 1st rounders next year?

Next year is compromised & we have 2 bid prospects so points more an issue for us.

Further we need the best picks this year given we need to replace plenty of players, so pushing back picks to next year is crazy.

We should only be trading pick 4 if it allows us to get 2 top 10 picks this year. We have never had an opportunity to draft a top 5 player before so would need significant overs to give up the opportunity.

I'd drop 2 spots in this draft for an extra 1st next year that we could use to trade back into this years draft if we wanted. It is only a drop of 2 spots

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'd drop 2 spots in this draft for an extra 1st next year that we could use to trade back into this years draft if we wanted. It is only a drop of 2 spots

Sure, but why would GWS...

 

[Crow till I die]

Sure, but why would GWS...

Read my first post that you responded to..it sums it up

 

[TryAnHit]

Sure, but why would GWS...

Because then can get a top 4 pick and green (2 top 4 picks... for pick 6 + 2020 1st + rubbish picks)

 

[jackster83]

I'd drop 2 spots in this draft for an extra 1st next year that we could use to trade back into this years draft if we wanted. It is only a drop of 2 spots

I wouldn't.

Will likely be pick 21 after academy picks as well as the ongoing GC draft concessions.

 

[ams4crows]

If we really wanted that 2020 1st from them and melbourne have passed on bidding on green on the night then before we name green as a bid could we not swap pick 4 for 6 and their 2020 1st and maybe we give them a 2020 2nd (bulldogs not ours) or 2020 3rd back to help offset the big points loss they will take. Really it should be almost a no brainer from their end unless they think they will get a better player with their late 1st they will likely get next year than a top 4 pick this year. And that is not likely to be the case. Therefore why waste resources trading back down just to save a 2020 1st rounder when they can get 2 x top 5 rated kids now.

Why are we helping them get 2 top 5 picks?? We should be asking for 6 2020 1st and pick 40 as a starting point, give us what we want or they have to use pick 6 and extra to get Green, they just played in a grandfinal we shouldn't be helping them at all... I'd ask for 3 firsts if we could.

They stuffed up trading for 6 which was worth less points, they new an early bid was likely particulary from us. Pay a randsom or cop it on the chin.

 

[tinman]

Why would Freo be interested at all in trading up? I just can't see it unless it's for pick 3 which gives them carte blanche to select any player other than the big 2 and Green and still get their Academy guy Henry via points even if they go into deficit anyhow? Or am I reading it all wrong? 7 and 10 gets them their Academy guy Liam Henry and another prospective top liner anyhow.....only other WA player likely to go in the top 10 is Luke Jackson even though there is some real quality from WA in this particular draft, better than SA in this draft IMO.

I can see Deven Robertson going earlier than many predict. Hasn't done a lot wrong and looks class.

If we hold our current hand he's too early for our first selection and won't make it to our second. But if picks change hands I'd be delighted to see him at the Crows.

 

[spenze]

Why the hell would we want GWS first round next year?

I mean if they gave it to us for our pick in the 20s...I could see it but anything to do with us moving 4-6...if they wanted pick 4 for 6, should have traded Hateley

 

[BunjiMac]

It's easy to say that if talent was rated on a static list everyone picks from. If you rate a player as the best player available on your list, but you know you can move down and still get him and improve later picks, why wouldn't you do that?

I just think just stop trying to be so smart and take the pick.

The cynic in me still says people (including Hamish) trade down to take the pressure off themselves. They can effectively take more of a gamble and if it works, they say exactly what you've just said. If it doesn't, well, it's a lower pick anyway so you can't expect too much.

Prove me wrong Hamish, take the pick.

If he genuinely believes the 4th best talent exists at a later pick and that he is certain we will get him, then sure, do the trade. However this pick will come with the greatest expectation this club has seen regardless of where it ultimately ends up. The AFC fans will be expecting the player picked to be one of the top 4 players to come out of this draft regardless of whether it's 7 or 10 etc.

We cannot get this wrong.

 

[MRB37]

I just think just stop trying to be so smart and take the pick.

The cynic in me still says people (including Hamish) trade down to take the pressure off themselves. They can effectively take more of a gamble and if it works, they say exactly what you've just said. If it doesn't, well, it's a lower pick anyway so you can't expect too much.

Prove me wrong Hamish, take the pick.

If he genuinely believes the 4th best talent exists at a later pick and that he is certain we will get him, then sure, do the trade. However this pick will come with the greatest expectation this club has seen regardless of where it ultimately ends up. The AFC fans will be expecting the player picked to be one of the top 4 players to come out of this draft regardless of whether it's 7 or 10 etc.

We cannot get this wrong.

All reports are that outside the top 2 there's no real set order after that. That is likely going to cause a lot of different talent lists between the teams, which is going to have guys higher on some lists and lower on others and give plenty of scope for teams to move up/down to get who they want.

Even if we moved down to 6/7/10 it's still a high pick that'll have expectations on them.

 

[Drewie11]

The only swap Adelaide should be doing with 4 is with Fremantle.

If we could swap 4 & 45 7 & 10 then that’s the only option I think we should do. I just can’t see Fremantle doing it. They will get a player before Carlton bid on Henry. Unless they really want Jackson and they know someone will take him before 7 rolls around.

The swap for 6 and GWS future first (likely 15ish) is a horrible trade

 

[Mego Red]

The only swap Adelaide should be doing with 4 is with Fremantle.

If we could swap 4 & 45 7 & 10 then that’s the only option I think we should do. I just can’t see Fremantle doing it. They will get a player before Carlton bid on Henry. Unless they really want Jackson and they know someone will take him before 7 rolls around.

The swap for 6 and GWS future first (likely 15ish) is a horrible trade

That doesn't really make sense.

Any trade where you can get the player you want AND an additional asset is worth doing.

If we do want Stephens, say, it would be insanity taking him at 4 when the earliest he's projected to go is 7 to Freo.

Move to 6, grab the extra first and make it part of the package for Luko or, ironically, Hately.

 

[ams4crows]

People are quick to jump to "that's a bad trade" before the whole thing has panned out,
If someone said move 2 places down but the pick you get next year means you have currency to trade for Luko.
Or GWS have a Melbourne like season and crash to the bottom and it ends up being a a Top 5 pick, everyone assumes they'll be good again we've seen what happens to teams who get rmbarrassed in the GF.

People want to judge straight away but we can't do it, if it involves a pick next year.

 

[Elite Crow]

I was told yesterday from a friend of campos brother that Camporeale had his contract renewed for a further 2 years just before the review. WTF

Any idea how long before?

There have been others who mentioned he had his contract renewed and that’s why he had a payout.

If it was just during the season that’s not as bad as just before the review, it would show how clueless our management really is.

 

[MRB37]

I was told yesterday from a friend of campos brother that Camporeale had his contract renewed for a further 2 years just before the review. WTF

Not a surprise TBH, Chapman LOVES Campo, if it wasn't for the external review and the rest of the board getting to hear Dunstall's presentation he would have been backed in again.

 

[Elite Crow]

Not a surprise TBH, Chapman LOVES Campo, if it wasn't for the external review and the rest of the board getting to hear Dunstall's presentation he would have been backed in again.

****ing Chapman. He has to go now.

 

[Drewie11]

That doesn't really make sense.

Any trade where you can get the player you want AND an additional asset is worth doing.

If we do want Stephens, say, it would be insanity taking him at 4 when the earliest he's projected to go is 7 to Freo.

Move to 6, grab the extra first and make it part of the package for Luko or, ironically, Hately.

We should have just kept 8 and 19 then.

I would rather trade 8, 19 and 45 for 7 and 10 compared to 8 and 19 for 6 and 15ish

 

[Drewie11]

People are quick to jump to "that's a bad trade" before the whole thing has panned out,
If someone said move 2 places down but the pick you get next year means you have currency to trade for Luko.
Or GWS have a Melbourne like season and crash to the bottom and it ends up being a a Top 5 pick, everyone assumes they'll be good again we've seen what happens to teams who get rmbarrassed in the GF.

People want to judge straight away but we can't do it, if it involves a pick next year.

And what if Lukosious signs in June for3 years and GWS win the flag. You’d be happy with that outcome?

I would rather go for what we have unless we get 2 top 12 picks for 4. If we have a top 5 pick next year like people think we have and Lukosious doesn’t sign then that’s a long way to getting the deal done anyway.

 

[Mego Red]

We should have just kept 8 and 19 then.

I would rather trade 8, 19 and 45 for 7 and 10 compared to 8 and 19 for 6 and 15ish

We never had both 8 and 19.

We had 19 and we had the opportunity to flip picks. 19 gave us the opportunity to benefit from Carlton's rebuild.

Besides the fact nobody saw us being as bad as 8 - 19 and 8 still wouldn't get you pick 4.

 

[1970crow]

We should have just kept 8 and 19 then.

I would rather trade 8, 19 and 45 for 7 and 10 compared to 8 and 19 for 6 and 15ish

I wouldn’t get bogged down with the numbers. We’ll only trade down if we think we’re overpaying for our guy at the original pick or if we think there’s little difference in a group from our pick. It will need another club who sees it the opposite to us as well, otherwise why would they trade up.

 

[Footypie32]

Starting to put the pieces together on this offseason...

I believe Chapman, Roo, Burton et al went to Fagan saying they wanted Pyke gone, he's the problem. Fagan said he thought the problems ran deeper.
The boys club stuck their heels in. Fagan then countered, saying he would agree to part with Pyke if the Boys Club agreed to an external review of the Footy department and implemented the suggested outcomes. The Boys Club said there was no need, Pyke is the whole problem. Fagan responded that if they were so sure, the review would support their position. They finally agreed.
Chapman goes around slapping backs, handing out new contracts. Sacks Pyke.
But then the results of the review come in...

Fagan holds the Boys Club to their word...

Apologies if this is already common knowledge, just trying to get my head around it.