List Mgmt. Carlton's 2018 Draft Thread II

[Nori]

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

How absurd.

Agreed, but easily resolved if true.

 

[Arr0w]

Do you have a trade scenario where that might happen?

There would be countless scenarios when including multiple trade partners

 

[El Topo]

Hot take - we can't trade 2019 picks because the AFL blinked and withdrew the priority pick, which would have negated the need to trade our 2019 2nd for Setterfield. Equalisation!

 

[V23]

My gut feel says GC won't trade any of their top 6 picks (especially not the mooted 3 and 6 for 1) and we'll draft Walsh at 1. It's all just posturing from the clubs, and the AFL and media drumming up hype for the draft.

 

[smashbox gill]

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

If we traded 1 to port for 5&10 we will be able to get Smith as rumoured no interestate clubs will pick him.

 

[Macca43]

There would be countless scenarios when including multiple trade partners

Really I can't think of one that involves us ending up with multiple 2018 first round picks (including staying high enough in the draft to get access to the top end talent) and throwing in a 2019 first rounder.

 

[Macca43]

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?

Surely we would want something extra to do that deal.

Odds are that our 2019 first will be 6 or lower so we a re more than likely sliding back on that to get a pick now rather than later and we are also sliding back from 1 to 3.

 

[BluesRule]

If we traded 1 to port for 5&10 we will be able to get Smith as rumoured no interestate clubs will pick him.

Would prefer Caldwell myself.
If 5 and 10 got us M.King and Caldwell that would work, but it still seems like Walsh is a better option for us at this time.

Who would Port take with No. 1 Walsh, Rankine or Lukosious?

 

[Blue__Balls]

Surely we would want something extra to do that deal.

Odds are that our 2019 first will be 6 or lower so we a re more than likely sliding back on that to get a pick now rather than later and we are also sliding back from 1 to 3.

Making it even less likely it happens.

We'd only do it if we rate the players around the mark at 6 (Caldwell/Smith/Rozee) as significantly better than what we'd get in the 3-8 range next year.

Good chance that Gold Coast aren't interested.

If Pick 1 gets traded, I suspect it's for 2 or 3 (doesn't matter which, whichever makes the points add up better) and second rounder(s). But I'm starting to lean towards Pick 1 being kept and used on Walsh, which doesn't upset me at all (though I'd love us to be more ambitious).

 

[Arr0w]

Really I can't think of one that involves us ending up with multiple 2018 first round picks (including staying high enough in the draft to get access to the top end talent) and throwing in a 2019 first rounder.

I have seen it posted multiple times actually. As I said, there are multiple scenarios available

 

[Blue__Balls]

Would prefer Caldwell myself.
If 5 and 10 got us M.King and Caldwell that would work, but it still seems like Walsh is a better option for us at this time.

Who would Port take with No. 1 Walsh, Rankine or Lukosious?

I think they'd go with Lukosius.

If we landed 5 and 10, I'd be going Caldwell and probably Jones. Though I'd be mighty tempted to "reach" for Butters with the second pick.

 

[Arr0w]

Would prefer Caldwell myself.
If 5 and 10 got us M.King and Caldwell that would work, but it still seems like Walsh is a better option for us at this time.

Who would Port take with No. 1 Walsh, Rankine or Lukosious?

Lukosius

 

[Macca43]

I have seen it posted multiple times actually. As I said, there are multiple scenarios available

I can't see one but I am interested in your opinion as to what one (say the most likely one) would be. If you offer your opinion I can become better informed and hopefully vice versa.

 

[jj1978]

Most likely someone will know by tonight (players manager most likely) who will be taken at 1, so we may somehow have cleaner info leaked by this evening tomorrow morning. Pickering did mention that SOS did have a quiet word to him the night before Weitering was drafted #1 and told him Weitering was the #1 (Pickers didn't tell Weits in order not to spoil the moment). But in saying that, that draft was probably more clear cut who #1 would be...

 

[Macca43]

Making it even less likely it happens.

We'd only do it if we rate the players around the mark at 6 (Caldwell/Smith/Rozee) as significantly better than what we'd get in the 3-8 range next year.

Good chance that Gold Coast aren't interested.

If Pick 1 gets traded, I suspect it's for 2 or 3 (doesn't matter which, whichever makes the points add up better) and second rounder(s). But I'm starting to lean towards Pick 1 being kept and used on Walsh, which doesn't upset me at all (though I'd love us to be more ambitious).

I could see us trading 1 for 2 & 6 if we knew we could get 5 & 10 from port for 2 (I am of the belief that if we don't take Smith we may as well skip down to 5 or 6 where we should be able to get the 3 players you mention) but I think the Suns would be made to trade up for one when they could take 3 great players.

I heard from a family friend of the Walsh's that the family was told weeks ago that we would be taking Sam and I really haven't seen anything that would make me believe that wouldn't be the case.

 

[Arr0w]

I can't see one but I am interested in your opinion as to what one (say the most likely one) would be. If you offer your opinion I can become better informed and hopefully vice versa.

Simple 2 team trade with GC (Forgetting if it is more likely than any other trade option, as we are not privy to club needs and desires)

Carlton In: Picks 3, 6, 24, Lions 2019 1st - Out Picks 1, 2019 1st, 2019 3rd

I look forward to you better informing me

 

[Blue__Balls]

I could see us trading 1 for 2 & 6 if we knew we could get 5 & 10 from port for 2 (I am of the belief that if we don't take Smith we may as well skip down to 5 or 6 where we should be able to get the 3 players you mention) but I think the Suns would be made to trade up for one when they could take 3 great players.

I heard from a family friend of the Walsh's that the family was told weeks ago that we would be taking Sam and I really haven't seen anything that would make me believe that wouldn't be the case.

1 for 5, 6 and 10 seems a bit of a stretch.

1 for 2 and 24.
2 for 5 and 15.

5 - Caldwell
15 - Butters
24 - Stocker/McHenry

I'd be happy. 3 more hardworking mids.

 

[BluesRule]

Lukosius

Ok so if we trade #1, then GCS get the man they (supposedly) want in Walsh at #2, but miss out on Lukosious.

Could see GCS then taking Walsh and M.King, and then hoping for B.King at #6. Would be great tall replacements for former captains, and best mid in draft. And reduced go home factor as country boy plus 2 brothers.

That would mean STK get Rankine at #4, or look to trade to Adelaide and slip back to #8+. STK may also go for B.King? as they probably have less need for a small forward with Gresham and Billings already.

Meaning we get a shot at Caldwell or Smith or Rozee at #5 (or less likely Rankine).

If we take Caldwell, Dogs take Smith, Adelaide take Rozee, GWS take Clark/Hately we are out of the elite kids in the draft.

Hence, I prefer Walsh to #5 and #10.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

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

Have backed him in from day dot and think he’s the custodian of that small forward pressure role until someone pries it off him. Which may never happen.

 

[Fettt]

Ok so if we trade #1, then GCS get the man they (supposedly) want in Walsh at #2, but miss out on Lukosious.

Could see GCS then taking Walsh and M.King, and then hoping for B.King at #6. Would be great tall replacements for former captains, and best mid in draft. And reduced go home factor as country boy plus 2 brothers.

That would mean STK get Rankine at #4, or look to trade to Adelaide and slip back to #8+. STK may also go for B.King? as they probably have less need for a small forward with Gresham and Billings already.

Meaning we get a shot at Caldwell or Smith or Rozee at #5 (or less likely Rankine).

If we take Caldwell, Dogs take Smith, Adelaide take Rozee, GWS take Clark/Hately we are out of the elite kids in the draft.

Hence, I prefer Walsh to #5 and #10.

Caldwell or Smith at 5 and Butters at 10 or 15 would equal a better result than just Walsh alone.....I think....who knows

 

[Macca43]

1 for 5, 6 and 10 seems a bit of a stretch.

1 for 2 and 24.
2 for 5 and 15.

5 - Caldwell
15 - Butters
24 - Stocker/McHenry

I'd be happy. 3 more hardworking mids.

It is a bit of a stretch (maybe 2 for 5 & 15) but is is part of the reason why I can't see a deal getting done, what the blues would accept is more than what anyone one would pay.

 

[Macca43]

Simple 2 team trade with GC (Forgetting if it is more likely than any other trade option, as we are not privy to club needs and desires)

Carlton In: Picks 3, 6, 24, Lions 2019 1st - Out Picks 1, 2019 1st, 2019 3rd

I look forward to you better informing me

I really can't see that deal being done, the difference between the lions 2019 first and our 2019 first is unlikely to be much more than a spot or 2 and it is a complete unknown which team would be going up or down in the trade given where both sides are at, so what is the point in including them in the trade?

 

[Blue__Balls]

It is a bit of a stretch (maybe 2 for 5 & 15) but is is part of the reason why I can't see a deal getting done, what the blues would accept is more than what anyone one would pay.

I dunno.

I reckon GC would absolutely give up a second rounder (they're going to lose one as it stands with their list size) to move up from 2 to Walsh.
And I reckon Port would happily give up Pick 15 to guarantee Lukosius with their first pick, given they'd retain 10 for Rozee or Hately.

Comes down to whether or not our recruiters see it the same way.

Pretty clear cut to me though.

Walsh

vs.

Caldwell/Smith + Butters/Jones + Stocker/McHenry

I reckon there's a reasonable chance at least one of those 6 ends up as good as Walsh by the end of their careers.

 

[MITSUHIRATO]

We are keeping pick 1 and taking Walsh.

Source: Marcus Clarke

 

[Macca43]

I dunno.

I reckon GC would absolutely give up a second rounder (they're going to lose one as it stands with their list size) to move up from 2 to Walsh.
And I reckon Port would happily give up Pick 15 to guarantee Lukosius with their first pick, given they'd retain 10 for Rozee or Hately.

Comes down to whether or not our recruiters see it the same way.

Pretty clear cut to me though.

Walsh

vs.

Caldwell/Smith + Butters/Jones + Stocker/McHenry

I reckon there's a reasonable chance at least one of those 6 ends up as good as Walsh by the end of their careers.

I am not convinced the blues would give up 1 for 2 & 24 (maybe 2 & 19) but it is possible. We will see soon enough.