2012 Draft - Whitfield or Grundy??

[IanW]

Hypothetically speaking if you could get say pick 4 & 13 from Melbourne for Martin and your 2nd rounder and say pick 6 from Doggies for Hogan you would have picks 2, 4, 6, 13, 20ish. How many draft picks are you likely to actually use. Would the club go for something like our pick 9 for 13 & 20 seems there is a chance you won't take more than 4 kids anyway and it would give you 4 picks in the top 9.

I agree generally, but a 9 for a 13 and a 20 isnt value.

My guess is this offseason GWS will look for 4 experienced players to replace the Geriatrics with Scully, and 3 draft picks.

I think it would be more likely we'd use it as trade bait for an experienced ruckman and another big-bodied defender.

 

[tigs2010]

I agree generally, but a 9 for a 13 and a 20 isnt value.

My guess is this offseason GWS will look for 4 experienced players to replace the Geriatrics with Scully, and 3 draft picks.

I think it would be more likely we'd use it as trade bait for an experienced ruckman and another big-bodied defender.

Fair enough. Was just thinking if you had 5 first rounders and were only going to use 4 then you may as well trade the 4th and 5th for a better 4th pick rather than just passing on the last one. Talk on our board is we will take Vlastuin first so we could probably still get him with a later pick (13). It would be win-win. If you were going to use the 5 picks then obviously you wouldn't bother.

 

[IanW]

Fair enough. Was just thinking if you had 5 first rounders and were only going to use 4 then you may as well trade the 4th and 5th for a better 4th pick rather than just passing on the last one. Talk on our board is we will take Vlastuin first so we could probably still get him with a later pick (13). It would be win-win. If you were going to use the 5 picks then obviously you wouldn't bother.

Tig2010,

There are still compo picks out there that are owned by other clubs. We want to own them all, as they extend our advantages over time, and sooner or later we'll need to reload with cheap but talented rookies.

Its much more likely we'd trade, say, our 3-7 picks to Port for a 2, and then trade our last first round pick and our 2 and Ports 2 for someone's compo pick.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I was looking at last year's draft and trades recently and unless I'm mistaken we ended up with three compensation picks which we haven't used yet, an end of first round pick we traded for pick 20 to Freo, a first round compo pick we got from Adelaide for the #2 mini draft pick and another first round compo pick from the gold coast that was wrapped up in the O'Meara deal.

Do we have to use them this draft or can we hold them over? Should we trade them on for players? And two are described as "first round compensation pick" while one is "end of first round compensation pick" what is the difference?

As for Whitfield or Grundy - won't we have to wait until we see who the Gold Coast take first and then get whoever is left?

 

[IanW]

We can, and will, hold them over.

I believe the plan is to use them as late as possible, after we have cut down our list and traded out the not-quite good enough players ... at that point, we should have four first round picks in the 2015 draft. Oh. Do I see bundling picks to take two top rookies ? Yes, I do !

A first round pick is just after your usual first round spot. An end of first round pick is at the end of the first round.

If Sos has faith in Giles and Phillips, its not impossible we'd pass completely on Grundy.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

We have actually activated the compensation pick that adelaide gave us to security a pick in last years mini draft. (so given its linked to Adelaide that will translate into a late first rd pick). But we still have the other two compensation picks banked away.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Looks like we will get both now. Would be great additions to a promising squad.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Yes looks that way, and have to say if the suns had of got Whitfield to join O'Meara up there it could be a bit of an advantage for them over us.
But now it looks like we will now end up with both Whitfield and Grundy which is an excellent result for us.

 

[snitzel]

how would we get both? sorry

 

[Scully2Folau]

how would we get both? sorry

I'm guessing through a trade of a mini draft pick for an early first rounder (Suns?)

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Yep that's right as the Suns have indicated if they finish 2nd last they will give that pick to get 1st pick in our mini draft which would mean we would get pick 1 & 2 in the draft. But if we happen to beat melb next week that all changes.

 

[Tulip]

Hypothetically speaking if you could get say pick 4 & 13 from Melbourne for Martin and your 2nd rounder and say pick 6 from Doggies for Hogan you would have picks 2, 4, 6, 13, 20ish. How many draft picks are you likely to actually use. Would the club go for something like our pick 9 for 13 & 20 seems there is a chance you won't take more than 4 kids anyway and it would give you 4 picks in the top 9.

Just in here to say that there isn't a chance in hell Melbourne would use two picks on a 17 year old kid, when we need the talent immediately.

 

[dlanod]

Yep that's right as the Suns have indicated if they finish 2nd last they will give that pick to get 1st pick in our mini draft which would mean we would get pick 1 & 2 in the draft. But if we happen to beat melb next week that all changes.

Have they really indicated that? I know there's a lot of speculation but I'm yet to see anything from the GC indicating that they'd give up pick 2, just that they'd be interested in the MD again (some time ago).

Gut feel says it'll be:
#1 Whitfield
#2 Toumpas? Not Grundy anyway.
#3 Viney
#4 Grundy

Then it just depends whether Melbourne still has pick 4, or if they'd traded the pick to us for Martin/Hogan.

 

[Blackas87]

Hypothetically speaking if you could get say pick 4 & 13 from Melbourne for Martin and your 2nd rounder and say pick 6 from Doggies for Hogan you would have picks 2, 4, 6, 13, 20ish. How many draft picks are you likely to actually use. Would the club go for something like our pick 9 for 13 & 20 seems there is a chance you won't take more than 4 kids anyway and it would give you 4 picks in the top 9.

Martin isn't even a guaranteed top 5 pick in next years weaker draft, we aren't going to give up pick 4 and 13 for him, I doubt GWS will even get a top 10 pick for him considering how strong this draft is up the top, he is not in the same category as O'meara or even Couch

There are 3 standouts in this years draft, Whitfield, Grundy and Toumpas, we aren't trading these picks knowing we'll get 2 of them after Viney probably gets nominated by GWS or GC, not going to complain about 2 of the 3 standouts in a superdraft, thankyou very much.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Have they really indicated that? I know there's a lot of speculation but I'm yet to see anything from the GC indicating that they'd give up pick 2, just that they'd be interested in the MD again (some time ago).

Gut feel says it'll be:
#1 Whitfield
#2 Toumpas? Not Grundy anyway.
#3 Viney
#4 Grundy

Then it just depends whether Melbourne still has pick 4, or if they'd traded the pick to us for Martin/Hogan.

The Suns Scott Clayton has previously stated that he expects them to be players in this years mini draft as they were last year. So that where talk of them being prepared to offer pick 2 stems from.
So why do you see Grundy being pick 4 and not 2?
Mind you I know the club has had a couple of chats with Toumpas so you might not be far off the mark there, but no doubt there done that with a number of players.

 

[dlanod]

The Suns Scott Clayton has previously stated that he expects them to be players in this years mini draft as they were last year. So that where talk of them being prepared to offer pick 2 stems from.
So why do you see Grundy being pick 4 and not 2?
Mind you I know the club has had a couple of chats with Toumpas so you might not be far off the mark there, but no doubt there done that with a number of players.

The scenario where Grundy gets taken at pick 2 and not pick 4 is if GC trades pick 2 for a MD pick and Melbourne doesn't trade pick 4 for one. If GC holds on to pick 2, I doubt they'll take Grundy. I'm assuming Viney will be pick 3. Melbourne needs a ruckman to replace Jamar in a few years, so Grundy will look tempting at pick 4. If they trade it to us, then Grundy will also probably be taken there. That's my thinking.

 

[Wise Guy Sam]

Melbourne have 4 young promising rucks in Gawn (2nd tallest man in AFL played a few games but does have knee issues), Spencer (starting to show something), Fitzpatrick (young kid starting to dominate in the VFL) and stef Martin.

I'd be suprised if we picked Grundy.

I'd say (and hope) we will be after mids if we hold onto our picks.

 

[Danair]

Martin isn't even a guaranteed top 5 pick in next years weaker draft, we aren't going to give up pick 4 and 13 for him, I doubt GWS will even get a top 10 pick for him considering how strong this draft is up the top, he is not in the same category as O'meara or even Couch

There are 3 standouts in this years draft, Whitfield, Grundy and Toumpas, we aren't trading these picks knowing we'll get 2 of them after Viney probably gets nominated by GWS or GC, not going to complain about 2 of the 3 standouts in a superdraft, thankyou very much.

If Viney gets nominated by GWS or GC your club will be taking him at pick 3, you are not fooling anybody.

 

[Blackas87]

Melbourne have 4 young promising rucks in Gawn (2nd tallest man in AFL played a few games but does have knee issues), Spencer (starting to show something), Fitzpatrick (young kid starting to dominate in the VFL) and stef Martin.

I'd be suprised if we picked Grundy.

I'd say (and hope) we will be after mids if we hold onto our picks.

Grundy can also play as a big key forward next to Clark which our coach loves those sort of players, no need to go after Cloke then, and he'll also be the best rucman in the league in a few years time, it's like a team with too many midfielders saying we're not going to take the next Gary Ablett jr.

If Viney gets nominated by GWS or GC your club will be taking him at pick 3, you are not fooling anybody.

Don't know about that, Viney would be lucky to be a top 10 pick, the top 3 are way ahead, our new coach is here to take us back up the ladder, not create fairytales.

 

[Danair]

Grundy can also play as a big key forward next to Clark which our coach loves those sort of players, no need to go after Cloke then, and he'll also be the best rucman in the league in a few years time, it's like a team with too many midfielders saying we're not going to take the next Gary Ablett jr.


Don't know about that, Viney would be lucky to be a top 10 pick, the top 3 are way ahead, our new coach is here to take us back up the ladder, not create fairytales.

By losing more games than Dean Bailey did last year.

 

[Blackas87]

By losing more games than Dean Bailey did last year.

just because he hasn't had a good start doesn't mean he won't have a good finish, anyway we are off topic here. Whitfield over Grundy just

 

[Danair]

Whitfeld pick 1 and if GC trade pick 2 for Martin in the mini draft use it on Toumpas.

 

[kulak]

...
Free agents still generate a compensation pick, the only difference being the top tier (two first round picks) does not exist and the compensation pick is calculated based off the difference between free agents lost and those gained. Minson might generate a first or second compensation round pick if the Bulldogs don't sign any free agents. But if the Bulldogs sign Cloke so they may not get a pick at all (the free agent they brought in was greater than the one they lost).
...

Incidentally, I think this is an incredibly stupid rule.

If you didn't lose a player in free agency, then any players you sign in free agency come penalty-free.
But if you lose one or more players in free agency, there is a penalty if you sign one in response because you lose the compensation you would have got. eg maybe it's better for Adelaide to trade the 60th pick for Eddie Betts, rather than signing him as a free agent and losing whatever compensation they would have got for losing Nathan Bock, or Phil Davis, or Jack Gunston, or Kurt Tippett, or whichever ****ing turncoat it is at that time

(sorry about the way that last paragraph ended)

ie it rewards teams who can keep their free agents, and penalises teams who lose theirs. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

But don't worry, the AFL has clarified the priority pick formula to, umm, whatever tickles Demetriou's fancy.

Awesome.

 

[IanW]

Incidentally, I think this is an incredibly stupid rule.

If you didn't lose a player in free agency, then any players you sign in free agency come penalty-free.
But if you lose one or more players in free agency, there is a penalty if you sign one in response because you lose the compensation you would have got. eg maybe it's better for Adelaide to trade the 60th pick for Eddie Betts, rather than signing him as a free agent and losing whatever compensation they would have got for losing Nathan Bock, or Phil Davis, or Jack Gunston, or Kurt Tippett, or whichever ******* turncoat it is at that time

Kulak,

Cap room doesnt disappear when a player leaves. Presumably, when a club declined to match what Bock, Davis, Clark, Gunston, Cloke or Tippett was being offered by another employer, that club used that salary budget to give someone else a pay rise so they stayed at the club ?

 

[kulak]

Yea, I guess if free agency turns out to be all about the money, then you are correct. But if it turns out to be 'destination' clubs and 'farm' clubs, not so much.