List Mgmt. Draft Needs 2018 #2: Rankine / Lukosius / Rozee / Hately, I'm knocking Woodcock out the box, daily!

[Tex Danger]

Not necessarily. A late first next year isn’t that much better than the pick we have. Remember it’s the 2nd rounder of the wooden spooner. GC made a similar mistake with WC last year.

On the flip side, imagine last year knocking back the offer of our 1st rounder this year for 21 (later after academy/FS) last year. That’d be rejecting 21 for 8

If someone offered us a 1st rounder for 21 you’d take it unless there was a player we rated very high who had slid.

There is big upside with minimal downside.

Also not sure if mentioned but WC have 1st pick of day 2 not us (according to road to the draft podcast)

 

[Shaz2012]

Some ITK was on here saying we were heavy into Butters

Yes, but he stated his source was Butters team mate. I doubt Butters team mate knows what Hamish’s draft board looks like then, let alone now.

I’m really hoping for one of RCD and Hately and one of Sturt and Butters. If not then Jones. And pick 9 essentially picks itself as whoever is left from the top 9 (inc Blakey).

 

[Bicks]

Like twiggy siggy?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

skinnier and finds a lot less ball than Signorello at TAC level but a lovely user of the pill when he does get hold of it.

 

[GrommoT]

Isn’t the rule that you need to use 2 first round picks over a rolling 4 year period? So technically if we use 2 this year we could trade out our first round pick both next year and 2020 provided we keep our ‘21 & ‘22 1st rounders?

There are two separate rules relating to future trading:
1) "2/4y" rule - using two r1 picks in the draft in a rolling 4 year period
2) "F1/other" rule - trading a future r1 pick or other future picks (r2, r3, ...) but not both
...

 

[Shaz2012]

On the flip side, imagine last year knocking back the offer of our 1st rounder this year for 21 (later after academy/FS) last year. That’d be rejecting 21 for 8

If someone offered us a 1st rounder for 21 you’d take it unless there was a player we rated very high who had slid.

There is big upside with minimal downside.

Also not sure if mentioned but WC have 1st pick of day 2 not us (according to road to the draft podcast)

No issues with us doing that. Just saying we wouldn’t necessarily do it. Like you also mentioned, depends on who is still there.

Also, WCE wouldn’t have had a pick so may be reluctant to trade their first of the draft. I know they need something for Kelly, but they hold their own 2019 first. The top 30 is very good and I think they will have had time to fall in love with a fair few guys in the back end of that top 30. I doubt that day 2 comes around and there isn’t a guy that they aren’t just licking their lips at taking.

 

[Glenny83]

skinnier and finds a lot less ball than Signorello at TAC level but a lovely user of the pill when he does get hold of it.

Geez, that’s skinny. The sig wasn’t that great a user. There must be something our recruitment team have picked up on if we are interested, that’s why post-draft recruitment analysis is so good from Hamish or Reidy. I clearly remember Knight and Gov’s. I’d read some of them prior to it but never put them in serious thought.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crow_68]

WTF??? That is a game changer, when was this even talked about as being a possibility? North’s Polec trade looks worse and worse for them.

So the f/s and academy system apparently doesn’t compromise the draft enough for AFL house’s liking.

Simple - we offer 13 & 16 for 11 & 19.

We are left with 8, 11, 19 and 21.

Takes out the risk of GWS having to use 19 to match our bid, can stick to 25 and 52 and keep that additional first rounder.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mismatched]

Lol, Hamish likes Luko as a defender. Don’t tell the people who think we would be wasting 8 on a CHB. Imagine if we trade 3 1sts for a defender

If, and thats a big "if", we were to grab Lukoscious, very likely he spends his 1st 2-3 years as a tall defender. Initially 3rd tall, pushing Doedee into a more medium defender role, then potentially upgrading to CHB. During this time I expect we'd give him the odd game up forward if injury strikes, so that when spots open up from Walker, Jenkins and Lynch retiring, we shift him forward.

 

[Shaz2012]

Simple - we offer 13 & 16 for 11 & 19.

We are left with 8, 11, 19 and 21.

Takes out the risk of GWS having to use 19 to match our bid, can stick to 25 and 52 and keep that additional first rounder.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well they don’t have to use 19 to match. They can match and still trade 19.

I wouldn’t do that deal anyway. I am happy with several players that are available at 11 and 13, but not sure all the players I like would be there at 19.

 

[glengowan]

Can the Crows be involved in a 3-way trade before pick 2 is called out?

Crows
Gain: 2, 24, Suns Future 3rd, Saints Future 4th
Lose: 8, 13, 21, Future 1st
Have picks 2, 16, 24, 73 for the draft.

Suns
Gain: 4, 8, 13, Crows Future 1st
Lose: 2, 6, 24, Future 3rd
Have picks 3, 4, 8, 13, 29 for the draft.

Saints
Gain: 6, 21
Lose: 4, Future 4th
Have picks 6, 21, 36, 46, 67 for the draft.

 

[ams4crows]

X.O'Halloran is going to be the next Rory Sloane and I really hope we take him with 21.

 

[Shaz2012]

If, and thats a big "if", we were to grab Lukoscious, very likely he spends his 1st 2-3 years as a tall defender. Initially 3rd tall, pushing Doedee into a more medium defender role, then potentially upgrading to CHB. During this time I expect we'd give him the odd game up forward if injury strikes, so that when spots open up from Walker, Jenkins and Lynch retiring, we shift him forward.

I have no issues with us drafting Luko as a defender. I rate defenders that can use the ball well very highly.

I just don’t see what you have described as Luko. 3rd defender maybe, but I don’t see him ever as a CHB at AFL level. His super power is slipping players and finding space. Would be a waste if he didn’t get to use his aerobic gifts either.

 

[GrommoT]

We can’t trade next year’s first without getting another one in which is impossible by pick 2/3

Has it been ruled out that a third club can't be involved in live pick trading? (the 3rd club would only be involved for some pick exchanges)

Example: We trade for GC's pick #2 when they get the call for pick 2 involving another Club X:
* AFC:- OUT: 8, 13, 2019-r1 IN: 2, 2019-r3, 2019-r4
* GC:- OUT: 2, 29, 2019-r3 IN: 8, 13, 2019-r1
* ClubX:- OUT: 2019-r4, ... IN: 29
(plus whatever else needed to balance things)


SNAP!

 

[Huntercrow]

So Cal Twomey's draft has us taking 4 Victorians and bidding on 5 others and not a Croweater in sight.

Does anyone else find this unusual?

 

[conVINCEd]

Can the Crows be involved in a 3-way trade before pick 2 is called out?

Crows
Gain: 2, 24, Suns Future 3rd, Saints Future 4th
Lose: 8, 13, 21, Future 1st
Have picks 2, 16, 24, 73 for the draft.

Suns
Gain: 4, 8, 13, Crows Future 1st
Lose: 2, 6, 24, Future 3rd
Have picks 3, 4, 8, 13, 29 for the draft.

Saints
Gain: 6, 21
Lose: 4, Future 4th
Have picks 6, 21, 36, 46, 67 for the draft.

Pass.

I’m not down with that. Or up for it. Whatever the young people say these days.

 

[Huntercrow]

Twomey has Port selecting 1 from SA

 

[17er]

Can the Crows be involved in a 3-way trade before pick 2 is called out?

Crows
Gain: 2, 24, Suns Future 3rd, Saints Future 4th
Lose: 8, 13, 21, Future 1st
Have picks 2, 16, 24, 73 for the draft.

Suns
Gain: 4, 8, 13, Crows Future 1st
Lose: 2, 6, 24, Future 3rd
Have picks 3, 4, 8, 13, 29 for the draft.

Saints
Gain: 6, 21
Lose: 4, Future 4th
Have picks 6, 21, 36, 46, 67 for the draft.

The problem with a trade like this is that it has to benefit all 3 partners, but nobody wants to come out behind. You've managed to balance this trade pretty well, but there is a way simpler solution without all this wheeling and dealing.

Crows trade up to #4 in exchange for #8 and #16. Saints all too happy.

Crows trade up to #2 in exchange for #4, #13 and #21 and get #24 and #29 in return.

You're slightly worse off this year, but much better off next year and still get your guy.

 

[GrommoT]

So Cal Twomey's draft has us taking 4 Victorians and bidding on 5 others and not a Croweater in sight.

Does anyone else find this unusual?

Maybe we have a draft 4 Victorians in a rolling 2 year period rule?

 

[conVINCEd]

So Cal Twomey's draft has us taking 4 Victorians and bidding on 5 others and not a Croweater in sight.

Does anyone else find this unusual?

Just the nature of SA kids being taken super early or outside the right range for our picks.

Hamish loves to put a bid in so I find it funny that Cal has gone absolutely bunta with that in his phantom draft.
Make ‘em earn the kids, Haggis

 

[macca23]

Has it been ruled out that a third club can't be involved in live pick trading? (the 3rd club would only be involved for some pick exchanges)

Example: We trade for GC's pick #2 when they get the call for pick 2 involving another Club X:
* AFC:- OUT: 8, 13, 2019-r1 IN: 2, 2019-r3, 2019-r4
* GC:- OUT: 2, 29, 2019-r3 IN: 8, 13, 2019-r1
* ClubX:- OUT: 2019-r4, ... IN: 29
(plus whatever else needed to balance things)


SNAP!

Pretty sure I heard Gil asked this question in an interview on 5aa. Off memory the answer was that in that 5 minute period per pick the same pick trading rules that applied before the draft still apply - which would allow a 3rd party to be involved.

I'd almost bet Stiffy_18 's left testicle on it but I might just have lost the bugger on another sure bet of mine

 

[Shaz2012]

So Cal Twomey's draft has us taking 4 Victorians and bidding on 5 others and not a Croweater in sight.

Does anyone else find this unusual?

No. I think people have added 2+2 incorrectly in the first place assuming that what we have done to get to this draft position was simply to take the SA players on offer.

16 - we got a great deal for Lever pure and simple
13 - Gov became a bad apple. We made the best of the situation and moved quickly to get 13 off of Sydney.
8 - We got Burtoned
21 - We got fisted by Carlton in the Gibbs trade and that was the best we could get back

We didn’t plan this years in advance. Sure we would have done a reasonable deal to get one of those SA players at the top, but it takes another reasonable party to get a deal done.

Otherwise we were always going to stick to what we have always done. Stay true to our draft order giving preference to local players when it’s line ball.

 

[Mismatched]

I have no issues with us drafting Luko as a defender. I rate defenders that can use the ball well very highly.

I just don’t see what you have described as Luko. 3rd defender maybe, but I don’t see him ever as a CHB at AFL level. His super power is slipping players and finding space. Would be a waste if he didn’t get to use his aerobic gifts either.

I said he'd still become a key forward long term. Just spend time in key defensive posts early. Can still use his athletic gifts to run off opponents.

No reason why Lukoscious couldn't use his talents from CHB. Nathan Bock is one of the best CHB's I've ever seen, was able to shut down his opponent effectively whilst racking up 25 touches going the other way.

 

[Jack is Back]

Who is this king you speak of?

The AFL official in charge of the draft, I didn’t catch his name.

Rowie asked specifically if the AFC could trade next years first rounder and he said no. Dumb and dumber didn’t ask whether we could trade next years first rounder if we get a 3rd and 4th rounder back.

 

[Shaz2012]

I said he'd still become a key forward long term. Just spend time in key defensive posts early. Can still use his athletic gifts to run off opponents.

No reason why Lukoscious couldn't use his talents from CHB. Nathan Bock is one of the best CHB's I've ever seen, was able to shut down his opponent effectively whilst racking up 25 touches going the other way.

Sure, he could be a CHB. I just don’t see it in his contested marking so far. For mine he struggles badly when the kick isn’t to his advantage.

But I think your on the money with where he could start out. Pretty similar to what Whitfield has done. I could see that. Only issue is that half back line is by far our strongest line and we will struggle to decide who to prefer out of all our options. Particularly as Sloane and Gibbs get older. Doedee is a beauty and we need to back him in.

 

[huludicidal]

The problem with a trade like this is that it has to benefit all 3 partners, but nobody wants to come out behind. You've managed to balance this trade pretty well, but there is a way simpler solution without all this wheeling and dealing.

Crows trade up to #4 in exchange for #8 and #16. Saints all too happy.

Crows trade up to #2 in exchange for #4, #13 and #21 and get #24 and #29 in return.

You're slightly worse off this year, but much better off next year and still get your guy.

The trade up to pick 4 would have to take place prior to the draft in this scenario (because once Gold Coast are on the clock at pick 2 on draft night, the second of your proposed trades would then need to occur). That seems pretty unlikely at this point.

Also, the Saints have publicly stated that they won’t be accepting a pick as low as 8 in exchange for pick 4. They want Max King, and they know they can’t get him at 8.

Saints will only trade down to pick 6.


Personally I don’t believe there will be any pick swaps in the top 8. From 9-20, I think there’ll be at least 1.