List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having too many developing small forwards at once might limit each other’s chances, but if we we are strategically going the Richmond path of having a quick team of pressure/decently skilled small guys it does make sense
 
Having too many developing small forwards at once might limit each other’s chances, but if we we are strategically going the Richmond path of having a quick team of pressure/decently skilled small guys it does make sense
On the other hand we shouldn’t pingeonhole our current developing small forwards in the one role. I could easily see McCreary as a small defender and Ginivan as a midfielder.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

On the other hand we shouldn’t pingeonhole our current developing small forwards in the one role. I could easily see McCreary as a small defender and Ginivan as a midfielder.
Ginnivan was meant to play midfield in 2020 before covid happened, according to his coach.
 
We do have some positions with enough players on the list in the right age bracket, but small forward isn’t one of them.
Yeah but what's the likelihood that enough of those young talls and mids make it and have us sorted with what we've already got. We've got no young pacy flankers for either end either. Just should go best available.
 
I see Cal Twomey's phantom draft has Daicos going at 4 - we can only hope.......
 
seems most likely with Nick confirming
1. He has not 1 interview with GWS
2. Seems like they have been told GWS arent bidding.
If it happens that way, it opens up a range of possibilities for this year's draft & 2022 as well. Bring it on!
 
Yeah but what's the likelihood that enough of those young talls and mids make it and have us sorted with what we've already got. We've got no young pacy flankers for either end either. Just should go best available.

I was merely responding to a post that implied we already had too many small forwards.
 
Any chance, instead of trading back into the second round this year, that we live trade to stockpile more 2022 picks in the hope that we can do a swap with the Lions next off season; when they are likely to want to trade out their future first for more points? Could end up with 2 x 2022 first rounders.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think its not a terrible outcome for both parties.

Its time we moved on from this Greenwood thing. Its done.
Not the least because it does not involve Collingwood in the least and never for the most fleeting of an instant evrr did.
 
Last edited:
After the Darcy bid, our first 3 picks will likely be 35, 37, 39 (pick 23 to Geelong for 32, 34 and both get used on Darcy which moves our picks forward by 1).

I wonder if we can package all 3 together for a strong pick, while bringing in 3x picks in the 60s (all of which would be brought forward significantly from all the bdis) and still have enough points for Daicos.
 
Last edited:
After the Darcy bid, our first 3 picks will likely be 35, 37, 39 (pick 23 to Geelong for 32, 34 and both get used on Darcy which moves our picks forward by 1).

I wonder if we can package all 3 together for a strong pick, while bringing in 3x picks in the 60s (all of which would be brought forward significantly from all the bdis) and still have enough points for Daicos.
35 + 39 to Melbourne for future 2nd + 45 + 53 (due to the Darcy bid)

37 + future 3rd (Hawthorn) to Essendon for future 2nd + 52

We gain 2x future 2nds (Essendon & Melbourne) while still being able to match the Daicos bid. Thoughts?

2x future 2nds can then be used to bring in an early 2nd to select an early draft slider.

Who says no?
 
Any chance, instead of trading back into the second round this year, that we live trade to stockpile more 2022 picks in the hope that we can do a swap with the Lions next off season; when they are likely to want to trade out their future first for more points? Could end up with 2 x 2022 first rounders.
And if Jordy and Moore leave we could more.
 
Late mail and confirmation of top choices.

Seems we really are getting Daics at 4...

Don't count your chickens yet, there is no guarantee that Daicos won't go at 1 or 2. GWS are apparently going for a KF in Darcy as a list need because they are stacked with midfielders only to end up with Callahan who is a midfielder? Norf will bid on Daicos because you never give your opposition a sporting chance
 
Don't count your chickens yet, there is no guarantee that Daicos won't go at 1 or 2. GWS are apparently going for a KF in Darcy as a list need because they are stacked with midfielders only to end up with Callahan who is a midfielder? Norf will bid on Daicos because you never give your opposition a sporting chance
While not giving your opposition a leg up sounds good in theory it’s not real. If we lose and advantage other teams pick up the benefit. Doesn’t leave NM in a better position. All it does is create an issue. By and large I think clubs draft for their own benefit not to knock other clubs cause it doesn’t work
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top