Mega Thread Draft Day Supermegaultrathread - It's finally here

[Masto]

Brendon Ah Chee makes his debut this weekend. Will be interested to see how he goes.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

whats his best attributes?

Needs more willpower.

 

[steve hucka]

What does O'Rourke have to do with it? He played nine games in two seasons at GWS and had hamstring issues, he didn't come on and Hawks still parted with a pick 19, Coniglio will likely play his 50th game this season. Before the season started no one would have picked we'd finish bottom 5 and I doubt we will anyway. GWS will not trade for anything less than a first rounder.



Sorry to break it to you but the Eagles have already made a play for him.

Last year ?

 

[mattyc75]

Needs more willpower.

have you reached nerd level 16 yet?

 

[pantskyle]

Last year ?

I'll say we are balls deep into him right now.

 

[steve hucka]

I'll say we are balls deep into him right now.

Im not 100% convinced but don't mind either way, providing we don't give up the world for him

 

[steve hucka]

What does coniglio's size have to do with it ! He is a gun clearance player who sticks his tackles and is very quick on the spread . Behind shuey he would be our best mid in the coming years .
Having a core midfield of shuey gaff coniglio yeo sheed duggin and waterman would be very nice !

Because im sick of seeing our midfield get monstered, But to be honest i haven't seen much of Coniglio but i know he's about 180cm and looks a little slight but if he's that good go for it

 

[dajesmac]

In fact we'll offer it straight up and possibly a player.

Haha imagine that. Would be as bad as the Wellingham deal.

 

[tesseract]

I've made a couple of suggestions. Although it obviously hinges heavily on what picks both sides have at season's end. And we don't know what those will be.

You've been sitting on the fence and have been vague in order to not have your ideas scrutinized.

If WC manage to shake Coniglio loose, the onus will be on them to come up with something viable.

Obviously GWS won't want to lose him for nothing but WC will also be obligated to come up with something workable. That's pragmatism.

Maybe he gets to his preferred destination. Maybe he doesn't. And maybe he decides to stay.

What's considered pragmatic is subjective. I think my deal is pragmatic. You disagree. Yet you won't be specific as to what would get a deal done. You just continue to deflect with "It depends" and "obviously hinges heavily on what picks both sides have at season's end. And we don't know what those will be." We're discussing a hypothetical, so fire away and be specific.

IThat is the risk for WC. That is why they need to be pragmatic if they get to the point that Coniglio has nominated them.

WC don't have anything to lose, for they can't lose something they don't have. GWS have everything to lose, for if they don't bend, they can lose Coniglio for nothing.

I offer a pragmatic deal that takes into account WC's leverage. Are you implying that WC should throw away that leverage in order to be "pragmatic"? I think it's not a case of either/or.

Because I'm probing your analysis, which I think is flawed.

You overstate the degree to which WC could shaft GWS, even if Coniglio has nominated WC as his preferred destination.

That's why I'm asking, 'well, why don't we just give them a third-rounder?'

If WC had GWS and the situation so completely by the balls, why not?

Your response - that it's about 'future trading relations' - is unconvincing.

The real reason WC wouldn't simply offer a third-rounder is pragmatism about getting a deal done.

You're probing is shallow, for it goes no further than 'I disagree'.

If I've overstated how far WC could shaft GWS, then explain it in more detail than "I disagree'. You've been nothing but vague right from the start with me.

I've answered your question "why don't we use a third rounder?" more than once. Your inability to comprehend is showing by asking the same question a third time. Do you have comprehension difficulties? You obviously do given that you've twice cited my answer, yet continue to ask the question.

No one has said for WC to offer a third round pick, so you're answering your own strawman.

Stop posturing. It's not persuasive. If my posts are "rhetoric" then so are yours. It's an odd complaint.

Besides, I suggested an exchange of first-rounders, depending on ladder position, could be a factor. Or the packaging of two second-rounders. I 'offered up' both these scenarios. Not that I need to do that to disagree with the one you've presented.

Speaking of unpersuasive, you're being vague and simply saying I disagree while not expanding on the why, so such a comment is a bit rich coming from you.

Now you reveal you're a troll by cutting off "empty" which preceded "rhetoric". This selective quoting shows you to be a disingenuous troll.

An exchange of first rounders and what? Is that all there is to the deal, or is it simply more of what's now becoming a common trait of yours ambiguity?

You have stated the packaging of two second rounders, yet I answered that with "If Coniglio states his intention to head to WC, what's your reasoning for WC having to put up 2x 2nd round picks, given GWS have no leverage to force such a demand upon WC?". You didn't explain the reasoning for such except to continue to say that you disagree with my view and that you don't need to explain yourself.

Your attitude of 'this is my simple view and I don't care to expand upon and explain that view' makes your contribution to this discussion a waste of bandwidth.

 

[tesseract]

What? That's a ridiculous notion. That's like saying Naitanui and Watts were worth roughly the same after 3 years even though one had played more games and shown a lot more

Did I say or imply it covers other player comparisons? No. I was specific to these two players. I said in this situation it was a "rough guide". Both have had injury-plagued starts to their careers which has held them back from playing as often as they could've. Hence future potential playing the biggest part in their trade value. Does such apply to NicNat and Watts? Of course not. The suggestion was used as a rough guide for trade compensation based upon a few similarities. Hence I believe it makes for an apt comparison.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Because im sick of seeing our midfield get monstered, But to be honest i haven't seen much of Coniglio but i know he's about 180cm and looks a little slight but if he's that good go for it

Don't get me wrong he is not a small bash and crash nugget like Kerr . But he is not a suitcase ( packs himself ) pushover like masten .
Coniglio is a very good reader off the tap , has clean hands in the contest and moves very well through traffic . He had 14 clearances in one game last year !
It also his follow up work after he or a team mate wins the ball . His spread from the contest running sideways/ backwards is very quick and links up well to clear the ball .

 

[LordHaart]

For those saying he is worth pick 10-20, would you take him over a Duggan or Cockatoo? Personally I'd prefer to try and keep our first, and trade a player instead, possibly with a 2/3 round pick depending on the player.

Which goes back to the question - what do GWS need? History suggests that they have more than enough draft picks and what they want is a ready-made player.

 

[Tom Kerrigan]

If we get Rance could we swap Mitch Brown for Coniglio? I know that's a bit of a dick move to Brown after we made him stay here but GWS would definitely want a ready-made key defender and we need our midfielder. Brown's ACL may lower his value to the giants but also it has the potential to make him less useful to us, and I think GWS's need for a player like him would make swapping definitely plausible.

 

[LordHaart]

If we get Rance could we swap Mitch Brown for Coniglio? I know that's a bit of a dick move to Brown after we made him stay here but GWS would definitely want a ready-made key defender and we need our midfielder. Brown's ACL may lower his value to the giants but also it has the potential to make him less useful to us, and I think GWS's need for a player like him would make swapping definitely plausible.

Yep, that's precisely what I suggested a few pages back.

I think our 2nd rounder would be needed as well, and that's also assuming that Brown comes back ok.

Another hypothetical - if Gold Coast continues to flop, who on their list are we most likely to be able to dislodge? Both in terms of the player wanting to play for us, and in terms of the club bring willing to part with them.

 

[pantskyle]

Haha imagine that. Would be as bad as the Wellingham deal.

How so? Coniglio is a much better prospect than Wellingham.

 

[SpaceClef]

#returnthenigs

 

[pantskyle]

#returnthenigs

 

[bombard]

 

[Cuzdup]

If we get Rance could we swap Mitch Brown for Coniglio? I know that's a bit of a dick move to Brown after we made him stay here but GWS would definitely want a ready-made key defender and we need our midfielder. Brown's ACL may lower his value to the giants but also it has the potential to make him less useful to us, and I think GWS's need for a player like him would make swapping definitely plausible.

Can't see Browny having any currency come trade time, Injury prone and recoving from an ACL. He'd still be on our injury list come trade week, wont happen.

 

[JADED]

Rance will retire anyway, just ask Richmond. Who'd want him when he might give the game away? Or perhaps that's what they want us to think. New tactics to ward off free agent poachers.

 

[pantskyle]

Rance will retire anyway, just ask Richmond. Who'd want him when he might give the game away? Or perhaps that's what they want us to think. New tactics to ward off free agent poachers.

Heard that yesterday, very strange.

 

[pantskyle]

Just on Rance, it's apparently retirement to do more Jehovah Witness work or sign with the Tigers.

 

[LordHaart]

Just on Rance, it's apparently retirement to do more Jehovah Witness work or sign with the Tigers.

Could this be the time when all of our work to "clean up our club, at the cost of ruthlessness and success" finally pays us back?

 

[Marlin01]

Just on Rance, it's apparently retirement to do more Jehovah Witness work or sign with the Tigers.

Are they the group that goes around mutilating squirrels?

 

[bodazoka]

Could this be the time when all of our work to "clean up our club, at the cost of ruthlessness and success" finally pays us back?

hahahaha everyone here bags on WC for not being ruthless enough and Rance nominates us because were a good wholesome club!