List Mgmt. Carlton's 2018 Draft Thread II

[Blutopia]

In that case, you could present the argument for going with Lukosius to interchange down the wing with Charlie. Future line-up
C: Charlie - Cripps - Williamson/LOB
R: TDK - Setterfield - Dow
HF: Lukosius - McKay - *Rozee/Pickett
FF: McGovern - Kerr - Z.Fisher
* if 1 swapped for 2/3 & 6

Yeah for sure. Any combination of the two of Rankine, Rozee, Lukosius, Caldwell, Smith would be a great Haul. IMO the King twins are the only ones in the top echelon of players this year that don’t suit. They are guns, just least suited to our current list profile. Can’t have them all unfortunately..

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Couldn’t agree more Fisher will be the star from that draft for us and Cunna’s has huge potential once he gets his body right. As for Polson he really started to gain some confidence near end of year and is the best chaser in the side works his arse off for 4 quarters and his hard work will pay dividends for him and us in the long run and apparently he is having a cracker of a pre season so look out for him to take a big step next year as a small forward and a rotating mid. Our Recruiters have done a great job late in drafts the last 4 years and I expect the same this year so not worried about our late picks at all, will find some gems again.

I would be playing Polson mid in the VFL for the season.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Leave

but we are guessing

 

[Arr0w]

but we are guessing

Perhaps "probably" should have been inserted

 

[Nori]

I'm thinking SOS will go for a small forward with one of the late picks and maybe Fisher (from the NBs) with the other.

1. Walsh
2. Small Forward
3. BSOS
4. Fisher

I'd be happy with that.

My expectation is that for most games Fasolo, Lebois and perhaps a new draftee will compete for one of the small forward positions and the other small forward position will be filled with a midfielder that is part of the rotation.

 

[inyourcool]

I would be playing Polson mid in the VFL for the season.

That's where he started the 2017 season for the Northern Blues and was doing very well playing as a pure mid (IIRC two games with possessions in the high 20's) before sustaining injury and then debuting against port several weeks later in the seniors.

And he has never shown that midfield form since. A player that I consider has gone backwards development wise

I agree time to reprogram him in the VFL as a pure mid and get him to find that form again

 

[BlueJet]

Charlie...looks like Wayne Carey and buddy Franklin had a baby up forward...

Looks like bambi in the middle...

Sure, let's move him to the middle.

You're overhyping his forward play and down playing his ability through the middle.
It's no wonder he looks more comfortable forward of centre given it's where he's played most of his footy but the ability to throw his big body into the guts will be beneficial from time to time.

 

[BIGGUS 64]

You'd be wrong on that. Most will be thrilled with Walsh.

There has been good debate here but not many will be disappointed with Walsh.

I'll be rapt.

I think the fact that Walsh is considered almost a lock at no.1 has caused some people to fall into "grass is greener" thinking. Plus the suspense/boredom of waiting for draft day stimulates a lot of overthinking.

Walsh will be awesome for us. End of story.

 

[BlueTang]

Fair call, but I see it different. You’ll say, I suggest, we have Charlie, Harry and the Governor already. I think Charlie is best served playing a Kouta ruck-rover role up and around the ground. Harry I think is best between wing/CHF using his pace and also playing the forward ruck switch. McGovern is a swing man - he may want to play KP forward, but he’s not that big and I see him like his brother more often than not. King is the key forward we would then need to add. No point getting it forward as often as we do unless we have a Kennedy or Cameron or Brown to kick it at. We need to kick more goals. He’s not my first option, but he is an option.

2 200cm plus key fwds, 2 193cm plus key fwds. All very mobile and quick. It could
be an incredible combo. I’m keen on M King as well.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Fisher will be a gun 10 year player. His stats after two seasons suggest he will be a consistent 25 touch player, he is quick, makes good decisions and has good skills. I’m confused why he is included. Cunningham has shown potential, need to see him get a clear run at it without injuries. Poison played a couple of good games at the end of the year, jury still out on him IMO.

The biggest compliment I can give Fisher was when I was at that abortion of a Friday night game this year versus the Bulldogs - when very other player was butchering the ball Fisher was clean as a whistle.

I remember thinking every time he got the ball I though “thank god Fisher has it “ .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wickzki]

Can someone tell me why exactly everyone (well a lot of people) have us pegged to take tried and failed players in the draft when other clubs are signing them under the new rookie selection rule? It doesn't make sense to me but there might be a reason for it. It's not as though we lack an abundance of rookie list spots. Anyone?

 

[slashin_velvet]

Can someone tell me why exactly everyone (well a lot of people) have us pegged to take tried and failed players in the draft when other clubs are signing them under the new rookie selection rule? It doesn't make sense to me but there might be a reason for it. It's not as though we lack an abundance of rookie list spots. Anyone?

Probably because most of these people are randoms on the internet who aren't as close to the AFL's endless rule changes and have no understanding of what our list management team is likely to do.

 

[bigm386]

I still wonder if we trade pick 1. The only way i'd be happy if we did is if we got Smith.

Smith and Rankine would be a dream hall for me

 

[Blue__Balls]

I would be playing Polson mid in the VFL for the season.

He can be the new NickyG.

Full time midfielder at VFL level, raking up 25-30 touches.
Forward pocket whenever selected at AFL level, little to no impact, everybody wants him delisted.

 

[viking12]

still wonder if we trade pick 1. The only way i'd be happy if we did is if we got Smith.

Smith and Rankine would be a dream hall for me

pick 1 & 2019's first rd pick for 3 & 6

Rankine is worth it and we need to walk out of the draft with one of Smith, Rozee or Caldwell

Otherwise select Walsh and our core midfield is set with Cripps, Dow, Setterfield and Walsh.

 

[Macca43]

pick 1 & 2019's first rd pick for 3 & 6

Rankine is worth it and we need to walk out of the draft with one of Smith, Rozee or Caldwell

Otherwise select Walsh and our core midfield is set with Cripps, Dow, Setterfield and Walsh.

We can't trade a future 2019 unless we get a future second 4th and 5th somehow. Another ridiculous AFL rule.

 

[Arr0w]

Interesting, the changing opinions of Polson from last year to now and how people see his progression

Predicting most, will be surprised with the final product

 

[viking12]

We can't trade a future 2019 unless we get a future second 4th and 5th somehow. Another ridiculous AFL rule.

4th or 5th it is lol

 

[The Bighouse]

4th or 5th it is lol

It’s all of them; 2nd, 4th & 5th required in. Ridiculous that a 5th rounder (even a 4th) is taken into consideration.

 

[Arr0w]

If we trade our 1st next year, while trading back into the first round in 2019(any first round pick), then trading later 2019 picks or adding extra picks this year will be allowed under the rules

 

[Blue__Balls]

We can't trade a future 2019 unless we get a future second 4th and 5th somehow. Another ridiculous AFL rule.

We picked up an extra third rounder, which logically should negate the need to trade back in a 4th rounder.

I suspect if we could secure a second and fifth round pick, we'd be OK. Probably a chance we could trade one of the two third rounders for a fourth and fifth, leaving us with just a second round pick to find.

Problem is - GC don't have a second next year. So a third club would need to be involved.

The only way we can do a deal using our future first is if we also, somehow, get the Brisbane 2019 first rounder back, or if the AFL authorise the trade anyway (entirely possible given it's the bottom two side and the total number of first round picks for each isn't changing, just the year's in which they're taken).

 

[Jeremias]

A 5th round pick dictates whether or not we can trade a 1st?

How absurd.

 

[Macca43]

We picked up an extra third rounder, which logically should negate the need to trade back in a 4th rounder.

I suspect if we could secure a second and fifth round pick, we'd be OK. Probably a chance we could trade one of the two third rounders for a fourth and fifth, leaving us with just a second round pick to find.

Problem is - GC don't have a second next year. So a third club would need to be involved.

The only way we can do a deal using our future first is if we also, somehow, get the Brisbane 2019 first rounder back, or if the AFL authorise the trade anyway (entirely possible given it's the bottom two side and the total number of first round picks for each isn't changing, just the year's in which they're taken).

I am only working off what was written on the fox site so I am far from an expert.

But the big issue is that outside of pick 1 and next years pick 1 we have very little to offer for a trade so I really can't see how we will pick up the extra future picks and get the picks in this years draft that would make the whole exercise worthwhile.

I also find it ridiculous that teams like Hawthorn (who can still trade any future pick according to Fox) Geelong and Collingwood could trade 2018 & 2019 first round picks despite not taking the required 2 in 4 but the blues who have taken 7 first rounders between 2015 and 2017 are unable to trade their 2019 future first to get another yet another first round pick.!!

Also don't assume any sort of logic is applied to AFL decisions.

 

[Macca43]

If we trade our 1st next year, while trading back into the first round in 2019(any first round pick), then trading later 2019 picks or adding extra picks this year will be allowed under the rules

Do you have a trade scenario where that might happen?

 

[Blue__Balls]

I am only working off what was written on the fox site so I am far from an expert.

But the big issue is that outside of pick 1 and next years pick 1 we have very little to offer for a trade so I really can't see how we will pick up the extra future picks and get the picks in this years draft that would make the whole exercise worthwhile.

I also find it ridiculous that teams like Hawthorn (who can still trade any future pick according to Fox) Geelong and Collingwood could trade 2018 & 2019 first round picks despite not taking the required 2 in 4 but the blues who have taken 7 first rounders between 2015 and 2017 are unable to trade their 2019 future first to get another yet another first round pick.!!

Also don't assume any sort of logic is applied to AFL decisions.

That last sentence is the most relevant.

Whatever the rules say, if a deal is agreed upon by us and GC that sees both clubs start with two first round picks, and end with two first round picks, there's a pretty good chance the AFL give it the green light. Especially if GC want to do the deal, because the AFL want to help them.

1 and future first for 3 and 6.

GC get the coveted first round pick and a cleanskin, mature, hardworking midfield leader to rebuild around. They keep Pick 2 and can pair him with whoever they want (Luko, King, Smith). They also head into next years draft with two probable top 6 picks.

Question is - do we want to give up our most valuable trade asset for next year, taking us out of the running for any non-FA big fish targets?