Prediction Possible pick swaps

[LukeParkerno1]

I thought exactly the same thing, unless he was thinking by getting pick 3, Sydney could then hold GWS to ransom by threatening to bid on Green at 3..but if so, why wouldn't Melbourne save themselves the trouble of trading with Sydney and just use the same tactic against GWS themselves?

GWS will just match it anyway with pick 6 and a few late picks...I'd love Green and he suits us to a tee but it's not happening.

 

[Peel67skin]

Suns could prob get green if they wanted. Just nominate him pick 1... would prob cost gws every pick next 2 years to match

I don't think GC will do that, look at Adelaide fan predication or suggestion before and after trade week. I assume the same with draft pick swap a bit off .

 

[Crow till I die]

GWS will just match it anyway with pick 6 and a few late picks...I'd love Green and he suits us to a tee but it's not happening.

Agree. If Green is there at pick 4 (should melbourne pass on bidding on him), it is almost cast in stone the crows will as Green projects as a very very good player and one of our posters I think is on the money that if he was not tied to GWS academy he very much would have been in the conversation for pick 1 this year from what I have seen. I really comes down to whether GWS want to sell the farm to get in above the crows or get the crows pick to get another top kid this year along with green (they will get him no matter what imo), or do they just cut and run and use pick 6 to match a bid, in which case I don't understand why they traded up to 6 at a points loss to do so?

 

[Bollox]

We have moved up for zero reason. GWS will just match the bid- and we've given a decent second rounder away...

Add up 6+40. They need more.
Make it obvious it will cost them the farm. We don't need to do it, just say we want to.
They can have Greene, but also give us the assurance we get ours next year without them being prix when it is our turn. We owe them nothing, but we also know they like to make things difficult if possible.
At worst we lose pick 32. Who the hell cares. Delist one less this year. Meaningless.
I want the leverage.

 

[Peel67skin]

Agree. If Green is there at pick 4 (should melbourne pass on bidding on him), it is almost cast in stone the crows will as Green projects as a very very good player and one of our posters I think is on the money that if he was not tied to GWS academy he very much would have been in the conversation for pick 1 this year from what I have seen. I really comes down to whether GWS want to sell the farm to get in above the crows or get the crows pick to get another top kid this year along with green (they will get him no matter what imo), or do they just cut and run and use pick 6 to match a bid, in which case I don't understand why they traded up to 6 at a points loss to do so?

I think you need to look into what GWS and other recruiters think, a lot of your suggestion is based on your own emotion, rather than critical thinking, if you look back at your suggestion from last year to this year basically all gone the other way. Keath, Greenwood get you pick a lot lower than what you want or suggested.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Agree. If Green is there at pick 4 (should melbourne pass on bidding on him), it is almost cast in stone the crows will as Green projects as a very very good player and one of our posters I think is on the money that if he was not tied to GWS academy he very much would have been in the conversation for pick 1 this year from what I have seen. I really comes down to whether GWS want to sell the farm to get in above the crows or get the crows pick to get another top kid this year along with green (they will get him no matter what imo), or do they just cut and run and use pick 6 to match a bid, in which case I don't understand why they traded up to 6 at a points loss to do so?

Have a feeling the "plan" was to trade up to pick 3. Whether that was or is still possible is another thing though. I'm the same train of thought- the trade up was weird at the time and still is. However if they get pick 3 they might see selling next year's points as a small price to pay seeing there is no-one in their academy next year.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Add up 6+40. They need more.
Make it obvious it will cost them the farm. We don't need to do it, just say we want to.
They can have Greene, but also give us the assurance we get ours next year without them being prix when it is our turn. We owe them nothing, but we also know they like to make things difficult if possible.
At worst we lose pick 32. Who the hell cares. Delist one less this year. Meaningless.
I want the leverage.

Waste of time flat out. We got Rowbottom with a similar range pick...Luke Parker went pick 40...second rounders are hardly useless. We are not getting Green.

 

[Crow till I die]

I think you need to look into what GWS and other recruiters think, a lot of your suggestion is based on your own emotion, rather than critical thinking, if you look back at your suggestion from last year to this year basically all gone the other way. Keath, Greenwood get you pick a lot lower than what you want or suggested.

what are you banging on about..are you saying green is not rated right up at the pointy end of this draft? I will take my information from what I see and those who watch these kids regularly rather than some big footy poster that is plain hard to understand

 

[Peel67skin]

what are you banging on about..are you saying green is not rated right up at the pointy end of this draft? I will take my information from what I see and those who watch these kids regularly rather than some big footy poster that is plain hard to understand

I rated Green, but I think GWS have backup plan, rather than what you suggested, you watch the kids play regularly but you are not the person that make decision for other club recruiters. If they think different than you does not mean they don't watch the kids play regularly.

 

[Crow till I die]

I rated Green, but I think GWS had backup plan, rather than what you suggested, you watch the kids play regular but you are not the person that make decision.

Nor are you. No doubt GWS have a plan but to the rest of us not including you it seems, it looks a very odd one if they don't try and get in above a bid for green for what they have given up and what they have left to spend in terms of draft capital.

 

[Bollox]

Waste of time flat out. We got Rowbottom with a similar range pick...Luke Parker went pick 40...second rounders are hardly useless. We are not getting Green.

No its not a waste of time.
Rowbottom is just another prospect at this point. We like him enough to re-sign but that's all he is. No shortage of flankers around.
Parker is an exception to the draft rule. It is highly uncommon to get one that good at 40. Not anymore.
Times have changed, The draft order is far far more reliable these days.
We need an INSIDE mid. A big inside mid to replace JPK.
I don't want Serong. I don't want whatever is left over after Rowell Anderson and Greene.
It may seem like a foregone conclusion GWS will find a way to get Greene, but we cant assume that, and can at least put max pressure on them. With 3 we get the choice of anyone. Pick 32 is nothing to me other than some draft points we don't need this year. We need points for next year.

We should at least get absolute confirmation that GC's pick 1 or 2 are definitely off limits. We also need confirmation that Greene wouldn't rather play for Sydney than GWS.
People are working off assumptions with this stuff.

If GC tell the AFL they'd rather 3 top 10 picks this year than simply 1,2 then it is game on for a lot of clubs.

Has anyone even seen this confirmed ? Or is it an assumption 1 and 2 are totally off limits.

 

[Wayne Swan]

The only things certain in life are death, taxes and GC taking Rowell & Anderson.

GC biggest problem is retention, Rowell & Anderson are the closest of mates, taking the best two talents in this draft and the closest of mates means they are highly likely to stay at the GC as they build on field success in the next couple of years. Taking just one of them means it will be massive go home to Melbourne for the one they draft. AFL gave them pick 1 for a reason and that was so they could draft the "twins". Picks 1 & 2 are locked in stone, no point discussing, move onto pick 3.

 

[Crow till I die]

No its not a waste of time.
Rowbottom is just another prospect at this point. We like him enough to re-sign but that's all he is. No shortage of flankers around.
Parker is an exception to the draft rule. It is highly uncommon to get one that good at 40. Not anymore.
Times have changed, The draft order is far far more reliable these days.
We need an INSIDE mid. A big inside mid to replace JPK.
I don't want Serong. I don't want whatever is left over after Rowell Anderson and Greene.
It may seem like a foregone conclusion GWS will find a way to get Greene, but we cant assume that, and can at least put max pressure on them. With 3 we get the choice of anyone. Pick 32 is nothing to me other than some draft points we don't need this year. We need points for next year.

We should at least get absolute confirmation that GC's pick 1 or 2 are definitely off limits. We also need confirmation that Greene wouldn't rather play for Sydney than GWS.
People are working off assumptions with this stuff.

If GC tell the AFL they'd rather 3 top 10 picks this year than simply 1,2 then it is game on for a lot of clubs.

Has anyone even seen this confirmed ? Or is it an assumption 1 and 2 are totally off limits.

I think a really simple way to put it is to flip it around and imagine Green is a Sydney NG academy player and Sydney have pick 6 and GWS have pick 5 and the crows are dead keen at pick 4 and melbourne??? who knows if they are also not keen. Sydeny know Green will blow their pick 6 away in matching a bid and they will know it will cost a bomb to get in above a bid (ie pick 3 or 4). But what they absolutely know - no matter what, is that they CAN match any bid from 3 down and Green is theirs. Do you think Sydney would pass on Green in this scenario understanding Green is ranked very high on the draft boards and projects as a very very good player

Edit: GC should trade pick 1 or 2 if they want extra top 10 picks..but I bet they won't

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No its not a waste of time.
Rowbottom is just another prospect at this point. We like him enough to re-sign but that's all he is. No shortage of flankers around.
Parker is an exception to the draft rule. It is highly uncommon to get one that good at 40. Not anymore.
Times have changed, The draft order is far far more reliable these days.
We need an INSIDE mid. A big inside mid to replace JPK.
I don't want Serong. I don't want whatever is left over after Rowell Anderson and Greene.
It may seem like a foregone conclusion GWS will find a way to get Greene, but we cant assume that, and can at least put max pressure on them. With 3 we get the choice of anyone. Pick 32 is nothing to me other than some draft points we don't need this year. We need points for next year.

We should at least get absolute confirmation that GC's pick 1 or 2 are definitely off limits. We also need confirmation that Greene wouldn't rather play for Sydney than GWS.
People are working off assumptions with this stuff.

If GC tell the AFL they'd rather 3 top 10 picks this year than simply 1,2 then it is game on for a lot of clubs.

Has anyone even seen this confirmed ? Or is it an assumption 1 and 2 are totally off limits.

You are blowing our whole draft on a Hail Mary (that won’t happen). Be reasonable like Gulden is ours, Green is theirs. We have a live top 5 pick. We can get a Young, Ash, Flanders, Serong, etc. Darymple has a phenomenon record with first round selections.

We’ve done well with second and third rounders. Pick 30 odd is still a good pick and we will use it.

 

[perplexed]

Have a feeling the "plan" was to trade up to pick 3. Whether that was or is still possible is another thing though. I'm the same train of thought- the trade up was weird at the time and still is. However if they get pick 3 they might see selling next year's points as a small price to pay seeing there is no-one in their academy next year.

Gws can't afford to trade any higher. If they do and pick a player before Green then they won't have enough collateral left to match a bid on Green. They are hoping that nobody picks him before six. If someone does, they will trade down before matching.
I suspect that originally they wanted to trade higher but couldn't get enough back for Bonar or someone else they were considering offloading.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Gws can't afford to trade any higher. If they do and pick a player before Green then they won't have enough collateral left to match a bid on Green. They are hoping that nobody picks him before six. If someone does, they will trade down before matching.
I suspect that originally they wanted to trade higher but couldn't get enough back for Bonar or someone else they were considering offloading.

They can go into deficit and match the bid with next year's selections.

 

[Bollox]

You are blowing our whole draft on a Hail Mary (that won’t happen). Be reasonable like Gulden is ours, Green is theirs. We have a live top 5 pick. We can get a Young, Ash, Flanders, Serong, etc. Darymple has a phenomenon record with first round selections.

We’ve done well with second and third rounders. Pick 30 odd is still a good pick and we will use it.

Huh ? How on earth is trading up from 5 to (at worst) jumping ahead of Dees and Crows for A late second rnd pick suddenly blowing our whole draft ??
Why exaggerate ?

As i said, i WANT Greene. I know what GWS will LIKELY do, but I;m not going to give up the best player on an assumption. With upside, and very little downside whynot throw the sink at getting him in. He is what we need.
You dont get what you want by making assumptions or accepting your lot in life.

Make it so GWS is staring at spending every single nickel they have just for one guy. If they still do it, so be it. At least threaten it to get what we want next year. Otherwise they'll take Greene this year without effort then become a pain in the arse on both our guys next year anyway. That's how they roll.

Times have changed. This is now a far more educated draft with far better predictive powers. That's just a fact. It is also live trading in picks. Why on earth would i or anyone want to be anything less than aggressive ? Pick the guy you want and go hard....especially when the downside is limited.

 

[perplexed]

They can go into deficit and match the bid with next year's selections.

They'll need their future first to trade up. Without it they wont have the points to match an early bid.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Huh ? How on earth is trading up from 5 to (at worst) jumping ahead of Dees and Crows for A late second rnd pick suddenly blowing our whole draft ??
Why exaggerate ?

As i said, i WANT Greene. I know what GWS will LIKELY do, but I;m not going to give up the best player on an assumption. With upside, and very little downside whynot throw the sink at getting him in. He is what we need.
You dont get what you want by making assumptions or accepting your lot in life.

Make it so GWS is staring at spending every single nickel they have just for one guy. If they still do it, so be it. At least threaten it to get what we want next year. Otherwise they'll take Greene this year without effort then become a pain in the arse on both our guys next year anyway. That's how they roll.

Times have changed. This is now a far more educated draft with far better predictive powers. That's just a fact. It is also live trading in picks. Why on earth would i or anyone want to be anything less than aggressive ? Pick the guy you want and go hard....especially when the downside is limited.

So lets blow this entire draft...what happens when Green is matched...oh that's right we don't get him rendering the trade up absolutely useless. Plus to trade up to 3 we'd need to use our future pick anyway. Are you happy trading our future first..I sure as anything am not and not for just a small upgrade. What is wrong taking an Ash (whom we lack as we are as slow as a truck in defence), or someone else. Back Darymple with a few in the top 40. I would have rather flipped a future second for a second this year, but understand we need to bank points for Gulden.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They'll need their future first to trade up. Without it they wont have the points to match an early bid.

They will still have the currency if they go that route

 

[perplexed]

They will still have the currency if they go that route

No they won't. Even if the afl let's them use their other future picks (which it shouldn't), they'll be approx 300 points short of matching a bid at 4.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No they won't. Even if the afl let's them use their other future picks (which it shouldn't), they'll be approx 300 points short of matching a bid at 4.

Surely they can trade a player for some ordinary 3rd rounder as they have this year, that's the 300 odd points. It's not the route I would go down, but the option is there.

 

[perplexed]

Surely they can trade a player for some ordinary 3rd rounder as they have this year, that's the 300 odd points. It's not the route I would go down, but the option is there.

Too late to trade players. This may have been their plan originally, but the time has passed.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Too late to trade players. This may have been their plan originally, but the time has passed.

Next year.

They would go into deficit next year, but the requirement would be to add another 2nd rounder or whatever to make up the points next season.

I fully expect them to just be content with pick 6 and match Green there though it is the safer option

 

[perplexed]

Next year.

They would go into deficit next year, but the requirement would be to add another 2nd rounder or whatever to make up the points next season.

I fully expect them to just be content with pick 6 and match Green there though it is the safer option

They can't go into deficit against picks they don't have yet.