AFL Amends Trade Rules

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

 

[HBF]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

That's not without merit C4, certainly food for thought. If it meant getting Gibbs and someone like Thorp/Sellar/Proud, i'd certainly think about it.

 

[4blues]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

Good question, and yes but only for a top 5 pick, remember its a good draft.

 

[Bluebear]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

Hmmm, tough one. You never know how these kids will turn out. Plenty of top 5 and 10 picks haven't made it while gus taken later have.
Not sure if I would rather have 2/10 or 3/20..... tough one. I think I lean towards yes, probably for top 5 pick only, and then cross your fingers+++++. Good post!

 

[Lindy]

i think i'm missing something here, who would trade a higher pick for a lower pick???

 

[jj1978]

i think i'm missing something here, who would trade a higher pick for a lower pick???

Just a hypothetical...

Adelaide wants our pick No1 in the draft (they want Gibbs BAD). West Coast not too interested in a first round pick, wants desperately to get Murphy. Adelaide trades their first round pick to West Coast (assuming West Coast finishes higher), and West Coast offers us Judd and their first round pick (taken from Adelaide) for our No1 pick.

We agree, and then West Coast gives our initial first round pick and trades it back for the first round pick they initially gave to Adelaide.

Confusing aint it!

 

[FootyFan33]

Just a hypothetical...

Adelaide wants our pick No1 in the draft (they want Gibbs BAD). West Coast not too interested in a first round pick, wants desperately to get Murphy. Adelaide trades their first round pick to West Coast (assuming West Coast finishes higher), and West Coast offers us Judd and their first round pick (taken from Adelaide) for our No1 pick.

We agree, and then West Coast gives our initial first round pick and trades it back for the first round pick they initially gave to Adelaide.

Confusing aint it!

I think you can get a job with Prince Blackadder because you
have a Very Cunning Plan there!

FF

 

[btdg]

Just a hypothetical...

Adelaide wants our pick No1 in the draft (they want Gibbs BAD). West Coast not too interested in a first round pick, wants desperately to get Murphy. Adelaide trades their first round pick to West Coast (assuming West Coast finishes higher), and West Coast offers us Judd and their first round pick (taken from Adelaide) for our No1 pick.

We agree, and then West Coast gives our initial first round pick and trades it back for the first round pick they initially gave to Adelaide.

Confusing aint it!

Makes no sense. The teams could under the old rules have had a 3-way swap, involving Judd so legal.

Under your theory, West Coast still end up trading pick 1 for the lower pick they gave to adelaide.

Where this strategy might work would be in the case of, say, trading a first-round pick for two lower picks. Carlton could trade, say, pick 1 for Essendon's pick 2 and pick 18, if Essendon wanted to get Gibbs.

 

[BlueBelle]

i think i'm missing something here, who would trade a higher pick for a lower pick???

What it means is trading two lower picks (17 & 19) for one higher pick so essentially the other team will get two picks and we'd get one.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Id definatley support the trading of picks #17 and #19 for a top 10 pick. Gives us a better chance to pick up Luenberger, Proud, Jetta etc

 

[Smell The Glove]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

Of course, with a draft like this, anyone would. Only problem is, no club will actually go for it, not this year.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Of course, with a draft like this, anyone would. Only problem is, no club will actually go for it, not this year.

hmm perhaps im being naieve .. but some clubs might ...

2 players > 1 player .. then again knowing wahts on offer may cause a problem.

 

[cfc05]

I actually wouldnt want us two trade away the two picks for anything but a top 5 selection.

One of the reasons they are saying its such a strong draft is the depth, therefor some usual top 10's slipping through to early second round. Usually any pick inside top 5 (not including Livingston) is a safe bet, after that you are having to get a bit lucky. 2 chances at this would be better than one, say at pick 9 or 10. Picks 8-9 to 20 could go in any order and difference in potential atm isnt know, those picks will most likely be done by need. Leaving some great talent for our two picks.

 

[bibi01]

lets confuse things a bit more
is there any known rule where teams can agree on picks in future drafts.

if adelaide really wanted gibbs coud they offer us:
eg/ ben rutten + 1st round pick for 2006 + 1st round pick 2007
for (pick 1 2006 gibbs)

 

[cfc05]

Nah not allowed, they believe it could get clubs into a position they would take a decade to recover from.... like the possie we are in now.

 

[BlackGoanna]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

It would be a huge benifit to trade picks 17 and 35 for a pick between 6 and 10. We would be in the market for Leuenberger who will fall in that range. And we would still have pick 19 for Obrien/ Houli/ Hislop or Petterd.

Richmond, Geelong, Bulldogs or Collingwood could use pick 17 for Akermanis (Brisbane indicated a pick b/w 12 and 20, realistically this is the prime pick as the highest 2nd round pick). These teams would benefit from having Aker + 2nd round and 2 - 3rd rounds in a strong draft.

Thoughts.

 

[kouta 4 president]

Enough talk of getting Aker. Hes going to Essendon and I dont see why anyone would talk of trading a good pick for him anyway. Hes too old

 

[bibi01]

You can just do pick for pick rules without having to involve a player.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/29/1156816903682.html

Leads me to pose this question:

Would anyone on here support the tradings of our picks 17 & 19 for a top 5 pick ? or even a top 10 ?

proberly not

its quite obvious we lack quality depth and this years draft will go quite deep
IMO we will be better placed if we keep our first 4 picks in the draft.

we have a lot of guys who need to be cut this year and next year we will have 3 retirements and a few more delistings