Where is the evidence? Who says he has agreed? Why is it assumed that lower draft picks will be involved? ............. Now I've read the article, am I to assume that this newspaper article is henceforth to be regarded as the one which boldly trumpets a mutually fortunate deal? Shaw for Adams + some insignificant lower swaps.
Isn't it a draft that is meant to drop sharply away after pick 1, plateauing out to a pool of mediocrity relatively early into the call? Adams may be no worse than his rival number 10's. He'd make an excellent partner in a straight swap for Heath.
Adams appeals because he is ready to play AFL immediately, and provides promise of increased midfield defensive presence when we compete for a top 4 spot next year.
Surely Taylor Adams is ours already, especially now we
know that Heath will play in GWS colours next year. So many pages and words have been devoted to Taylor Adams, that to come this far with him, then have to remove him from the 'best of 2014' teams, would crush the egos of those posters who have eagerly swallowed the hype and gossip and penciled him in to their best 22s.
Next year promises better pickings to a greater depth, so we'll trawl deeper through the pool of talent, scooping up size and quality in 2014. That seems to Hine's message ahead of the draft. Be frugal this year and cast a wider net next year. There'll be big ones in the depths, not just in the shallows like in 2013. From a strictly fishing perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.
As a draft tactic with pick 10 or 11, if we spend it on Adams and someone more exciting slips through to us, in a Grundy-like slide, then we use our next pick on the one we missed out on for Adams. Heath and a 2nd round for Adams is acceptable, though not to the extent a straight swap would be.
Two live picks in the first round should be our goal.