We need to make it clear to Crows that Francis won't be there at pick 5.He might be.
If we then have 23 & 25 would we happily swap them for 14 with the Swans?
Swans first two picks are academy players so it’s all about the points and I think that improves them. I think someone previously mentioned that.
Is 4,9 & 14 better than 4,9,23 &25?
Im almost certain we’d take him before Parish, providing GC don’t.
Though the 9+extra 2nd is tempting, I’d rather have control at that pick level (4/5)
Consecutive picks 4 & 5 worth way more than their sole values. Best option by far for mine.
Worth also mentioning that the interview in which the 9 and 28 for 5 information was put forward, Worsfold replied that they hadn't tabled anything about that with us.
True. And I’m not saying it will ever happen, just that if it were on the cards then two differing scenarios offer different draft outlooks.
I wish they would axe this over-complicated draft pick transfer payment system and bring back transfer fees. Draft picks are a hopeless currency, their value is basically a gamble and some draft pick values are too high to be useful. It’s like every club has dollar bills of different unknown values & getting change is a nightmare.
The transfer fee could be a % of the contract value. This would align the players interests and the selling club in maximising the value of the contract.
We need to make it clear to Crows that Francis won't be there at pick 5.
He might be.
If we then have 23 & 25 would we happily swap them for 14 with the Swans?
Swans first two picks are academy players so it’s all about the points and I think that improves them. I think someone previously mentioned that.
Is 4,9 & 14 better than 4,9,23 &25?
No way Crows get pick 5 for 9 and 28. Surely Saints get steak knives somehow. Maybe Kerridge or someone like that.
Good point. Though kerridge seems too much.
Worth also mentioning that the interview in which the 9 and 28 for 5 information was put forward, Worsfold replied that they hadn’t tabled anything about that with us.
We need to make it clear to Crows that Francis won’t be there at pick 5.
According to 5AA, STK have offered #5 to the Crows for #9 and #28. #9 goes to us for Carlisle.Assuming that either #28 or STK 2nd pick goes for Freeman, it opens an interesting question. Surely we could throw in pick 23 instead of involving Crows. So two options:
Pick 4 and 5 (plus melksham pick)
Or
Pick 4, 9 and 23.( plus melksham pick)
It seems counterintuitive, but in an even and shallow draft it may not be the best thing to run with the two pick version. If you think you can get the player you want at #9, and you think an even crop will present several candidates in the early 20’s, then a club starved of draft picks might prefer the 3 pick pathway.
Considering one of Parish or Francis is guaranteed if we want them at #4. Look for a tall (supposedly there are good talls for the 1st round) or 2nd mid at our 2nd pick and then see what falls through to 23 and 25. If the talent dries up at 30, four prior to 25 is a good haul.
4,9,23 for me.
4 = whoever left of Francis and Parish (if they’re the clear 3 and 4 options)
9 = Best KP (eg Harry McKay)
23 = if we took Francis = best mid, else whoever we rate
Then we start looking into more mature options at 41/59/78 (or whatever they may be…depending how many, and whether we’re keeping a PSD etc)
5 to 9 seems a matter of taste. It’s obviously better to have 5, as you get first crack, but if it meant keeping an extra pick 23 I’d probably lean towards 9 and cross my fingers. (even allowing for 9 being a low % pick). Of course if we know there are 5 guys we really like then it’s much better to have 5 than 9+23.
I was referring to Pick 45.By 3rd rounder do you mean Freeman? Wasn't he a first round pick?Could trades happen like so (only done in and outs for each team to keep it simple but worked it out trade by trade...)Other than us not getting pick 5 I don't like how Collingwood turn a 3rd rounder and an injury prone yet to debut youngster into pick 19.St.K
IN; Carlisle, Freeman, Pick 29 & 45
OUT; Pick 5, 24 & 43GCS
IN; Pick 5 & 24
OUT; Dixon, Pick 19 & 35PORT
IN; Dixon, Pick 42 & 43.
OUT; Pick 10 & Pick 29ESS
IN; Pick 10 & Pick 35
OUT; Carlisle, Pick 42COLL
IN; Pick 19
OUT; Freeman & Pick 45
Adelaide should take that and run. But I hope they don't.Surely we just say we give them Carlisle and 25 for 5. Stupid if we don’t and end up with pick 9 instead.
That is progresses from them looking for 2 first rounders for 5
I think what Collingwood will accept for Freeman is an important, and somewhat overlooked, question in all this. That will set some parameters for STK to work to.
According to 5AA, STK have offered #5 to the Crows for #9 and #28. #9 goes to us for Carlisle.Assuming that either #28 or STK 2nd pick goes for Freeman, it opens an interesting question. Surely we could throw in pick 23 instead of involving Crows. So two options:
Pick 4 and 5 (plus melksham pick)
Or
Pick 4, 9 and 23.( plus melksham pick)
It seems counterintuitive, but in an even and shallow draft it may not be the best thing to run with the two pick version. If you think you can get the player you want at #9, and you think an even crop will present several candidates in the early 20’s, then a club starved of draft picks might prefer the 3 pick pathway.
Considering one of Parish or Francis is guaranteed if we want them at #4. Look for a tall (supposedly there are good talls for the 1st round) or 2nd mid at our 2nd pick and then see what falls through to 23 and 25. If the talent dries up at 30, four prior to 25 is a good haul.
Melks pick will be lower than 28 still. So we offer Melks pick and Carlisle for pick 5.
Instead of this complicated BS with Adelaide.
That is progresses from them looking for 2 first rounders for 5
Okay last scenario for night I promise, because I know most of you don’t even want to consider pick 10 for Carlisle.
And this option is worse for us than the last I done, because we don’t get an upgrade on pick 42 to pick 35 which I’d love but here it goes…
'Trade Results
St.K
IN; Carlisle, Freeman
OUT; Pick 5 & 42
GCS
IN; Pick 5 & 29
OUT; Dixon, Pick 19
PORT
IN; Dixon, Pick 42 & 45
OUT; Pick 10 & Pick 29
ESS
IN; Pick 10
OUT; Carlisle
COLL
IN; Pick 19
OUT; Freeman & Pick 45
Hooker and Hurley held the backline together until Hooker had to go forward to accommodate Carlisle. The backline is now a shambles without Hooker chiming in with intercept marks. Carlisle couldn’t get near Lynch when he needed to to spoil. A key back needs to be able to spoil first ala Hurley. If Carlise cant grasp playing as a forward there is no place for him in the side…IMO its forward or get rid of him
Adelaide should take that and run. But I hope they don’t.
Surely we just say we give them Carlisle and 25 for 5. Stupid if we don’t and end up with pick 9 instead.
According to 5AA, STK have offered #5 to the Crows for #9 and #28. #9 goes to us for Carlisle.Assuming that either #28 or STK 2nd pick goes for Freeman, it opens an interesting question. Surely we could throw in pick 23 instead of involving Crows. So two options:
Pick 4 and 5 (plus melksham pick)
Or
Pick 4, 9 and 23.( plus melksham pick)
It seems counterintuitive, but in an even and shallow draft it may not be the best thing to run with the two pick version. If you think you can get the player you want at #9, and you think an even crop will present several candidates in the early 20’s, then a club starved of draft picks might prefer the 3 pick pathway. Considering one of Parish or Francis is guaranteed if we want them.
Yep, completely agree, 4 and 5 any day of the week over 4, 9 and 23 particularly given both options have a anoyjer 2nd rd pick
It will come down to what we think we can get at each of those picks though
According to 5AA, STK have offered #5 to the Crows for #9 and #28. #9 goes to us for Carlisle.
Assuming that either #28 or STK 2nd pick goes for Freeman, it opens an interesting question. Surely we could throw in pick 23 instead of involving Crows. So two options:
Pick 4 and 5 (plus melksham pick)
Or
Pick 4, 9 and 23.( plus melksham pick)
It seems counterintuitive, but in an even and shallow draft it may not be the best thing to run with the two pick version. If you think you can get the player you want at #9, and you think an even crop will present several candidates in the early 20’s, then a club starved of draft picks might prefer the 3 pick pathway.
Considering one of Parish or Francis is guaranteed if we want them at #4. Look for a tall (supposedly there are good talls for the 1st round) or 2nd mid at our 2nd pick and then see what falls through to 23 and 25. If the talent dries up at 30, four prior to 25 is a good haul.
Could trades happen like so (only done in and outs for each team to keep it simple but worked it out trade by trade...)Other than us not getting pick 5 I don't like how Collingwood turn a 3rd rounder and an injury prone yet to debut youngster into pick 19.St.K
IN; Carlisle, Freeman, Pick 29 & 45
OUT; Pick 5, 24 & 43GCS
IN; Pick 5 & 24
OUT; Dixon, Pick 19 & 35PORT
IN; Dixon, Pick 42 & 43.
OUT; Pick 10 & Pick 29ESS
IN; Pick 10 & Pick 35
OUT; Carlisle, Pick 42COLL
IN; Pick 19
OUT; Freeman & Pick 45