List Mgmt. Pick 9

[bmaurizio]

Bergman will be a ripper like his footy much, together with say Pickett or Tehany and one may think about a swap say our pick 9 for 14 &17? Just saying.

 

[Pafloyul]

It's not about getting more points, it's about getting an extra player.
The points are just a guide for what is a reasonable trade.

It's just a pity that, to a lot of people, getting 'an extra player' simply means getting 'an extra running player within the first one 25 (or so) picks', the details and what happens to our third and fourth selections be damned. I'd be looking at the optimum chances of getting a good player with each pick, that might mean not trading our first pick down too far, if at all, and a swap of future picks to trade up our later selections.

 

[Ollo]

Remember that so did Kemp

Yep, just hadn't heard that we had also hosted Serong. Gives us a great insight into a couple of the possible of options at our pick which is fortunate.

I am curious as to whether Serong could benefit from dropping a few kgs given he's currently listed by the AFL as 179cm/88kg. May go some way to improving his burst?

 

[Stamos]

It's just a pity that, to a lot of people, getting 'an extra player' simply means getting 'an extra running player within the first one 25 (or so) picks', the details and what happens to our third and fourth selections be damned. I'd be looking at the optimum chances of getting a good player with each pick, that might mean not trading our first pick down too far, if at all, and a swap of future picks to trade up our later selections.

If the trade is with the Cats, having our 2nd selection at #17, rather than at #43.
It would likely take a decent amount of future collateral to get into that sort of range.

 

[HARKER]

Yep, just hadn't heard that we had also hosted Serong. Gives us a great insight into a couple of the possible of options at our pick which is fortunate.

I am curious as to whether Serong could benefit from dropping a few kgs given he's currently listed by the AFL as 179cm/88kg. May go some way to improving his burst?

That's a terribly meaty package.
Are you sure it's 88kgs?

EDIT: I'm seeing 83 kgs, but even that seems somewhat heavy for an 18yo @ 178cm

 

[Ollo]

That's a terribly meaty package.
Are you sure it's 88kgs?

EDIT: I'm seeing 83 kgs, but even that seems somewhat heavy for an 18yo @ 178cm

You're right the AFL draft profile lists him at 83kg, where as Cal Twomey's phantom draft on the same site lists him at 88kg. I'd imagine the former is more likely to be accurate. An off-season with Andrew Russell wouldn't go astray.

I do know from reading your posts you have larger knocks on him than just agility/speed though.

 

[Jimmae]

Why do we need to split pick 9 and get more points when we don't have any decent academy picks coming up for the foreseeable future ?

What real benefit do we get ? This draft does fall away quite after pick 12 or so apparently.

I think it depends on who is still available on the draft night at #9 and a need type of question.
If the players that are still there don't offer that much of a step up (quality) or need for us, then it would be better to have two go at the next group than pick #9 and then #43, as the gap is too far.

It's less about the gap, and more about who is left out of that upper group when our pick comes around.

If it's Serong, McAsey, Flanders and Stephens, I'd advocate trading out unless we're confident enough on Bergman and willing to select him. We're unlikely to get access to a pick higher than 14, and Bergman will probably be gone by then, almost certainly to the Dogs.

So the question is someone like Bergman or Kemp, versus two players like Gould and Sharp.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

It's less about the gap, and more about who is left out of that upper group when our pick comes around.

If it's Serong, McAsey, Flanders and Stephens, I'd advocate trading out unless we're confident enough on Bergman and willing to select him. We're unlikely to get access to a pick higher than 14, and Bergman will probably be gone by then, almost certainly to the Dogs.

So the question is someone like Bergman or Kemp, versus two players like Gould and Sharp.

Sadly The Swans will pick Flanders from the latest draft whispers around the traps.

 

[Jimmae]

Sadly The Swans will pick Flanders from the latest draft whispers around the traps.

I literally want none of those names. I rate the footy IQ of Serong and Flanders, but I don't think we've got the kind of system to support his inability to run both ways alongside players like JSOS, Stocker and Cripps.

It's asking too much of too few, and I think it's a problem Flanders is going to run into with many teams, but the Swans play 10 games at the SCG most years so they perhaps suit him better. I mean McVeigh probably played his last 4 years at about half speed, so Flanders will fit in fine. Hawks are another candidate if he slides.

We'd need to draft a whole host of quality runners to change that dynamic enough, and we've just not done it.

 

[Ollo]

Sadly The Swans will pick Flanders from the latest draft whispers around the traps.

So that would put the current anticipated top 10/11 as potentially:

1. Gold Coast - M.Rowell
2. Gold Coast - N.Anderson
3. Melbourne - L.Jackson
4. GWS - H.Young/L.Ash
5. GWS - T.Green
6. Sydney - S.Flanders
7. Adelaide - F.McAsey
8. Fremantle - D.Robertson
9. Melbourne - H.Young/L.Ash/Trade
10. Fremantle - L.Henry
11. Carlton - D.Stephens/C.Serong/B.Kemp

I think a big question mark will be who GWS takes at 4 on the assumption Melbourne doesn't bid at 3, and how that on-flows. If they opt for Ash as they already have Haynes, another team may be unable to resist the chance to grab Young.

 

[HARKER]

You're right the AFL draft profile lists him at 83kg, where as Cal Twomey's phantom draft on the same site lists him at 88kg. I'd imagine the former is more likely to be accurate. An off-season with Andrew Russell wouldn't go astray.

I do know from reading your posts you have larger knocks on him than just agility/speed though.

That's not me. I didn't have knocks on Serong, although there isn't a player that has everything you want in the one package.
I don't need Serong to become a midfielder, as I don't want another makeshift midfielder. Why would we want that given the spread of mids we have?

Look at what Fisher said today:
“We have a lot of talented, young midfielders and you can’t fit everyone in.
Being able to have that other strings to your bow as a forward would be really handy as well.”

As good as this all sounds it can become a problem of sorts and especially so by way of wasting premium picks for player-types you may have picked up much cheaper in the draft. This is why I say that if you don't consider needs you'll run into issues.
It's great that SPS will be playing as an attacking HBF'er but at what cost? Maybe if we had our eyes trained on what we wanted from the get-go, it may have come cheaper by way of draft pick and salary. Same may well go for Dow and O'Brien. It may not but as Fisher said, 'you can’t fit everyone in' and when you can't fit them all in you start re-inventing when maybe re-invention wasn't quite required had have more prudent List management been in play.

Again that's not to say that SOS was wrong here, as we had to populate our list with talent but from here on in if we're not plugging gaps - I'm not sure we're doing it quite right. Just an observation, but a considered one.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Which draftee is closest to C Curnow in attributes?

 

[Jeremias]

#9 for #14 + #17 is a surplus of #27
#9 + #43 for #14 + #17 is a surplus of #46

They need to pay to move up. There is no way we're adding a future 1st in there.

9, 43 and a future 2nd for 14, 17 and 24. That will give a surplus of 170 odd at worst.

 

[Stamos]

9, 43 and a future 2nd for 14, 17 and 24. That will give a surplus of 170 odd at worst.

Can't see the Cats doing that.

 

[Jeremias]

Can't see the Cats doing that.

I can't either, but if they really want pick 9 it's what I'd be asking for.

 

[AT97]

And people want Brodie Kemp after what happened to Charlie today. No thanks

Perhaps we need him more considering Kemp supposedly plays as a forward quite well.

 

[Stamos]

I can't either, but if they really want pick 9 it's what I'd be asking for.

I think we'd be better off keeping next years 2nd, and forgoing #24.

 

[Jeremias]

I think we'd be better off keeping next years 2nd, and forgoing #24.

That would be fine also.

3 x top 25 picks would be a good result if our main targets are off the board when pick 9 comes around.

There are some really good prospects in that range IMO and you could afford to take a bit of a risk on a player with that 3rd selection also.

 

[Ollo]

That's not me. I didn't have knocks on Serong, although there isn't a player that has everything you want in the one package.
I don't need Serong to become a midfielder, as I don't want another makeshift midfielder. Why would we want that given the spread of mids we have?

Ah my mistake. Obviously been reading too much BF in the last few days.

 

[Stamos]

That would be fine also.

3 x top 25 picks would be a good result if our main targets are off the board when pick 9 comes around.

There are some really good prospects in that range IMO and you could afford to take a bit of a risk on a player with that 3rd selection also.

Yeah, though I think I'd much prefer to have two good picks, and keep our future 2nd for the flexibility it allows next year.

 

[bmaurizio]

That would be fine also.

3 x top 25 picks would be a good result if our main targets are off the board when pick 9 comes around.

There are some really good prospects in that range IMO and you could afford to take a bit of a risk on a player with that 3rd selection also.

Agree with you, this would be an good outcome, there're quality footballers among picks range 13 to 25 no doubt,
Bergman, Rivers, or C. Stevens, Pickett, Tehany or Cahill, one could look at a tall too.

 

[Weiterbot23]

Which draftee is closest to C Curnow in attributes?

Kemp?

 

[swuzzlebubble]

9, 43 and a future 2nd for 14, 17 and 24. That will give a surplus of 170 odd at worst.

What points are you putting on our future picks?

 

[Jeremias]

What points are you putting on our future picks?

The “at worst” scenario was finishing 18th and therefore having the first pick in the second round.

 

[Blue__Balls]

What points are you putting on our future picks?

Just add the points up.

We come out 170 points ahead in a worst case scenario, which would be Pick 19. With GC already having a PP, it's actually 212 points ahead, for Pick 20.

The higher above 18th we finish the further ahead we come, although it doesn't matter too much at that point in time.

I'm not a fan of swapping our future second for one this year. I know next year's draft is "compromised", but that just means there are going to be a stack of clubs wanting second rounders to use on matching bids. Every chance we can use our second to good effect on the trade table next year.