List Mgmt. Pick 9

[Stamos]

Which gives it a very different meaning.

The idea that trading out a pick that often doesn't even get used can prevent you from trading a future first is ridiculous.

It's been the rule since futures trading was introduced. You can apply to be allowed to make the trade, and given the picks we've used recently, I'm sure we'd be allowed.

But also, if we were in a situation to trade our 1st, it wouldn't be hard to find a future 4th somewhere.

 

[Stamos]

We're allowed so long as we get a future 4th back as part of any deal for our first.

Or a 2nd or 3rd

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Or a 2nd or 3rd

No you must replace the specific round you are missing

 

[Stamos]

No you must replace the specific pick you are missing

That's not true.
You think if you upgrade a 4th round pick to a 2nd (ie have a better draft hand) they won't let you trade your 1st?

 

[swuzzlebubble]

That's not true.
You think if you upgrade a 4th round pick to a 2nd (ie have a better draft hand) they won't let you trade your 1st?

Correct. You can only trade the extra 2nd you now have. GWS, Power and Eagles are in this position

This is every AFL club’s future draft pick hand. 15 are seriously hamstrung

This is every AFL club’s future draft pick hand. 15 are seriously hamstrung

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[murphster]

Half of Serongs highlight videos shows him missing targets. No thanks

So did Walsh’s highlights

 

[JuddgementDay]

That's not true.
You think if you upgrade a 4th round pick to a 2nd (ie have a better draft hand) they won't let you trade your 1st?

Weird rule, but as it is, that's how I understood it too

"IF you trade your future first, you can't trade out of any future rounds. "
So, to trade out future first, you will need your full complements of other future rounds, i.e. RD2, RD3 and RD4 etc

 

[Macca43]

It's been the rule since futures trading was introduced. You can apply to be allowed to make the trade, and given the picks we've used recently, I'm sure we'd be allowed.

But also, if we were in a situation to trade our 1st, it wouldn't be hard to find a future 4th somewhere.

Don't care how long it has been a rule or how we can circumvent it, it is ridiculous that a team like the Hawks can trade a future first despite basically not having one this decade while we, who have what 9 (?) plus others we have traded in are restricted because of a missing future 4th - the system isn't working as intended.

 

[Stamos]

Don't care how long it has been a rule or how we can circumvent it, it is ridiculous that a team like the Hawks can trade a future first despite basically not having one this decade while we, who have what 9 (?) plus others we have traded in are restricted because of a missing future 4th - the system isn't working as intended.

They're 2 different restrictions.
I don't think either is egregious.

Hawks are using a 1st this year. Why should they not be able to trade their future 1st for another 1st this year?

 

[Pafloyul]

So did Walsh’s highlights

Serong does have kicking percentage of only 48%, not sure if that was at the championships or at Nab League level.

 

[Eiffel 65]

If Young is still on the board at 9 .....I really hope we can get our hands on Carlton's pick 9 to select him.....

Young on the board is a game changer. Probably the reason why many are so desperate to get pick 9.

Young or two more speculative picks in the late teens/early twenties.

I'd choose Young every day of the week, especially given that there's no guarantee you'll get your target players if you move back in the draft.

 

[Macca43]

They're 2 different restrictions.
I don't think either is egregious.

Hawks are using a 1st this year. Why should they not be able to trade their future 1st for another 1st this year?

We are using our first this year, like we did last year, and the year before and the year before and the year before, why should we not be able to trade a future first?

 

[Ollo]

If Young is available at our pick, who do we see him potentially pushing out of the side longer term?

At 188cm I'm not sure he can play small, which I would argue rules out replacing Simmo which is the obvious candidate given this is probably his last year.

 

[CJMB]

Scroll on down to Pickett at number 30, watch the clip they've included.

Described as a "bump", but just looks like he spear-tackled a bloke who didn't have the ball?

Not to be a **** but if that was any further removed from a spear tackle it'd be a handshake.

There's no arm wrap so it's not a tackle and there's also no lifting motion taking the player up and rotating past horizontal so it's definitely not a spear tackle, not even close.

It's front on body contact, probably touch and go as far as being penalised for being 'more than a sheppard' which is as much about the level of aggression (commitment) in the hit, but in my eyes that's pretty much a front on bump. A bump that would have me up and out of my seat applauding if it was one of our players on match day.

This is coming from a bloke who's had the unpleasant experience of being spear tackled a couple of time... being dropped on your head is nasty business and that's why both rugby codes hand out big suspensions for doing it. But what Pickett did there was a-ok

 

[Stamos]

We are using our first this year, like we did last year, and the year before and the year before and the year before, why should we not be able to trade a future first?

They're 2 completely different restrictions.

One is about ensuring that clubs bring in at least some high-end (1st round) drafted talent over a period of time.
The other is about not completely trading out of a future draft.

I really don't see it as a big issue.

 

[GT619]

Toby Greene is a f*n gun, but what separates him from others is his aerial ability. If he didn’t have that he wouldn’t be playing forward.

Does Serong have that ability?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Long hair is Serong no.2

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Just saw this on fox, this can't be right can it?
Carlton: Can’t trade their future first-round selection as

they don’t hold a 2020 fourth-
round pick.

It’s an extremely flawed system going on what you have just posted makes absolutely no sense at all...
While
Geelong: Can trade two 2020 first-round pick, as they have acquired two (West Coast’s and their own) and have a full allotment of 2020 future selections
Hawthorn: Free to trade any future selection as they currently hold a full allotment of 2020 picks
Collingwood: Free to trade any future selection as they currently hold a full allotment of 2020 picks.

3 teams who have hardly had a first round pick in years are free to trade but the blues who have loaded up on the draft in recent years are hamstrung by not having a future 4th?

 

[CJMB]

We are using our first this year, like we did last year, and the year before and the year before and the year before, why should we not be able to trade a future first?

What happened last year, or the year before or any other year in the history of the competition is irrelevant.

A 4th round pick is somewhere in the range of 207 to 19 points using their draft index. It's SFA, and wouldn't take much to get a club to throw in a pick in that 55-72 range when we're potentially handing over something in the first half of the first round.

 

[Macca43]

They're 2 completely different restrictions.

One is about ensuring that clubs bring in at least some high-end (1st round) drafted talent over a period of time.
The other is about not completely trading out of a future draft.

I really don't see it as a big issue.

The two restrictions work in concert for ostensibly the same purpose.

They are both aimed at clubs are drafting players so they don't mortgage the future for a sugar hit. Restricting a club from trading a future first simply becasue they have traded a future fourth while allowing another club to go the best part of a decade without drafting a first round player is simply ridiculous.

 

[GT619]

Serong does have kicking percentage of only 48%, not sure if that was at the championships or at Nab League level.

serong makes up with his aggressive attack on the ball, tackling pressure is good, he’s a competitor, one on one marking is good

 

[Macca43]

What happened last year, or the year before or any other year in the history of the competition is irrelevant.

A 4th round pick is somewhere in the range of 207 to 19 points using their draft index. It's SFA, and wouldn't take much to get a club to throw in a pick in that 55-72 range when we're potentially handing over something in the first half of the first round.

My point exactly - why should such a rubbish pick impact what we can do with our future first? Why should we have to complicate a deal to "throw in" a set of steak knives when clubs who have traded away their first round pick for years on end can trade without restriction?

"wouldn't take much to get a club to throw in a pick in that 55-72 range when we're potentially handing over something in the first half of the first round." Depends on what we are getting back.

 

[CJMB]

My point exactly - why should such a rubbish pick impact what we can do with our future first? Why should we have to complicate a deal to "throw in" a set of steak knives when clubs who have traded away their first round pick for years on end can trade without restriction?

"wouldn't take much to get a club to throw in a pick in that 55-72 range when we're potentially handing over something in the first half of the first round." Depends on what we are getting back.

so we throw in our pick 74 & 85 (or whatever it is we have at the back end this year that we probably wont use) and swap 5ths or 3rds or something... some miniscule **** to give them a tiny increase in value so they throw in that crappy late 4th we need to satisfy the rule. It's not a big deal.

It's not like the other clubs don't know that we'll need a 4th (or better) coming back to get the deal done. They might be looking at a 4th pick they have no intention of using and be happy to lose it for the sake of being good trading partners. Again, it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Macca43]

so we throw in our pick 74 & 85 (or whatever it is we have at the back end this year that we probably wont use) and swap 5ths or 3rds or something... some miniscule **** to give them a tiny increase in value so they throw in that crappy late 4th we need to satisfy the rule. It's not a big deal.

It's not like the other clubs don't know that we'll need a 4th (or better) coming back to get the deal done. They might be looking at a 4th pick they have no intention of using and be happy to lose it for the sake of being good trading partners. Again, it's not that big of a deal.

Don't care how long it has been a rule or how we can circumvent it, it is ridiculous that a team like the Hawks can trade a future first despite basically not having one this decade while we, who have what 9 (?) plus others we have traded in are restricted because of a missing future 4th - the system isn't working as intended.

such a meaningless pick shouldn't impact your ability to trade a future first. It is like saying you are only allowed to own 1 car and you already have a matchbox so you can't buy another one.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

So if Geelong are keen on Kemp at 9 and we are too, what does it take to be worthwhile to trade down?

 

[Jeremias]

So if Geelong are keen on Kemp at 9 and we are too, what does it take to be worthwhile to trade down?

Impossible to say, obviously, as it depends on our draft board.

But if we rate him as clearly the best prospect available, we take him, as much as I'd rather we slide down the order.