That’s what I like to see.
2 Likes
@Aceman do you know if Mitch Grigg is not particularly keen on GC?
Can’t understand how they haven’t listed him already… perfectly suited for them.
They aren’t keen on him and have chosen their 3 I believe. Burgess, McAdam and Corbett are the 3 that keep being mentioned and Burgess is as good as done.
Admittedly it was a week ago but Mitch stated that he had nibbles from a few clubs but more likely as a rookie/late pick not one of the mature age concession picks
Is McAdam the fast dude you talked about a few weeks back?
1 Like
No, that was Wilson.
McAdam is a decent goal sneak from Sturt
1 Like
2 Likes
Given the way Dew treats Lyons and Barlow, unless Grigg has a better defensive game than I’ve heard of he’s probably better not going there.
I’m just thinking about GC’s draft picks again…and was wondering whether these mature player concessions have just made their pick surplus even more significant…
It looks like:
- GC have been awarded two additional rookie spaces, but no additional main list spaces.
- Are these mature players main list or rookie list additions? Probably main list…it would only seem fair to these players, who are meant to be the best mature prospects…they should get some reward for joining these lowly teams ahead of the draft?
- So…GC are now even more awash with excess main list picks…some of which they probably won’t use? Unless they downgrade existing listed players to the rookie list, in order to enable the taking of more main draft selections?
Basically, I’m expecting GC to be quite keen to swap say multiple third rounders into earlier picks (which will appeal to teams seeking academy points)…and perhaps swapping 2018 picks into 2019 picks of some sort?
1 Like
I was thinking the same. If they lose Lynch, May, Hall, Kolo, and Martin that is 5 out. If they get firsts for Lynch/May, 2019 picks for Hall and Kolo, then they will have (say) #2, 3, 5, and 8, and three mature players.
They then have to delist two more players before they can use pick #19, let alone 27, 30, 40 and 43. Some other factors:
- Bailey Scott is an academy player rated late first round, so they’ll need say 27 for him if he’s choosing them over Geelong/North. But even so, they’d need to delist someone else.
- if they promote any rookies that also takes senior spots. All 4 rookies got games this year, with Holman playing every game.
- there was talk they’d shown interest in Dea.
If they promoted Holman, Scott nominated them (so needs 27), they’d need to delist 4 more to use most of those picks.
Would we consider offering #8 and our 2019 first for Martin if it included #19 and either #27 or #30 coming back?
2 Likes
It’s a good thought.
At this point (assuming Lynch compo is 3), they have 2, 3, 18, 27 and 30.
Ie we are not at all well placed to take advantage, with only 1 pick before their 3rd pick. The only way it’d make any sense at all would be our pick 9 for their 18 + 27 + 30. And I don’t think it does make much sense - gives us 4 cracks between 18-33, but pick 9 is supposedly going to still get us (just) into the top bunch of talent.
Maybe they’d be somewhat amenable to pick 8 for Martin and (say) 27 and/or 30 - then we give one of them to GWS for Setterfield.
Martin, Setterfield, pick 30 and 33 would be a good result IMO.
1 Like
I would rather leave the 2019 picks in place, TBH.
1 Like
I think 9 easily puts us outside the top bunch. I think there are only 7 in that group.
I can’t see them taking only #8, let alone something back. They want more than that.
Why? Most (non-GCS) fans would probably say #8 for Martin is fair. So we would effectively be doing that deal, then trading our 2019 first for #19 and #30 (say). Seems a good deal for a pick which could be mid-late teens (we certainly hope it is!), but allows GCS to save face by saying they got two firsts for Martin.
And with #19 being a first rounder it helps future trading with the 2 in 4 rule.
Obviously if we can get a better deal great, but seems pretty good to me.
2 Likes
OK.
Because we need as many chances at top kids as we can get.
Martin is nowhere near pick 8 value - He’s just an average AFL player at this stage.
1 Like
I think you over-value pick #9
2 Likes
fark me, I had it expanded and didn’t realise it was looping…was trying to see who was the fastest for about 5 mins ffs…
1 Like
I’d be more confident that Pick 8 in this draft will end up a better player than Martin who is massively over-rated as a player.
2 Likes
I agree pick 8/9 is high for Martin but he would certainly alleviate a few issues around the ball just like Walla and Fanta do when they are used in there.
The good sides set up defensively around stoppages to try and force turnovers so quick, skilful players who can win their own ball are very valuable in breaking down defences and giving big forwards more chances at one on ones.
I would prefer to keep our top pick for Shiel but if used on Martin I wouldn’t be upset.
His forward ability would be the icing on the cake.