I wonder if we are looking at a swap between Pickett and Willie Rioli. Both would probably enjoy being in different environments
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Blair "Which?" Project
- Thread starter Tony Braxton-Hicks
- Start date
Just doing some points scenarios to get pick 3. If CCJ gets us 20:
20 + 28 + 40 + 44 gives enough points for pick 3, with 44 points (pick 60) as a sweetener to GC.
That would give us 3, 7, 15 and 26 at the draft. Plus Tarrant.
But after Daicos and Darcy, pick 3 becomes pick 5 and the above scenario nets GC a pick 47 sweetener (although those later picks are probably shuffled back two more spots.)
Maybe we keep pick 40 but add a player like Caddy or Aarts in the trade.
We now have 3, 7, 15, 26, 40.
26 and 40 are worth pick 15. Give it to the Dogs for 17 (bonus 133 points to them)
Now we have 3, 7, 15, 17.
Is that enough picks, assuming there's no Chol compo (Tarrant)?
20 + 28 + 40 + 44 gives enough points for pick 3, with 44 points (pick 60) as a sweetener to GC.
That would give us 3, 7, 15 and 26 at the draft. Plus Tarrant.
But after Daicos and Darcy, pick 3 becomes pick 5 and the above scenario nets GC a pick 47 sweetener (although those later picks are probably shuffled back two more spots.)
Maybe we keep pick 40 but add a player like Caddy or Aarts in the trade.
We now have 3, 7, 15, 26, 40.
26 and 40 are worth pick 15. Give it to the Dogs for 17 (bonus 133 points to them)
Now we have 3, 7, 15, 17.
Is that enough picks, assuming there's no Chol compo (Tarrant)?
The points system is used for F/S and academy selections, it doesn’t reflect the value of draft picks. GC won’t trade pick 3 for a plethora of draft picks they don’t want.
Forget that. Absolutely no one is trading pick 3 for a swag of lower picks
The only way we get pick 3 is if pick 7 is in the deal.
It’s just pure fantasy to think we end up with both picks 3 & 7.
Maybe.
But why do the suns want to deal down?
Its crazy vossy territory to trade out 3.
I can only think that they have earmarked their targets and know they are available later. We know they're desperate for talls esp rucks. So maybe Williams and Conway.
They have enough mids, don't rate Gibcus (though I think they need him too).
So Suns want to move out 3 and not reach.
The crows want to split 4 into two first round picks. One for the Dawson trade to swans and one to keep. If they get 7 and 26, the first is still too high for Dawson and the second too low.
In both cases, the clubs are looking to trade 3 and 4.
And could be very interested in two late first round picks - 15 and 17/18 (dogs)
I think it's very gettable
With this years early F / S selections picks 3 n 4 become become 5 n 6 in reality. Guessing that with the two years of cooties interrupted development, once Daicos, Darcy n great Horney toads are off the board there's very little difference between players ranging from picks four to twenty. Why not try n sell some other club a cheap early pick for two good picks in a very even draft.
If we could trade our later picks (e.g. 26 and 40) to the Dogs for pick 17/18, and get 20 for CJ (as some seem to think can happen), we'd have 7, 15, 17, 20, 28. Trading 15 and 17 is only worth pick 4. So it's a choice of:
- 7, 15, 17, 20, 28
- 4, 7, 20, 28
7-mid
15-mid
17-Fahey(gws zone)(Apparently we are very keen on this kid.
20-Kp
28-kp
Clubs only trade low picks for later picks to increase their points doe Father-Sons and Academy players. No one is trading pick 4 for 15 & 17 either.
Dogs need points for Darcy - I believe we are talking to them on how it can be mutually beneficial for both clubs but with Dogs possibly winning a flag they don't have a lot to give.
Dogs need points for Darcy - I believe we are talking to them on how it can be mutually beneficial for both clubs but with Dogs possibly winning a flag they don't have a lot to give.
26 + 40 (for 17/18) is equivalent to pick 15 plus 54 points so it's a good deal for the Dogs: they benefit by 133 points overall (pick 17) or 200 points if they win today (pick 18).
Crows need a pick for Dawson.
No way they trade pick 4 straight for him.
So either they swap 4 and the swans 12 (possible)
or they trade with us to split 4 into 15 & 17.
Crows will trade 4.
And with SA locals Draper, Roberts, Nas WangaMilera likely to be available late first round they can have a good pick.
GC have reportedly put 3 on the table for picks.
Normally I agree with you clubs don't trade out the early picks. Strange times
Why wouldnt we trade the 3rd rounders ie 40, 44, 45 + Chol compo to the dogs?
And keep 26
Dogs don't care what picks they just need points to match an early bid
All the picks move back right. Not just Darcy n Daicos but the other f/s and academy kids. GWS Fahey could be in there, depending on the clubs ranking.
So later picks move back more.
There may not be much between 5 and 20 but pick 5 gives us the chance to get the 3rd best mid in the draft and the 2nd best from Vic (Ward)
GC says their list in near full, but they want to trade their pick 3. based on the above summary, these guys want 2 first rounders for their no 3. if so, I say "see you later Jack" Then would swqp No 17 for next year first round and go after King.
One of the reasons is whether the AFL allow last years ruling to the draft points system so that clubs could take more picks than available list spots. This was brought in before last years draft and was meant to be a one off because the list sizes were reduced due to Covid and clubs had already pre-planned from the year before.
List sizes will again be reduced for 2022 but don't think the AFL has announced a ruling that it will be allowed again this year. Surely need to inform clubs before trading starts.
If the number of picks need to match the available spots on the list then our later picks will probably be of lesser value. If the Bulldogs or Collingwood can't 'bulk' later picks for points without list spots we would probably have to be involved with trades to upgrade our later picks and then on trade those picks again.
The other thing is Gold Coast and whether they get the priority pick 19 plus allowance to pre-sign Academy players without bidding which was part of the 3 year assistance package from 2019. Is so they have far too many picks and very few/if any list spots. Could see them trading pick 3 and other picks for future picks. Or will they trade players to make list spots? Think they still may need to make 3 selections in the draft.
Last edited:
Hate the idea of trading future first round picks. Eg see Collingwood
