Bluemour Melting Pot XXII

[windows1]

They previously wanted 9 for 15. Since when has 20 been thrown into the deal?

Their goal is just to move up. They don’t care about picks like 20. The afl has thrown a huge war chest at them.

 

[Bee Vee]

Their goal is just to move up. They don’t care about picks like 20. The afl has thrown a huge war chest at them.

They could have taken that deal during trade week and they didn't.
Instead they've postured and pranced around in the media shooting their mouths off and they're still doing it.
If they want to negotiate with us, they're not doing a very good job of establishing a conciliatory relationship.
Personally, I believe they don't give a rats arse about a fair trade with us and they want Martin to sweat. They have so many gifts from the AFL, our picks are superfluous to their needs. They feel like big heroes sticking it to a foundation club. **** em' I say. Use the pick or deal with someone else.
We'll take Martin in the PSD

 

[slashin_velvet]

If the players we rate aren't on the board at 9, then a 15 & 20 for 9 & 43 swap seems to make some sense.

20 is a really key pick because it's the first pick of the second round - meaning SOS then gets the whole night to work out a favourable trade with a club who thinks there's a slider they need. North and Geelong potentially with 2-3 later 2nds could work.

Last year clubs were scrambling to pick early in the second round for all the players they felt had slid.

The only thing I see as a flaw in this strategy is that Geelong might take C.Stephens and Dogs might take Weightman with the picks before 15. We'd have to be confident that there are at least 5 guys worth trading down for.

 

[Jeremias]

If the players we rate aren't on the board at 9, then a 15 & 20 for 9 & 43 swap seems to make some sense.

I would want more than that for 9 and 43.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I would want more than that for 9 and 43.

Would 9, 43 and 57 for 15, 26 & 27 be enough? Because that's the end game I'd be targetting.

 

[Jeremias]

Would 9, 43 and 57 for 15, 26 & 27 be enough? Because that's the end game I'd be targetting.

How would that come about? 15 belongs to the Suns, 26 & 27 to the Kangaroos.

It is in our favour on points, but given we are the team parting with the most valuable asset, I would probably still want more.

There will be talent on the board in the mid 20s but rather than target that range by giving up our first, I would look to trade in at the time of that pick if we're keen on a particular player.

 

[slashin_velvet]

How would that come about? 15 belongs to the Suns, 26 & 27 to the Kangaroos.

It is in our favour on points, but given we are the team parting with the most valuable asset, I would probably still want more.

There will be talent on the board in the mid 20s but rather than target that range by giving up our first, I would look to trade in at the time of that pick if we're keen on a particular player.

The idea is that you trade 9 and 43 for 15 & 20 and then turn 20 and 57 into 26 & 27/30.

The idea is North might be willing to give up 2 mid seconds for the first pick of the second round if there is a 1st round slider they rate.

It could also be Geelong with 24 and 36 or Sydney with 25 and 32.

 

[Jeremias]

The idea is that you trade 9 and 43 for 15 & 20 and then turn 20 and 57 into 26 & 27/30.

The idea is North might be willing to give up 2 mid seconds for the first pick of the second round if there is a 1st round slider they rate.

It could also be Geelong with 24 and 36 or Sydney with 25 and 32.

Got it. Still not ideal for me, I would want more for giving up a top 10 pick.

Geelong would be my ideal trading partner if we're giving up 9. Given they hold 14, 17 and 24 the framework is there for a very good deal IMO.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Got it. Still not ideal for me, I would want more for giving up a top 10 pick.

Geelong would be my ideal trading partner if we're giving up 9. Given they hold 14, 17 and 24 the framework is there for a very good deal IMO.

I agree with you that if we could get 14 and 17 for 9, that would be better....I just don't see it happening....just looking at what GWS gave Adelaide to pick Hill as the first pick of the 2nd round last year, I see a lot of value in having the evening to trade pick 20 to the most willing

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

How about this....future 2nd to Swans for pick 25 and their future 4th. We need a 4th round pick in 2020 to allow us to trade higher picks apparently. They need points for their academy boys in 2020.

Picks 9 and 25 to Port for 12 and 18.

Gives us two first round picks, and keep pick 43 for a mature ager like a Riccardi or Sokol.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Not really.

Feels like I've have inadvertently drifted over some beautiful sand patches and some massive King George are swallowing .. hooks without much bait

Or come over to the SFA board where I can put your body in a cray pot .....

 

[Jeremias]

I agree with you that if we could get 14 and 17 for 9, that would be better....I just don't see it happening....just looking at what GWS gave Adelaide to pick Hill as the first pick of the 2nd round last year, I see a lot of value in having the evening to trade pick 20 to the most willing

I would be angling for 9, 43 and 2020 2nd for 14, 17, 24.

The deal is in our favour, as it should be given we're giving up a top 10 pick, but if they're keen on someone at that pick they may go for it.

If Stephens, Ash and Young are off the board come pick 9, I am pushing hard for that deal.

Given pick #9 & #43 should net us picks #15 & #20 from the Suns, the only way Cats or Port can beat it is to offer two of their top 20 picks, otherwise it's a worse deal and their out of the frame imo.

Yeah I'd be happy trading with either Port or Geelong. 2 x top 20 picks would be a very good result; 3 in the top 25 though would be amazing.

 

[slashin_velvet]

We're not short on young talent though - 2 picks in the 10-20 range is preferable to 3 picks in the 15-30 range.

The further we move down the less likely we get our preferred guy/a slider - your suggestion would have suited us 2 years ago but it's not overly appealing given the options likely on the board come pick 9.

Agree with quality over quantity in theory, but depends where we see the draft pool. Do we think it's an even pool after a certain point, so it's better to have 3 stabs at top 30 vs a top ten followed by a 40something and 50something?

 

[Jeremias]

We're not short on young talent though - 2 picks in the 10-20 range is preferable to 3 picks in the 15-30 range.

I don't think we can say this definitively without knowing who is available at those picks, and where they sit on our draft board.

Clearly we are not doing the trade if there's a clear preference there at 9, but if there isn't and we're confident we can get two terrific prospects instead, then we would be silly not to - regardless of the quality vs quantity debate.

 

[Dadda Dave]

Have you met me mate 4b?
You two would hit it off.

Now don't go breaking 4b.
He can be used for something useful .

 

[Brackets]

Agree with quality over quantity in theory, but depends where we see the draft pool. Do we think it's an even pool after a certain point, so it's better to have 3 stabs at top 30 vs a top ten followed by a 40something and 50something?

I don't think we can say this definitively without knowing who is available at those picks, and where they sit on our draft board.

Clearly we are not doing the trade if there's a clear preference there at 9, but if there isn't and we're confident we can get two terrific prospects instead, then we would be silly not to - regardless of the quality vs quantity debate.

Agree, I wasn't thinking so much quality vs quantity (they don't have to be mutually exclusive), more so that the more we push our picks back the less likely we get our top preferences. Pick #20 might net us a guy we rate top 10, come pick #26+ that slider could be well gone.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Agree, I wasn't thinking so much quality vs quantity (they don't have to be mutually exclusive), more so that the more we push our picks back the less likely we get our top preferences. Pick #20 might net us a guy we rate top 10, come pick #26+ that slider could be well gone.

Agree again, but all of my suggestions are based on draft night dealing. We only make the move if the players we wanted are off the board, or unlikely to go before the pick we can trade for.

 

[smashbox gill]

How about this....future 2nd to Swans for pick 25 and their future 4th. We need a 4th round pick in 2020 to allow us to trade higher picks apparently. They need points for their academy boys in 2020.

Picks 9 and 25 to Port for 12 and 18.

Gives us two first round picks, and keep pick 43 for a mature ager like a Riccardi or Sokol.

Puts us in the same position, you can’t trade your future 1st, if you have trade out your future 2nd/3rd/4th.

So in that proposal of trade our future 2nd would net us the same outcome of not being able to trade future 1st

 

[Team DJ]

Can't see Port making that trade due to Jackson Mead. He'll likely be bid on around 25. So they'll want to keep what they have, then spend their picks later on to get Mead as an extra top 30 pick

How about this....future 2nd to Swans for pick 25 and their future 4th. We need a 4th round pick in 2020 to allow us to trade higher picks apparently. They need points for their academy boys in 2020.

Picks 9 and 25 to Port for 12 and 18.

Gives us two first round picks, and keep pick 43 for a mature ager like a Riccardi or Sokol.

 

[Robertio]

Now don't go breaking 4b.
He can be used for something useful .

Nah, clouting a cheeky Ravens supporter over the noggin with it would be a great way to use it.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The thing with trade down scenarios is that we really want the other team coming to us because they're keen on someone at our pick. That's how we get 'overs' out of it.
If we're shopping it around we're not getting the same deals.

 

[ctwenty1]

The thing with trade down scenarios is that we really want the other team coming to us because they're keen on someone at our pick. That's how we get 'overs' out of it.
If we're shopping it around we're not getting the same deals.

I’d imagine we would be letting some clubs know pick 9 may be available come draft night, as opposed to shopping it around per se.

 

[Nori]

I can understand the attraction and endless speculation associated with trading down to get two players for the price of one, but I have my doubts SOS’s preferred player will be available in the 15-25 range.

More likely it will be a slider that will only just makes it to pick 9. And we all know that quality trumps quantity every time.

If anything I can see SOS trading 2020 picks and 43 to get back into the 2nd round.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

I can understand the attraction and endless speculation associated with trading down to get two players for the price of one, but I have my doubts SOS’s preferred player will be available in the 15-25 range.

More likely it will be a slider that will only just makes it to pick 9. And we all know that quality trumps quantity every time.

If anything I can see SOS trading 2020 picks and 43 to get back into the 2nd round.

That would be my preferred outcome, especially as next year's draft is diluted with a lot of Academy picks and isn't as deep as this years.

 

[windows1]

They could have taken that deal during trade week and they didn't.
Instead they've postured and pranced around in the media shooting their mouths off and they're still doing it.
If they want to negotiate with us, they're not doing a very good job of establishing a conciliatory relationship.
Personally, I believe they don't give a rats arse about a fair trade with us and they want Martin to sweat. They have so many gifts from the AFL, our picks are superfluous to their needs. They feel like big heroes sticking it to a foundation club. fu** em' I say. Use the pick or deal with someone else.
We'll take Martin in the PSD

THEy were not offered a move up deal. They were offered a future second and third. They said no. They are allowed to say no.