I've always assumed the only way we could get our dirty mitts on GC's first rounder was by trading out our future first. But now I'm wondering whether they'd consider our priority picks (if we finish 17th again, it would be picks 21 and 38 I think) plus our natural future second rounder (20) for pick 4 and a token fringe player.
Miraculously the points from those three picks equal pick 4. It would be pretty handy if we could use the draft assistance to get Caleb Graham and Nick Watson, for example.
This isn't true.They clearly would not. Gold Coast aren't going to do a trade where it only breaks even if we finish 17th or lower, and where the picks are in the wrong year for matching bids for their academy players. Let alone throwing in a player for free. All this talk of us trading our future first for their pick makes no sense. They don't want future picks, they want points this year.
They also have the whip hand in the negotiations, they have a pick that will give access to a tier 1 player in the draft.
I get that people here want what's best for North, but the amount of wasted posts on prospective trades that make no sense for the other party can get tiresome after a while.
Brown gone? It’s finally happened?Two more senior assistant coaches to depart North Melbourne
SEN.com.au understands the duo had meetings on Friday and by mutual agreement, will leave Arden Street in the coming weeks.www.sen.com.au
He wouldn't be the first person to have a failed veggie patch on their CV.Gavin couldn't develop a veggie patch in his backyard. Good riddance.
If an inanimate carbon rod gets the gig, I'll consider it an improvement.Can't wait to see who replaces Brown.
If an inanimate carbon rod gets the gig, I'll consider it an improvement.
This is not the same scenario that I responded to. I agree that bulk trading in of low picks is their best way of matching. However, creating that many list spots isn't easy, especially when we have other strong draft picks, and we have a reducing list size. We'd need 6-7 list spots going into the draft, taking into account that we'd want to pick with 2, 3 and PA's 1st, which would give 3-4 junk picks for trading to GC. That would mean 8-9 main list changes if we bring in 2 players via trade/FA (E.g. Fisher, Stephens). We'd also need to fill those list spots after the draft via DFA or PSS players (or lower draft picks), so there's also the opportunity cost of that compared to actually using those 'junk picks'. So, we're not an ideal candidate for that sort of trade with GC.This isn't true.
Gold Coast will want to match the same way Brisbane did last year, with a pile of third and fourth rounders that they live trade in at the start of the draft. With three players to match, the advantages of doing it this way are even greater as the more picks you use to match the early bids the more your later picks increase in value for matching the later bids. Free list positions are key to this, as whoever they trade with will need to bring the junk picks to the draft.
Basically, they won't have trouble matching, and they will want to leave themselves with the best possible draft hand for next year. That means targeting the best F1's. A live trade such as our F1 + 3/4 junk picks for 4 + F2 would be one of their best options. Though we would have to create enough list vacancies to bring those junk picks in.
Can't wait to see who replaces Brown.
They might like equal points + pick 19 in 2024.GC are not going to move on pick 4 for the same points. Why would they? they may as well just have it taken up by the bid, and not give another team pick 4.....unless that team is Geelong, then they def would do it
I'm not sure we are going to have any trouble finding blokes to delist or push back to the rookie list - especially if we are allowed extra places like this year. Not counting rookies, I got to twelve. And that doesn't include worthless players that we need to keep just because they are tall.This is not the same scenario that I responded to. I agree that bulk trading in of low picks is their best way of matching. However, creating that many list spots isn't easy, especially when we have other strong draft picks, and we have a reducing list size. We'd need 6-7 list spots going into the draft, taking into account that we'd want to pick with 2, 3 and PA's 1st, which would give 3-4 junk picks for trading to GC. That would mean 8-9 main list changes if we bring in 2 players via trade/FA (E.g. Fisher, Stephens). We'd also need to fill those list spots after the draft via DFA or PSS players (or lower draft picks), so there's also the opportunity cost of that compared to actually using those 'junk picks'. So, we're not an ideal candidate for that sort of trade with GC.
The original trade suggestion was the one I had more of an issue with. There's not a world where Gold Coast accept 2 x 2nds and 1 x 3rd for pick 4.
Send Brady out with the shopping list, what's the bet he comes back with Sam Powers again.Someone like Luke Power would be a good target.
Premiership player, AFL academy experience, Afl assistant coach, AFl development coach, been involved at multiple clubs who have developed a lot of kids.
This is not the same scenario that I responded to. I agree that bulk trading in of low picks is their best way of matching. However, creating that many list spots isn't easy, especially when we have other strong draft picks, and we have a reducing list size. We'd need 6-7 list spots going into the draft, taking into account that we'd want to pick with 2, 3 and PA's 1st, which would give 3-4 junk picks for trading to GC. That would mean 8-9 main list changes if we bring in 2 players via trade/FA (E.g. Fisher, Stephens). We'd also need to fill those list spots after the draft via DFA or PSS players (or lower draft picks), so there's also the opportunity cost of that compared to actually using those 'junk picks'. So, we're not an ideal candidate for that sort of trade with GC.
The original trade suggestion was the one I had more of an issue with. There's not a world where Gold Coast accept 2 x 2nds and 1 x 3rd for pick 4.
This is not the same scenario that I responded to. I agree that bulk trading in of low picks is their best way of matching. However, creating that many list spots isn't easy, especially when we have other strong draft picks, and we have a reducing list size. We'd need 6-7 list spots going into the draft, taking into account that we'd want to pick with 2, 3 and PA's 1st, which would give 3-4 junk picks for trading to GC. That would mean 8-9 main list changes if we bring in 2 players via trade/FA (E.g. Fisher, Stephens). We'd also need to fill those list spots after the draft via DFA or PSS players (or lower draft picks), so there's also the opportunity cost of that compared to actually using those 'junk picks'. So, we're not an ideal candidate for that sort of trade with GC.
The original trade suggestion was the one I had more of an issue with. There's not a world where Gold Coast accept 2 x 2nds and 1 x 3rd for pick 4.
Join FREE and support Australia's favourite footy community.
We let you block other users :)