We need that Daniher trade to go through or could be in a pickle. Fun and games.
List Mgmt. 2019 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy
- Thread starter Determinant
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
bossman111
Team Captain
Sounds like we are sweating on the Swans handing 5 off t
I do feel like with pick trading all the way to the draft, we'll be able to basically undo the trade we did the other day if we feel like a bid is coming from Sydney
I do feel like with pick trading all the way to the draft, we'll be able to basically undo the trade we did the other day if we feel like a bid is coming from Sydney
- Jan 17, 2013
- 7,599
- 8,295
- AFL Club
- GWS
Essendon are more likely to bid on Greene than Sydney I would’ve thought.
slapnutmidget
Cancelled
- Sep 5, 2018
- 66
- 70
- AFL Club
- GWS
Don’t think Daniher trade matters.
We can still trade draft picks up until draft night (IIRC). Could see a deal with Melbourne go down with just picks after the player trading period ends.
We can still trade draft picks up until draft night (IIRC). Could see a deal with Melbourne go down with just picks after the player trading period ends.
Think adel bid on green for sure...
Need to get above us
Hey guys, do you think that if we were to trade pick 3 for pick 6, you guys will throw someone in like a Caldwell or O'Halloran?
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,862
- 17,576
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #1,057
Yeah, I put a scenario about a page back where that was one option I speculated. I don't think Bonar would net enough to get the earlier pick plus the points to match Green, so Hately to Adelaide or someone like Caldwell to Melbourne seem possible to me. I don't think we want to, but might be required. I am personally really bullish on Xavier O'Halloran so would not want to lose him ... but Caldwell could be special. If the trade is win-win, then we tend to be pragmatic. Otherwise, it might end up being a choice between Green and who we could get at #6.
Yeah I personally don't want Bonar. We are chock full of his types. Someone like Caldwell or O'Halloran would add some real class and outside spread.
Hopefully something is in the works that suits both clubs.
gee whiz giant
All Australian
As supporters, aren't we getting a bit greedy.
I'm not all up on trade mechanisms, but if we want Greene, we have first dibs no matter what, right?
Why the heck trade out O"Halloran and Caldwell when we haven't given them any games to do their stuff.
What was the purpose in drafting them 12 months ago.
Are we just addicted to trade/ draft machinations.
I understand we swapped picks with St. Kilda, to enable us to draft a high pick as well as Greene, but will the club truly value the extra draftee if they're willing to ship recent draftees Caldwell/ Hately/ Xo so readily?
I'm not all up on trade mechanisms, but if we want Greene, we have first dibs no matter what, right?
Why the heck trade out O"Halloran and Caldwell when we haven't given them any games to do their stuff.
What was the purpose in drafting them 12 months ago.
Are we just addicted to trade/ draft machinations.
I understand we swapped picks with St. Kilda, to enable us to draft a high pick as well as Greene, but will the club truly value the extra draftee if they're willing to ship recent draftees Caldwell/ Hately/ Xo so readily?
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,265
- 42,107
- AFL Club
- GWS
Agree. I wouldn't trade those 2 out just to get a high end draft on top of Greene.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,862
- 17,576
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #1,061
Those previous two comments are perfectly fair and valid observations.
Note that I stated that I'm not advocating a particular course of action, just highlighting what the club may do. There has been plenty of media speculation regarding GWS getting in before a likely bid on Green - my point was to highlight that as our picks stand, that is difficult to do and risks not having enough points to match on Green. However, history has shown that we have done exactly that in the past (albeit when we were in a better position points wise - main example is Taranto ahead of Setterfield bid), so it's a valid discussion point.
It's possible that we may play a balancing act here & not trade any further. If Green is bid 3 to 5, then we have a choice to match on a highly rated player or elect not to match and take someone who is better suited to our list needs. One way of cutting out a rival for a desired player. - I'm assuming Ash or Young would be high up in our sights. And if Green doesn't get bid on before 6, then we have a decision on whether to take him as well - by going into deficit next year. I'm OK with either strategy, as I tend to agree with not sacrificing someone from last year for someone from this year. (Part of that is certainly reaction to some of the self-serving proposals from the stereotypical BF flogs who would want to bend us over for little value on a trade such as Hately or Caldwell.) The converse is that if the club knows that one of those guys is a little bit iffy about staying on longer term, then it would be a value proposition to turn them into someone else highly rated this year when we have a great opportunity.
I would note that however GWS play this, the media will beat up on us. Get Green & someone else and the theme will be 'getting extra players for free thanks to the academy' - ignoring the fact what we would have to give up either an extra player or next year's pick(s). Don't take Green and we will have abandoned him and blah balh blah.
Note that I stated that I'm not advocating a particular course of action, just highlighting what the club may do. There has been plenty of media speculation regarding GWS getting in before a likely bid on Green - my point was to highlight that as our picks stand, that is difficult to do and risks not having enough points to match on Green. However, history has shown that we have done exactly that in the past (albeit when we were in a better position points wise - main example is Taranto ahead of Setterfield bid), so it's a valid discussion point.
It's possible that we may play a balancing act here & not trade any further. If Green is bid 3 to 5, then we have a choice to match on a highly rated player or elect not to match and take someone who is better suited to our list needs. One way of cutting out a rival for a desired player. - I'm assuming Ash or Young would be high up in our sights. And if Green doesn't get bid on before 6, then we have a decision on whether to take him as well - by going into deficit next year. I'm OK with either strategy, as I tend to agree with not sacrificing someone from last year for someone from this year. (Part of that is certainly reaction to some of the self-serving proposals from the stereotypical BF flogs who would want to bend us over for little value on a trade such as Hately or Caldwell.) The converse is that if the club knows that one of those guys is a little bit iffy about staying on longer term, then it would be a value proposition to turn them into someone else highly rated this year when we have a great opportunity.
I would note that however GWS play this, the media will beat up on us. Get Green & someone else and the theme will be 'getting extra players for free thanks to the academy' - ignoring the fact what we would have to give up either an extra player or next year's pick(s). Don't take Green and we will have abandoned him and blah balh blah.
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,062
I would prefer to keep all of last years draftees, there may be something internal but I've heard nothing external that any want out.
Bonar plays slightly different in that (it was reported) he may want out for more opportunity
Last edited:
I think it would be very prudent to be very aggressive in guaranteeing the two early selections this year as we don’t have a player of Green’s ilk coming through next year and the draft for 20’ is predicted as being thinner and very heavily compromised.
I’d rather have two early picks this year and would even sacrifice an early pick next year if required.
As we always have players going out we can worry about trading back into next year if required?
If we are able to bring in a Young/Ash or Serong over and above Green it’s the best possible outcome for the club imho.
I’d rather have two early picks this year and would even sacrifice an early pick next year if required.
As we always have players going out we can worry about trading back into next year if required?
If we are able to bring in a Young/Ash or Serong over and above Green it’s the best possible outcome for the club imho.
All valid comments but the list managers job is to put together a
Successful list for sustained success
If that means we get two top 5 picks this year then that’s great. If we have to trade out a player to do that I think we should prioritize keeping last year’s draftees as they are still unknown
Successful list for sustained success
If that means we get two top 5 picks this year then that’s great. If we have to trade out a player to do that I think we should prioritize keeping last year’s draftees as they are still unknown
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,265
- 42,107
- AFL Club
- GWS
We clear a lot of cap space.
Like last year(with Kelly and Cogs) we don't go easy on this trade unless we are really confident of keeping Whitfield and Cameron.
Definitely - but to bring in a future 4th seems a bit strange. Surely even Patton + 59 for 42 would be better in a time we need more points. Would value Patton similarly at 237 points (~pick 53).
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,265
- 42,107
- AFL Club
- GWS
Reckon the pick goes to Adelaide as part of bringing in Sauce.
We could use pick 60.
Pick 40 + 42 (pick 60 for sauce) would still be more points than pick 40 + 60 (pick 59 for sauce).
bossman111
Team Captain
They traded away 26 + 57 with their first rounder this year. Their next pick after 8 is 79
Yep just re-checked the trade. My mistake!
bossman111
Team Captain
Maybe 3 & Future second (Tied to Hawks for Frost) for 6 & Future first (our own)
Surely we are not looking at giving up 6 plus a future first to move up to three!
I’m all for getting ahead of the Greene bid but that’s madness! I like the idea of maybe 6+future second or something similar for 3.
Still a big win for the Dees and we stay in next year’s first round
I’m all for getting ahead of the Greene bid but that’s madness! I like the idea of maybe 6+future second or something similar for 3.
Still a big win for the Dees and we stay in next year’s first round
bossman111
Team Captain
The way I see it, if we are convinced that the bid is coming at 3, 4 or 5, all that move does is trade out of next years first round into this years + we get a second round back. Don't think its unreasonable for us, and probably a good deal for Melbourne
I mean if the bid doesn't come, then yep, its a waste
- Status
