Traded Dogs trade #10, #17 and F1 to Gold Coast for #4, #46, #51 and F3

[Doggy]

Just need hawks to bid on croft at 3

Except they won't

 

[the dog's kennel]

I can see the logic in it but I still would not have done it
We need mids and next year is a mid-heavy draft

THIS. It's not like it's an illogical move. But it's too clever by half. I also think we are likely to be worse next year, not better. Trading away next year's pick 6-8 isn't going to look so good in hindsight.

 

[rye]

footscray f1 probably a very good pick if their back end of this year is anything to go by

 

[Mofra]

Just need hawks to bid on croft at 3

I hope they do. No chance we match.

 

[Mofra]

Between Naughton, Darcy, JUH, Croft, Lobb, Weightman and Watson, the Dogs look to be building a cracker of a forward line, even if it is slightly unbalanced.

With Jones and Keath nearing the end, who's the most likely to shift back (if any), Darcy or Naughton? Would've thought O'Sullivan would be pretty high on the Dogs' draft board otherwise.

Budslinger had been mentioned, but James O'Donnell as a Cat B rookie had been a gift from the gods. I think he's actually ready to be our no 2 tall defender from 2024, even if still a little raw

 

[Crow till I die]

First glance, I wasn't that thrilled at the trade. Looking at it again, I'm still not totally convinced it was the 'right' decision to give up so much, but I'm really really excited now. Watson as a worst case scenario looks a genuine talent and would give us a serious forward line next year. Looks like a guy who will impact early.

The best way to look at it is what was the opportunity cost and next year looks to have a bunch of quality mids if you go on the underagers this year. The flipside is could the Dogs have traded out of this draft ie traded 10 & 17 into next year to acquire extra 1sts and banked enough points for Croft only - maybe hit next year with their 1`st and and extra 1st or 2.

The list management team would have considered it all and have opted this way so they seem content to go after Watson with pick 4 (apparently from what has been spoken about)

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Hopefully the AFL finally wakes up to the reality about the points and creates a new table.

Excellent deal for GC, especially since it is not inconceivable that WB could collapse in 2024.

They need to fix the points table for sure.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Geez the Suns did very, very well there.

Big haul.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Just need hawks to bid on croft at 3

 

[ABAB]

Doggies got slaughtered and Gold Coast made out like bandits

But they wanted to get slaughtered......

 

[ABAB]

This trade just confirms what everyone has said about this draft. There is an elite top end but the talent falls off a cliff. The dogs pick 10 fell outside the top end so it's like a pick 20 in most years.

Yeah but next year......

 

[Caligo]

View attachment 1826547

Croft is just what we need, but it isn't happening. I would assume Walter is the only person we bid on before we take duursma or mckercher.

 

[Euku]

Thread title missing future 3rd

 

[Taylor]

Thread title missing future 3rd

Thank you

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Now we just need

"Croft opts against nominating Bulldogs in father/son shock"

 

[Mich0]

I remember when people thought 3 first rounders for pick 1 (JHF) was a lot.

Now we got a club paying 3 firsts for a 170cm small forward. Jesus.

 

[TiAn_]

Words cant describe how moist ill get if Doggies finsh in the bottom 4 next year

Now we just need

"Croft opts against nominating Bulldogs in father/son shock"

Having a normal one.

 

[SharkMeister4]

It looks ugly when just looking at the numbers now, Im holding out hope that with bids the numbers look better and we have a better year next year which we definitely can.

End of the day I have no idea what the talent is like in the draft, but when I hear there is a top 7 or so and then a drop off I think of drafts like 2018 (not saying the talent is as good this year, just the differential is there by reports).

In that draft the difference between the start and end of the first round was huge, rozee and bailey smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

vs duursma stocker collier dawkins.

Its obviously not a great comparison because theres nothing to compare, but its never just as simple as pick 17 and such being the same strength year on year, and tbh if theres one thing the dogs have consistently gotten right in our recent history it is our drafting at the top end

 

[Mich0]

It looks ugly when just looking at the numbers now, Im holding out hope that with bids the numbers look better and we have a better year next year which we definitely can.

End of the day I have no idea what the talent is like in the draft, but when I hear there is a top 7 or so and then a drop off I think of drafts like 2018 (not saying the talent is as good this year, just the differential is there by reports).

In that draft the difference between the start and end of the first round was huge, rozee and bailey smith vs duursma stocker collier dawkins.

Its obviously not a great comparison because theres nothing to compare, but its never just as simple as pick 17 and such being the same strength year on year, and tbh if theres one thing the dogs have consistently gotten right in our recent history it is our drafting at the top end

Pickett pick 12, Weightman pick 15 are comparable small forwards. Lachie Schultz for pick 17 would have looked good to.

Or all 3 in this scenario.

 

[Nat Fyfe]

it’s a high risk trade (disastrous if we drop down the ladder), but context matters a lot when assessing this trade.

Taking into account bids and compensation picks, we’ve essentially traded Pick ~13, Pick ~23 and our future 1st for Pick 6, a future 3rd and enough points to match Croft - which would have otherwise cost us that Pick 17 (ie 23). Given how compromised next years draft is looking, if we finished in the same spot again then that Pick 10 will probably end up closer to Pick 15.

So in effect, taking Croft and the related picks out of it, we’ve paid a pick around 13, and another pick around 15, in return for Pick 6 and a pick next year likely to be around 50 (fairly negligible).

Of course, this all hinges on us not shitting the bed next year. Either way, it’s a great result for Gold Coast. But it also is looking like a solid result for us, potentially even a great one if we climb the ladder, with a lingering chance that we completely ****ed up.

 

[TiAn_]

I remember when people thought 3 first rounders for pick 1 (JHF) was a lot.

Now we got a club paying 3 firsts for a 170cm small forward. Jesus.

And a 200cm KPP.

 

[SharkMeister4]

Pickett pick 12, Weightman pick 15 are comparable small forwards. Lachie Schultz for pick 17 would have looked good to.

Or all 3 in this scenario.

You are missing my point here. The 2019 draft had a really even talent pool between 5-20, those picks were less clear and contributes to why there were more flops right up the top end

 

[Doggy]

it’s a high risk trade (disastrous if we drop down the ladder), but context matters a lot when assessing this trade.

Taking into account bids and compensation picks, we’ve essentially traded Pick ~13, Pick ~23 and our future 1st for Pick 6, a future 3rd and enough points to match Croft - which would have otherwise cost us that Pick 17 (ie 23). Given how compromised next years draft is looking, if we finished in the same spot again then that Pick 10 will probably end up closer to Pick 15.

So in effect, taking Croft and the related picks out of it, we’ve paid a pick around 13, and another pick around 15, in return for Pick 6 and a pick next year likely to be around 50 (fairly negligible).

Of course, this all hinges on us not shitting the bed next year. Either way, it’s a great result for Gold Coast. But it also is looking like a solid result for us, potentially even a great one if we climb the ladder, with a lingering chance that we completely ****ed up.

Add the fact we'd want to trade out our 2025 first rounder because of father sons we have that year so that might come into next year

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I'd look upon this trade way more favourably if McKercher did slip. For mine, the top five on my list above are the clear standouts this year.

Still, at the end of the day, the Dogs' recruiters are paid to do this type of stuff, I'm not. Just struggling to wrap my head around the prospect of such a huge draft capital investment into a 170cm small forward who struggled when he was given other roles this year.

The answer is they dont think watson will get past melb at 5 which is why they traded up.

 

[Scythe94]

The answer is they dont think watson will get past melb at 5 which is why they traded up.

If that's the case, I'm glad. He's an exciting player, but we already have a fair stock of small forwards. Would rather O'Sullivan or Sanders at our pick (probably the former more than the latter).