Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2020 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Is it even possible to trade 6 for 4 (giving up 2020 first)
To get young / jackson then match the green bid on 5.

Do you even have enough points over the 2 drafts to match the pick 5... I believe it was posted on the trading board but it was very very close.
 
TryAnHit said:
Is it even possible to trade 6 for 4 (giving up 2020 first)
To get young / jackson then match the green bid on 5.

Do you even have enough points over the 2 drafts to match the pick 5... I believe it was posted on the trading board but it was very very close.
Click to expand...

2 pick upgrade for a future first seems a bit much. If this is the cost it seems more likely we will trade back. The value of that depends on who each club wants with that pick. If Adel feel their guy will still be there at 6 you would think they would do the trade for less than a future first. Similarly if the player we are after gets taken at 3 seems likely we will cash in 6 for as much as we can get. I don't think either club has anybody with a gun to their head saying pay overs or else in this situation. We have positioned ourselves to have a better hand come draft night but I can't see us selling the farm just for the sake of it.
 
Orange Agent said:
2 pick upgrade for a future first seems a bit much. If this is the cost it seems more likely we will trade back. The value of that depends on who each club wants with that pick. If Adel feel their guy will still be there at 6 you would think they would do the trade for less than a future first. Similarly if the player we are after gets taken at 3 seems likely we will cash in 6 for as much as we can get. I don't think either club has anybody with a gun to their head saying pay overs or else in this situation. We have positioned ourselves to have a better hand come draft night but I can't see us selling the farm just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

At same time you will be getting the opportunity to get 2 top 4 picks for the price of prob 16 next year for the upgrade fee
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Orange Agent said:
2 pick upgrade for a future first seems a bit much. If this is the cost it seems more likely we will trade back. The value of that depends on who each club wants with that pick. If Adel feel their guy will still be there at 6 you would think they would do the trade for less than a future first. Similarly if the player we are after gets taken at 3 seems likely we will cash in 6 for as much as we can get. I don't think either club has anybody with a gun to their head saying pay overs or else in this situation. We have positioned ourselves to have a better hand come draft night but I can't see us selling the farm just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

I think we can trade back in for 2020. Realistically there will be player movement for us at the end of the year with the salary cap squeeze and some young players looking for opportunity.

With the draft projected to be a bit compromised that will push up value of contracted or potentially traded players.

I think potentially two top 4 players is a rare situation and one we should push for.

I do take on board it is more difficult to keep such players long term so we need to be very astute in who we take after Green (best available must have).

I am not as bullish about our stocks down back as the club, we have a fair bit of age and unproven talent back there although I don’t mind the idea of trialling Ward back there as he is pure class and a beautiful kick.

Getting another mid on top of Green just brings in another potentially frustrated high level talent that can’t get a game.
 
I think that our list management team has given itself an opportunity to get someone ahead of Green (plus Tom!) and would be willing to pay a reasonable (i.e. somewhat overs) price from next year's picks to do so (in effect bringing forward a pick from next year). Whether they can actually pull it off in the end does rely on what other teams do and whether they are willing to trade for a reasonable price. As I've opined here and other threads, Melbourne or Adelaide putting a ridiculously high on swapping picks and not leaving us with enough points under AFL rules to get the target plus Green is self-defeating because there's no point in GWS doing those trades.

If Melbourne's primary target is now Jackson as media reports indicate and we want him too (or if games are being played, it's someone else but the same kid for both teams), then Melbourne is not going to trade with us because they'd lose who they want. They may play games and bid on Green - in which case the question for us would be whether to match for Green or let him go under the premise that it's too much to pay for him, and then we'd have a chance to get the target we want. That may then prompt us to trade with Adelaide to get ahead of Sydney's pick but for a lesser price than if we were going to get that player plus Green. (If we don't trade, we may still get our targeted player at #6 but there's risk. But there's also other great options at #6.)

Melbourne opting not to bid on Green for fear of losing their true target would then bring into play a swap with Adelaide. From my perspective, some of the suggestions from Crows' fans on the required trade are so one-sided and disproportionate that they're ridiculous - we're better in those cases not trading and instead trading down when Adelaide bid on Green. So the new AFL rule (i.e. clubs can trade after a bid) in that case help us - we'll have Geelong, Brisbane and Suns on speed dial for a good deal on #6. (Whereas the rule preventing us trading out and then back in with the same team would prevent us doing a mutually beneficial deal with Freo & isn't helpful!) We can wait until quite late in the process before deciding what is the best course of action. The team has shown the last couple of years to be able (and willing) to think on its feet and also be quite proactive, which is good.

Personally, if Melbourne elect not to bid on Green, then I think there's a reasonable chance that GWS & Adelaide do a mutually beneficial deal. Unlike BF posters, Adelaide's management team are not stupid, and will see the win-win value of trade over a longer term rather than just trying to just extract massive overs. If not, then we'll react to that. I would think the lure of an extra first round pick in 2020, even at the cost of returning something this year to help GWS pay for Green might be taken up - there's value in some of the DFAs that Crows can complete their list with, even if just for a 12-month contract. If a mutually beneficial trade gets done, then I can see us trading pick #40 to say North Melbourne for its picks #47 & 50 to get some extra points.

It's certainly not a done deal that's for sure, and may not come off, but I like that our team puts itself in a position where it can do well but hasn't put itself in a corner where it's all or nothing! As others have said, I doubt we'll be too worried about trading out of next year's draft picks as someone potentially will leave and give us something. And I think the BF obsession with next year's draft being compromised is overblown by many.

For GWS, getting someone this year at a cost of next year's pick(s) plus Green would be a bonus. As Andre said above, though, it needs to be someone who helps us - IMHO needs to be a position in which we need bolstering in numbers & class. I can live with Jackson if we also get Green although I think the risk of him being a bust so early is high. My preference would be a Young or Ash who could replace Heater and/or potentially release Williams for midfield stints.

In the event we do get someone plus Green, then we'll have expended effectively all of our picks with points and our later one or two selections (to reach minimum 3 national draft selections, or hit our required 38 main list positions although presumably we can still make a later DFA selection to do so) can come from re-selection of any of Tom Sheridan, Jake Stein & Zach Sproule, or a later academy selection such as Liam Delahunty or Nick Murray (if not otherewise bid on - the latter two we could presumably match bids from #56 onwards without points). All in the bounds of reasonable IMHO.

An interesting draft night coming up with these various machinations - probably exactly what AFL House want!
 
Giant Strides said:
I think that our list management team has given itself an opportunity to get someone ahead of Green (plus Tom!) and would be willing to pay a reasonable (i.e. somewhat overs) price from next year's picks to do so (in effect bringing forward a pick from next year). Whether they can actually pull it off in the end does rely on what other teams do and whether they are willing to trade for a reasonable price. As I've opined here and other threads, Melbourne or Adelaide putting a ridiculously high on swapping picks and not leaving us with enough points under AFL rules to get the target plus Green is self-defeating because there's no point in GWS doing those trades.

If Melbourne's primary target is now Jackson as media reports indicate and we want him too (or if games are being played, it's someone else but the same kid for both teams), then Melbourne is not going to trade with us because they'd lose who they want. They may play games and bid on Green - in which case the question for us would be whether to match for Green or let him go under the premise that it's too much to pay for him, and then we'd have a chance to get the target we want. That may then prompt us to trade with Adelaide to get ahead of Sydney's pick but for a lesser price than if we were going to get that player plus Green. (If we don't trade, we may still get our targeted player at #6 but there's risk. But there's also other great options at #6.)

Melbourne opting not to bid on Green for fear of losing their true target would then bring into play a swap with Adelaide. From my perspective, some of the suggestions from Crows' fans on the required trade are so one-sided and disproportionate that they're ridiculous - we're better in those cases not trading and instead trading down when Adelaide bid on Green. So the new AFL rule (i.e. clubs can trade after a bid) in that case help us - we'll have Geelong, Brisbane and Suns on speed dial for a good deal on #6. (Whereas the rule preventing us trading out and then back in with the same team would prevent us doing a mutually beneficial deal with Freo & isn't helpful!) We can wait until quite late in the process before deciding what is the best course of action. The team has shown the last couple of years to be able (and willing) to think on its feet and also be quite proactive, which is good.

Personally, if Melbourne elect not to bid on Green, then I think there's a reasonable chance that GWS & Adelaide do a mutually beneficial deal. Unlike BF posters, Adelaide's management team are not stupid, and will see the win-win value of trade over a longer term rather than just trying to just extract massive overs. If not, then we'll react to that. I would think the lure of an extra first round pick in 2020, even at the cost of returning something this year to help GWS pay for Green might be taken up - there's value in some of the DFAs that Crows can complete their list with, even if just for a 12-month contract. If a mutually beneficial trade gets done, then I can see us trading pick #40 to say North Melbourne for its picks #47 & 50 to get some extra points.

It's certainly not a done deal that's for sure, and may not come off, but I like that our team puts itself in a position where it can do well but hasn't put itself in a corner where it's all or nothing! As others have said, I doubt we'll be too worried about trading out of next year's draft picks as someone potentially will leave and give us something. And I think the BF obsession with next year's draft being compromised is overblown by many.

For GWS, getting someone this year at a cost of next year's pick(s) plus Green would be a bonus. As Andre said above, though, it needs to be someone who helps us - IMHO needs to be a position in which we need bolstering in numbers & class. I can live with Jackson if we also get Green although I think the risk of him being a bust so early is high. My preference would be a Young or Ash who could replace Heater and/or potentially release Williams for midfield stints.

In the event we do get someone plus Green, then we'll have expended effectively all of our picks with points and our later one or two selections (to reach minimum 3 national draft selections, or hit our required 38 main list positions although presumably we can still make a later DFA selection to do so) can come from re-selection of any of Tom Sheridan, Jake Stein & Zach Sproule, or a later academy selection such as Liam Delahunty or Nick Murray (if not otherewise bid on - the latter two we could presumably match bids from #56 onwards without points). All in the bounds of reasonable IMHO.

An interesting draft night coming up with these various machinations - probably exactly what AFL House want!
Click to expand...

As always very astute mate 👍

I think Melbourne do really want Jackson and know if they trade with we take potentially take their guy. If by chance they bid on Green we match immediately, he is the one non negotiable with this draft.

If as we expect they take Jackson then we do the deal with Adelaide. If Adelaide play funny buggers and bid on Green then we trade back and match for points. If they play ball we give them our first rounder and trade back in perhaps their pick 49 this year? Alternatively perhaps we also swap future 2nd rounders banking on their’s being 25 and ours being 39?

It really depends if they think they will get their man at 6. I actually think they do believe they will achieve that and I think they will go home grown and take Dylan Stephens who is quick but unlikely to be on Swans radar or Sam Flanders who we like but I doubt would be of interest to Swans. I think the Swans will likely take who is leftover from Young or Ash as they need a defender with speed.

As of today I could see this possibly -
1.) Rowell - Gold Coast
2.) Anderson - Gold Coast
3.) Jackson - Melbourne
4.) Young - GWS (trade up with Adelaide)
5.) Green - GWS (match bid of Sydney)
6.) Ash - Sydney
7.) Stephens - Adelaide
8.) Flanders - Fremantle
9.) Henry - Fremantle (match bid of Melbourne)
10.) Weightman - Melbourne

Not sure if I’ve messed that up but could see it happening if no other trades. Geelong may trade up with Melbourne and do a 2 for 1 to get a McAsey in ahead of Hawthorn.
 
Last edited:
That's certainly a possible/likely permutation as I see it too - not 100% guaranteed of course. I would be surprised if Demons now traded pick #8 given what they paid but from the rumours a Liam Henry bid then Weightman selection looking specifically for a decent small forward seems quite likely.
 
TryAnHit said:
Is it even possible to trade 6 for 4 (giving up 2020 first)
To get young / jackson then match the green bid on 5.

Do you even have enough points over the 2 drafts to match the pick 5... I believe it was posted on the trading board but it was very very close.
Click to expand...
I would do 6,40 2020r1 for 4, 35 2020r2. I think is fair
 
From GWS perspective it would be ideal to draft
- pick 4 Lachie Ash
- pick 5 Tom Green (match Sydney’s bid)

I assume the pick swap with Adelaide will happen when Adelaide is on the clock at pick 4. Adelaide gets pick 6 and next year’s first from GWS. GWS gets pick 4.

Cautious on Luke Jackson comparisons to Brodie Grundy. Jackson 199 cm Grundy 202 cm. Jackson played colts footy Grundy played senior SANFL footy. It might happen but pick 4 would be a lot to spend on a ruckman especially with Briggs developing.

Cautious about Hayden Young. His toolkit sets him up to be a medium defender. He might be a star and as good as Stuart Dew or he might just be okay such as a Matt Suckling type. Either way I don’t think it’s a need and I wouldn’t ideally be spending pick 4 on that.

Cautious about Sam Flanders. He’s a 182 cm contest winner with great athleticism and ok skills and pace. No room for him as an inside mid. Doesn’t have the toolkit to play outside mid. Could play him as a half forward but I’d rather draft a specialist half forward at pick 20 ish - which the club has been doing if late.

Likewise with Serong. Won’t get a crack at his best role which is inside mid.

Lachie Ash I reckon would be the perfect fit. Seriously quick. Takes on attacking kicks which create goals. Can play half back flank and wing for a team which needs those roles if not this year then very soon.
 
kulak said:
From GWS perspective it would be ideal to draft
- pick 4 Lachie Ash
- pick 5 Tom Green (match Sydney’s bid)

I assume the pick swap with Adelaide will happen when Adelaide is on the clock at pick 4. Adelaide gets pick 6 and next year’s first from GWS. GWS gets pick 4.

Cautious on Luke Jackson comparisons to Brodie Grundy. Jackson 199 cm Grundy 202 cm. Jackson played colts footy Grundy played senior SANFL footy. It might happen but pick 4 would be a lot to spend on a ruckman especially with Briggs developing.

Cautious about Hayden Young. His toolkit sets him up to be a medium defender. He might be a star and as good as Stuart Dew or he might just be okay such as a Matt Suckling type. Either way I don’t think it’s a need and I wouldn’t ideally be spending pick 4 on that.

Cautious about Sam Flanders. He’s a 182 cm contest winner with great athleticism and ok skills and pace. No room for him as an inside mid. Doesn’t have the toolkit to play outside mid. Could play him as a half forward but I’d rather draft a specialist half forward at pick 20 ish - which the club has been doing if late.

Likewise with Serong. Won’t get a crack at his best role which is inside mid.

Lachie Ash I reckon would be the perfect fit. Seriously quick. Takes on attacking kicks which create goals. Can play half back flank and wing for a team which needs those roles if not this year then very soon.
Click to expand...

The part Ash doesn’t get enough credit for is his kicking which from what I’ve seen is very good and technically correct.

The beauty of him is that he really would allow us a lot more flexibility with Williams as he more or less replaces him in defence.

I love the use of Williams in stoppages as his agility often either extracts the ball or he plays the link man to the extractor and gets things moving. Getting a guy in down back and allowing Williams to play more midfield might be a positive factor in keeping him as he clearly harbours some ambition to get there.

We do need agility in this team as it is a bit one paced. I would have no issue at all if we were able to take him.

I marginally favour Young as he is such a beautiful kick and really is an effective intercept mark also. With his delivery I think he could help get things moving another way down back.
 
In my view Young is in the conversation as the second best from this draft, I love Ash and if we can't trade above a Green bid I hope we find a way to get back in around 8 or 9 to get him if Young is off the board, but if they're both available Young is by far and away the better player now, and the better fit for us. When the ball is in his hands the game goes as fast or slow as he wants, whereas Ash is usually a bull at the gate, sprint forward bomb it long. Ash can hit those difficult kicks and does, but Young spots them out better.

As a comparison I think Young's ceiling is Heath Shaw without the tendency to kick it out on the full, Ash is a Saad with stronger defensive attributes and marking, neither bad but offer something very different.

What worries me about Ash over Young is he seems very keen to play in other positions, has said before he wants a go up forward and in the guts as well, whereas Young wants to play as a defender for his whole career, and that's what we'd be drafting either of them for.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

FWIW I get the feeling it's more likely we trade back with Geelong/Brisbane/Gold Coast than it is we trade up with Adelaide at the moment, which gives us more opportunity to move back into the mid to late first round or get multiple second round selections if there are players we like. Personally if we move back I'd want us to shift some picks into next years draft, would give us a particular strong bargaining tool with Bulldogs/Pies/Adelaide/Sydney for potential pick swaps. A lot to play out but next year has Riley Thilthorpe, a Ruck/ Tall Forward who already I like more than Jackson, so if we're targeting that type we could wait a year and see them have similar impact at the same time with Riley already playing Senior SANFL
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I just had to sign up as a supporter I'm worried about this deal. I see know way that Melbourne don't bid on green so we have wasted picks this year and next and achieved nothing imo.
 
Andre the Giant said:
Why wouldn’t Melbourne just do the same deal? It’s a weird one but I guess we still have the flexibility to deal back if the bid comes and at least we have time to work out different scenario deals with clubs.
Click to expand...
Maybe melb really want that player at 3...
We are known to pick out the box too.. maybe a chance we are not taking one of the "top 6" players either. So happy to slip back.

Young + Jackson seem like the 2 that will go at 3 and 4
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2020 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Giant Strides
  • Sticky
List Mgmt. 2025 GWS Giants List Management - Academy, Free Agent, Trade & Draft
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
225
Views
18K
Giant Strides
Giant Strides
Giant Strides
List Mgmt. 2024 GWS Giants List Management - Academy, Free Agent, Trade & Draft
103 104 105 106 107
Replies
3K
Views
125K
GWS Goose
GWS Goose
Giant Strides
Women's Footy AFLW Trade & Draft 2024
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
captainMyCaptain
captainMyCaptain
Giant Strides
List Mgmt. AFLW Trade & Draft 2023
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
captainMyCaptain
captainMyCaptain
Giant Strides
Welcome 2023 National Draft #59 - Harvey Thomas (Turvey Park FC, NSW, Allies, Wesley College, Oakleigh Chargers, GWS Academy)
Replies
1
Views
813
Giant Pete
Giant Pete
Giant Strides
Welcome 2023 Cat B Rookie Selection - Nathan Wardius (Rand-Walbundrie-Walla FC, former GWS Academy)
Replies
0
Views
569
Giant Strides
Giant Strides
Giant Strides
#20 Jake Stringer (traded in, 2024)
Replies
4
Views
731
Giant Strides
Giant Strides

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top