Resource 2024 AFL Draft discussion thread (Wed Nov 20 to Fri Nov 22)

[1970crow]

Stevens looks like a likely father sons.

There is also free agency.

Can use future picks too.

But imo we should be not using any future picks to move up pick 4.

Hopefully young Stevens comes through, noting that young Welsh was a top 10 possibility 12 months out and now he's a 40+ selection. Free agency and trades don't impact the 3 player at draft requirement, so our 1st and Stevens is 2 and if we've blown all our picks to the 4th round, I won't be surprised if Strachan gets another year. Schoey is done sans miracle.

 

[Crow till I die]

If you don’t believe me, consider this

If North are taking Tauru at 2

And Carlton are choosing between FOS and Draper

Then why would need to trade up to get Smith?

Is the idea of trading up to protect pick 2 from another club trading for it and snaffling the player we may really want. By securing pick 2, it covers off on anyone else trading for it

 

[1970crow]

Lucky it’s our best list ever

What's lost in discussion about what is or could be our best list ever, is how do you best structure a list. Depth to 35? High end 25 and cross injury fingers? I'd argue that the top 15 is what needs to be concentrated upon and cycle players through and out of the system. If you don't look like being a top 15 player then you become depth and depth has about 1 year left on the list. Flag teams are full of high end talent, not an even distribution of well drilled average players combined with continuity.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Is the idea of trading up to protect pick 2 from another club trading for it and snaffling the player we may really want. By securing pick 2, it covers off on anyone else trading for it

I don’t think North’s really willing to deal with anyone else that might be interested in a shift up (Rich/Saints), as they know they’ll lose access to Tauru, which is a bit of a gift to us

Reckon we have a couple of players in our highest ranked tier, and in order to eliminate any risk of Richmond/Carlton snaffling both of them, we’re keen to move up for what is really a low price

 

[George Kramer]

What's lost in discussion about what is or could be our best list ever, is how do you best structure a list. Depth to 35? High end 25 and cross injury fingers? I'd argue that the top 15 is what needs to be concentrated upon and cycle players through and out of the system. If you don't look like being a top 15 player then you become depth and depth has about 1 year left on the list. Flag teams are full of high end talent, not an even distribution of well drilled average players combined with continuity.

Yep and that’s why we’ve seen guys like Doughty, Reilly, DMack have long careers with us, because that’s not how we operate.

 

[Danger in Texas]

What's lost in discussion about what is or could be our best list ever, is how do you best structure a list. Depth to 35? High end 25 and cross injury fingers? I'd argue that the top 15 is what needs to be concentrated upon and cycle players through and out of the system. If you don't look like being a top 15 player then you become depth and depth has about 1 year left on the list. Flag teams are full of high end talent, not an even distribution of well drilled average players combined with continuity.

Not a bad way of looking at it, though I would say top 15 or one year left on the list is a bit too ruthless. There have been players around the 15-25 range of good lists that have hovered in and out of their best sides over a few years, weather that be due to injury or form

 

[rumour_troll_626]

Because we think Smith is in Carlton’s calculations, too

Only if FOS and Draper are gone

 

[rumour_troll_626]

Is the idea of trading up to protect pick 2 from another club trading for it and snaffling the player we may really want. By securing pick 2, it covers off on anyone else trading for it

Nah , we’re the only club that will make the move for pick too.

North don’t want to move lower than 4 unless they get a big price for it

 

[Danger in Texas]

Only if FOS and Draper are gone

Why would they say Smith is our target, then?

Clearly we think the Blues are keen on Jagga (whether they actually are or not)

If you’re claiming inside info - no offence meant, but when info comes out this late in the piece (like Curtin last year), I’d be inclined to believe Cavanagh and Batten

 

[rumour_troll_626]

Why would they say Smith is our target, then?

Clearly we think the Blues are keen on Jagga (whether they actually are or not)

If you’re claiming inside info - no offence meant, but when info comes out this late in the piece (like Curtin last year), I’d be inclined to believe Cavanagh and Batten

I think they’ve got their wires crossed.

We’ve looked closely Smith as part of our due diligence in case Draper is gone.

Maybe they heard about interest in Smith and thought this meant he’s who we want at 2.

I believe the club’s ranking is

1. Lalor
2. Draper
3. Smith

 

[119others]

Why would they say Smith is our target, then?

Clearly we think the Blues are keen on Jagga (whether they actually are or not)

If you’re claiming inside info - no offence meant, but when info comes out this late in the piece (like Curtin last year), I’d be inclined to believe Cavanagh and Batten

But why would you be listening to any gossip - media speculation- on our true intentions. Every year we say how tight we are with not letting anyone know who we are after. If anything has got out from West Lakes it’s most likely misinformation IMO

Keen to see who you vote for in the poll re who we pick up

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think they’ve got their wires crossed.

We’ve looked closely Smith as part of our due diligence in case Draper is gone.

Maybe they heard about interest in Smith and thought this meant he’s who we want at 2.

I believe the club’s ranking is

1. Lalor
2. Draper
3. Smith

I suspect this ranking could well be the case, so why the need to trade up if Roos take Tauru at #2, as one of these players is going to be available.

We need to keep draft picks for next year, given we have already used our F2.

 

[Cromulant]

I suspect this ranking could well be the case, so why the need to trade up if Roos take Tauru at #2, as one of these players is going to be available.

We need to keep draft picks for next year, given we have already used our F2.

It just seems a big waste to trade up given the even nature of this draft. We are going to get a very good player at 4 no matter who it is.

 

[Mutineer]

It just seems a big waste to trade up given the even nature of this draft. We are going to get a very good player at 4 no matter who it is.

If it's true that we want to upgrade to pick 2 it's pretty obvious our recruiting team don't see it that way. It has to clearly indicate they see 2 players in their top tier above all others.

 

[119others]

I suspect this ranking could well be the case, so why the need to trade up if Roos take Tauru at #2, as one of these players is going to be available.

We need to keep draft picks for next year, given we have already used our F2.

But using 2/3 x third rounders - is it really a big deal? The first 2 rounds are likely 45 picks with around 8 FS/Academy kids picked up. So these future third rounders are in the 45-60 range. In a crappy draft. Why wouldn’t we be happy to give 2, if not 3, of these crappy picks in a crappy draft to get our number one priority this year,

Acknowledge we will need picks next year and we can use the following 2 years to trade back in. Plus I reckon we will offload 1-2 players under contract - perhaps Berry and Butts for example - for second rounders or similar

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But using 2/3 x third rounders - is it really a big deal? The first 2 rounds are likely 45 picks with around 8 FS/Academy kids picked up. So these future third rounders are in the 45-60 range. In a crappy draft. Why wouldn’t we be happy to give 2, of not 3, of these crappy picks in a crappy draft to get our number one priority this year,

Acknowledge we will need picks next year and we can use the following 2 years to trade back in. Plus I reckon we will offload 1-2 players under contract - perhaps Berry and Butts for example - for second rounder or similar

Is there really a big difference between the player we would get at #4 v #2?

There is a chance it may be the same player!

Moving up likely benefits the Roos more than us as they are taking the same player.

We need to replace a few players next year, so we don't want to weaken our futures further. Also, would make it difficult to trade in a gun player should they become available.

 

[119others]

Is there really a big difference between the player we would get at #4 v #2?

There is a chance it may be the same player!

Moving up likely benefits the Roos more than us as they are taking the same player.

We need to replace a few players next year, so we don't want to weaken our futures further. Also, would make it difficult to trade in a gun player should they become available.

You raise the important issues and clearly they are the big unknowns. “The known unknowns” haha.

As Bicks said, IF we are trying to trade up we clearly must feel there is a significant enough difference in quality (or other factors eg if indeed we are going Draper with pick 2 factors like “go home risk” or “interstate player salary premium” which when factored in a career of 12-15 years means the “amortisation” of these future third round picks we have outplayed to upgrade are absolutely immaterial).

You are right we could very well get the same player at 4 as we do we 2. It comes down to ultimately how much we want the top 1-2 players in the draft vs the next couple on offer.

It really is a fascinating draft night upcoming. Can’t wait!

 

[Mutineer]

Is there really a big difference between the player we would get at #4 v #2?

There is a chance it may be the same player!

Moving up likely benefits the Roos more than us as they are taking the same player.

We need to replace a few players next year, so we don't want to weaken our futures further. Also, would make it difficult to trade in a gun player should they become available.

The problem with this thinking is it appears if the rumours are correct that we want to trade up 2 spots then unlike this board the recruiting team almost certainly think 2 players are in another tier or at least be almost certain Carlton are looking at taking "our" player.

One things for certain they've seen a lot more of these players than any of us and have interviewed them and their families to get a feel character wise.

 

[Captain Furious]

The problem with this thinking is it appears if the rumours are correct that we want to trade up 2 spots then unlike this board the recruiting team almost certainly think 2 players are in another tier or at least be almost certain Carlton are looking at taking "our" player.

One things for certain they've seen a lot more of these players than any of us and have interviewed them and their families to get a feel character wise.

The other thing for certain is they have a terrible track record with early picks. Think I’d rather it taken out of their hands and have whoever falls to 4.

And keep those 3rd rounders for trade cache, f/s or academy picks that rise next year or even drafting at a point in the draft they seem to have a better track record with.

 

[CharlieCrow]

The problem with this thinking is it appears if the rumours are correct that we want to trade up 2 spots then unlike this board the recruiting team almost certainly think 2 players are in another tier or at least be almost certain Carlton are looking at taking "our" player.

One things for certain they've seen a lot more of these players than any of us and have interviewed them and their families to get a feel character wise.

This is a rare draft where there is no clear agreed priority order. The credible mock drafts usually have the top ten pretty right by now with perhaps just a few positions slightly in doubt. While the top ten might be pretty settled for this year, the order could be anything. Perhaps this year's players are so similar in quality that teams are actually looking for really specific targeted differences. No longer would you choose just the best player when your pick comes up, because perhaps there isn't one. The rumoured jostling suggests to me that clubs both know quite a bit more than we do about the players and have refined their requirements down to just a few minor but specific differences.
And within this, I think there is a higher level than usual of due diligence being paid to the "in case our first pick is gone" players, hence Carlton's apparent unexpected high interest in Draper, when the consensus has mostly thought they will pick elsewhere.
Its going to be very interesting.

 

[119others]

The other thing for certain is they have a terrible track record with early picks. Think I’d rather it taken out of their hands and have whoever falls to 4.

And keep those 3rd rounders for trade cache, f/s or academy picks that rise next year or even drafting at a point in the draft they seem to have a better track record with.

Our last 4 years early picks have been

2020 - TT
2021 - Rachele
2022 - Rankine
2023 - Curtin

Are you really unhappy with that?

If you want to value highly third rounders in the 45-60 range in a crappy draft then….we disagree

 

[Cromulant]

Our last 4 years early picks have been

2020 - TT
2021 - Rachele
2022 - Rankine
2023 - Curtin

Are you really unhappy with that?

If you want to value highly third rounders in the 45-60 range in a crappy draft then….we disagree

I suspect they mean Carlton.... I think

 

[Hodgy]

It just seems a big waste to trade up given the even nature of this draft. We are going to get a very good player at 4 no matter who it is.

It’s fine for us and the media to say these players are very even, however it’s not OK for our recruiters to say it. It is 100% sure they won’t be considered even in 2 years time so I’m happy that we seem to be keen to trade up, as it shows we don’t rate them all the same.

None of us will be forgiving of Hamish in 2 years time if we end up with Chayce Jones rather than Zac Butters from this pick, and we certainly won’t be saying “well everyone said they were rated very even so we can’t blame him”.

 

[CharlieCrow]

The other thing for certain is they have a terrible track record with early picks. Think I’d rather it taken out of their hands and have whoever falls to 4.

I know this is a continuous narrative on Big Footy but our record is probably no worse than anyone else's. Sure, there area couple of obvious misses, but mostly we get it right.
And even if you are right, that's not a reason to sit back and let it "fall". That would be just plain negligence.
Anyway ..... Our last couple of years of aggressive and trading and pick swapping suggests we are better at it than you may be thinking.

 

[Cromulant]

It’s fine for us and the media to say these players are very even, however it’s not OK for our recruiters to say it. It is 100% sure they won’t be considered even in 2 years time so I’m happy that we seem to be keen to trade up, as it shows we don’t rate them all the same.

None of us will be forgiving of Hamish in 2 years time if we end up with Chayce Jones rather than Zac Butters from this pick, and we certainly won’t be saying “well everyone said they were rated very even so we can’t blame him”.

The caveat is, and I've said it before, if we really do want someone above everyone else then you do it.

For mine each of the top 5 bring a skillset we need more of