Because I have done so much research and speculation on this draft class I want this as well because I kind of feel attached to the 2016 draftees journey. It would likely be pick 4, 5 & 8 in the end but I would like us to go for it!
Assuming McGrath, Bowes and McClugage were top 3 this would likely land us Ainsworth, Brodie and Marshall. If we didn’t want to go Marshall we could just go all out on mids and get Taranto at 8 then set and forget our midfield for the next 10 years.
GWS would want to achieve this through having less picks this year and more next so it would have to be:
Pick 1, 19 and next years first out. (It may need minor downgrade / upgrades to some later picks to give some extra points to GWS or us depending on who feels slightly dooped etc)
3, 5 & 7 in; this would be 4, 5 & 8 with Setterfield and and Bowes bids
I’m impatient as a bomber supporter now. It’s been long enough; trading for future picks doesn’t effect us next year. It effects us in 8-12 years when presumably those top picks move on, retire, finish and the later ones would still be playing etc.
I’m in a over-invest and develop more quickly mood!
Pick 1 = 3000pts, pick 5, 1878 & 7, 1844 = 3522pts, so a 522pt or 17% premium to pick 1, won’t work
In 2009 Sydney offered Richmond picks 6 & 14, 2812pts (in todays money) for pick 3, 2234pts a 678pt or 30% premium to pick 3, Richmond knocked it back and picked Dustin Martin
However picks 5 (from FC for Marchbank), 7, 15, and 17(GWS) = 5659,
Essendon picks 1, 19= 3948
5659 - 3948 = 1711 or 43% premium to picks 1& 19, might work
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time…
Pick 1 = 3000pts, pick 5, 1878 & 7, 1844 = 3522pts, so a 522pt or 17% premium to pick 1, won't work
In 2009 Sydney offered Richmond picks 6 & 14, 2812pts (in todays money) for pick 3, 2234pts a 678pt or 30% premium to pick 3, Richmond knocked it back and picked Dustin Martin
However picks 5 (from FC for Marchbank), 7, 15, and 17(GWS) = 5659,
Essendon picks 1, 19= 3948
5659 - 3948 = 1711 or 43% premium to picks 1& 19, might work
Why not just leave them pick 17. 5,7 and 15 for pick 1 &19? Would that work? What’s the points on picks?
Pick 1 = 3000pts, pick 5, 1878 & 7, 1844 = 3522pts, so a 522pt or 17% premium to pick 1, won't work
In 2009 Sydney offered Richmond picks 6 & 14, 2812pts (in todays money) for pick 3, 2234pts a 678pt or 30% premium to pick 3, Richmond knocked it back and picked Dustin Martin
However picks 5 (from FC for Marchbank), 7, 15, and 17(GWS) = 5659,
Essendon picks 1, 19= 3948
5659 - 3948 = 1711 or 43% premium to picks 1& 19, might work
Why not just leave them pick 17. 5,7 and 15 for pick 1 &19? Would that work? What’s the points on picks?
Could we timeshare one of the picks? Would that work?
According to Brett Anderson, GWS are wanting to trade up to pick 1 (for McGrath apparently) and will offer 2 top 10 picks to Essendon. As it stands GWS have 7 so I'm not sure where the other top 10 pick will come from?
From one of their many trades discussed in great depth in other threads.
Ok, thanks
10 for steele.
5 for marchbank
3 for lobbe/McCartney
Steele is not worth 10.
On his own? No. But they'll probably package it with a later pick.
It wouldn't want to be much later. I don't think St Kilda would want to be out of the first and second rounds of the draft, not for Steele.
Steele was bid on at #15 by North Melbourne in the 2014 draft, hasn't done much wrong since then, including getting 10 games in a top 4 side this year (his second). So if he hasn't lost value (and why would he on current performances?), he isn't worth too much less than #10.
Pick 1 = 3000pts, pick 5, 1878 & 7, 1844 = 3522pts, so a 522pt or 17% premium to pick 1, won't work
In 2009 Sydney offered Richmond picks 6 & 14, 2812pts (in todays money) for pick 3, 2234pts a 678pt or 30% premium to pick 3, Richmond knocked it back and picked Dustin Martin
However picks 5 (from FC for Marchbank), 7, 15, and 17(GWS) = 5659,
Essendon picks 1, 19= 3948
5659 - 3948 = 1711 or 43% premium to picks 1& 19, might work
I wouldn’t use a single trade to base the idea of a discount. GWS in 2014 reputedly offered #4 and #6 for #1 and #21, which would have had them “lose” on points by less than 100. I can’t see GWS offering too good a deal our way unless they just don’t need the picks, which is unlikely. Even if they don’t need them, why not trade for 2017 picks then?
Plus, the AFL has stated that picks for picks trades can’t have too much of a differential, although they may relax that for the #1 pick given it has a cache of its own.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
Wouldn’t be fussed by him. Anyone described as similar to Shaun Burgoyne who can rack it up at WAFL level is a strong candidate in my book.
Pick 1s point value is irrelevant, No one can bid before pick 1 rendering the 3000 points for GWS useless.
If they want pick 1 it’s cause they want a player that will not be available at pick 5 or 7.
The points when comparing pick #1 is simply to try and put a value on it, to determine if a trade is fair. Plus that the AFL may intervene if the trade is too lopsided.
According to Brett Anderson, GWS are wanting to trade up to pick 1 (for McGrath apparently) and will offer 2 top 10 picks to Essendon. As it stands GWS have 7 so I'm not sure where the other top 10 pick will come from?
From one of their many trades discussed in great depth in other threads.
Ok, thanks
10 for steele.
5 for marchbank
3 for lobbe/McCartney
Steele is not worth 10.
On his own? No. But they'll probably package it with a later pick.
It wouldn't want to be much later. I don't think St Kilda would want to be out of the first and second rounds of the draft, not for Steele.
Steele was bid on at #15 by North Melbourne in the 2014 draft, hasn't done much wrong since then, including getting 10 games in a top 4 side this year (his second). So if he hasn't lost value (and why would he on current performances?), he isn't worth too much less than #10.
I’d say he’s more or less stayed in place, and probably hasn’t increased his value. Regardless, I was talking more about St Kilda’s draft position than Steele’s value. St Kilda already don’t have a first round pick. If they threw in their second rounder they wouldn’t be coming into the draft until pick 46. I don’t think they’d be happy with that unless they were bringing in someone of very high quality, which Steele has not proven he is. I could easily be wrong, I often am, but they’re basically passing on the 2016 draft at that point.
Pick 1s point value is irrelevant, No one can bid before pick 1 rendering the 3000 points for GWS useless.
If they want pick 1 it’s cause they want a player that will not be available at pick 5 or 7.
The points when comparing pick #1 is simply to try and put a value on it, to determine if a trade is fair. Plus that the AFL may intervene if the trade is too lopsided.
I don’t see how they could intervene.
On pure value it’s saying that the chance of success of a pick is that proportional difference. However it doesn’t take into account the scneario and intangible benefit a club may get i.e. With the GCS and GWS wanting to get ahead of their academy players. That benefit becomes very hard to value, especially as player access is becoming far more valuable than before. So for the AFL to say 1 and 19 is unfair for 3, 5, 7 under the current ESS and GWS situation is wrong. The fairness has to take into account the intangible benefits which only ESS and GWS can determine.
There is more to a high pick than its chance of success. Club like Hawks, Cats have not had access to players with that perceived talent for years. At what point does access to that talent really matter more than they chance of it being a success?
According to Brett Anderson, GWS are wanting to trade up to pick 1 (for McGrath apparently) and will offer 2 top 10 picks to Essendon. As it stands GWS have 7 so I'm not sure where the other top 10 pick will come from?
From one of their many trades discussed in great depth in other threads.
Ok, thanks
10 for steele.
5 for marchbank
3 for lobbe/McCartney
Steele is not worth 10.
On his own? No. But they'll probably package it with a later pick.
It wouldn't want to be much later. I don't think St Kilda would want to be out of the first and second rounds of the draft, not for Steele.
Steele was bid on at #15 by North Melbourne in the 2014 draft, hasn't done much wrong since then, including getting 10 games in a top 4 side this year (his second). So if he hasn't lost value (and why would he on current performances?), he isn't worth too much less than #10.
I'd say he's more or less stayed in place, and probably hasn't increased his value. Regardless, I was talking more about St Kilda's draft position than Steele's value. St Kilda already don't have a first round pick. If they threw in their second rounder they wouldn't be coming into the draft until pick 46. I don't think they'd be happy with that unless they were bringing in someone of very high quality, which Steele has not proven he is. I could easily be wrong, I often am, but they're basically passing on the 2016 draft at that point.
I think there has been some confusion here. St Kilda have #10. The idea is they pay that and get Steele and another pick back because #10 is more than Steele is worth. Its a second round pick St Kilda don't have, and this deal might let them back (somewhere) into the second round. So say #10 for Steele and #35.
Pick 1s point value is irrelevant, No one can bid before pick 1 rendering the 3000 points for GWS useless.
If they want pick 1 it’s cause they want a player that will not be available at pick 5 or 7.
The points when comparing pick #1 is simply to try and put a value on it, to determine if a trade is fair. Plus that the AFL may intervene if the trade is too lopsided.
I don't see how they could intervene.
On pure value it’s saying that the chance of success of a pick is that proportional difference. However it doesn’t take into account the scneario and intangible benefit a club may get i.e. With the GCS and GWS wanting to get ahead of their academy players. That benefit becomes very hard to value, especially as player access is becoming far more valuable than before. So for the AFL to say 1 and 19 is unfair for 3, 5, 7 under the current ESS and GWS situation is wrong. The fairness has to take into account the intangible benefits which only ESS and GWS can determine.
There is more to a high pick than its chance of success. Club like Hawks, Cats have not had access to players with that perceived talent for years. At what point does access to that talent really matter more than they chance of it being a success?
You might not, but they’ve said they’ll examine any trade where the points are out of whack.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
Wouldn’t be fussed by him. Anyone described as similar to Shaun Burgoyne who can rack it up at WAFL level is a strong candidate in my book.
Is SPS playing seniors or reserves or colts footy in the WAFL.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
Wouldn’t be fussed by him. Anyone described as similar to Shaun Burgoyne who can rack it up at WAFL level is a strong candidate in my book.
Well, since you put it that way… to be honest I don’t think I know as much about him as some of the others, and am happy to hear you say that and have my opinion changed.
According to Brett Anderson, GWS are wanting to trade up to pick 1 (for McGrath apparently) and will offer 2 top 10 picks to Essendon. As it stands GWS have 7 so I'm not sure where the other top 10 pick will come from?
From one of their many trades discussed in great depth in other threads.
Ok, thanks
10 for steele.
5 for marchbank
3 for lobbe/McCartney
Steele is not worth 10.
On his own? No. But they'll probably package it with a later pick.
It wouldn't want to be much later. I don't think St Kilda would want to be out of the first and second rounds of the draft, not for Steele.
Steele was bid on at #15 by North Melbourne in the 2014 draft, hasn't done much wrong since then, including getting 10 games in a top 4 side this year (his second). So if he hasn't lost value (and why would he on current performances?), he isn't worth too much less than #10.
I'd say he's more or less stayed in place, and probably hasn't increased his value. Regardless, I was talking more about St Kilda's draft position than Steele's value. St Kilda already don't have a first round pick. If they threw in their second rounder they wouldn't be coming into the draft until pick 46. I don't think they'd be happy with that unless they were bringing in someone of very high quality, which Steele has not proven he is. I could easily be wrong, I often am, but they're basically passing on the 2016 draft at that point.
I think there has been some confusion here. St Kilda have #10. The idea is they pay that and get Steele and another pick back because #10 is more than Steele is worth. Its a second round pick St Kilda don't have, and this deal might let them back (somewhere) into the second round. So say #10 for Steele and #35.
Sorry, yeah, I messed that up. What I originally meant (before I had a brain fade) was that giving up 10 means they don’t get into the draft until 46 because they don’t have a second round pick. My query was really about where they’d think would be an acceptable first pick in the draft. I’d think, based on nothing much, that they’d probably want to at least be in the top 30 somewhere. Maybe not. Anyway, carry on with actual discussion.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
Wouldn’t be fussed by him. Anyone described as similar to Shaun Burgoyne who can rack it up at WAFL level is a strong candidate in my book.
Is SPS playing seniors or reserves or colts footy in the WAFL.
Sorry, I meant to say WAFL colts but left that off.
iam surprised st the lack o love forPetrevski-Seton in this thread, esprcially considering all the oldMyers/Rioli angst thst surfaces from time to time..
Would love him, but only if we had 2 picks in the top 5 - don’t think he would be selected ahead of Brodie/Ains/Clug, but would make a nice pairing with any of those. Just my opinion.
Wouldn’t be fussed by him. Anyone described as similar to Shaun Burgoyne who can rack it up at WAFL level is a strong candidate in my book.
Well, since you put it that way… to be honest I don’t think I know as much about him as some of the others, and am happy to hear you say that and have my opinion changed.
Meant to say WAFL colts. But obviously that is equivalent level to TAC. Note that I haven’t seen him (or any of the kids) play, just going off reports. But they’re pretty glowing.