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

[FR0GGY]

 

[relapse]

Im assuming "they" are the creatures in the depths of the ocean?
View attachment 586847

I am sure that I am not alone when I say this, but I have absolutely no idea who the guy on the left is

 

[ChilliP]

Rankine wants to be involved with indigenous community programmes on his days off, which would be why Port took him up to Tennant Creek with the bloke who runs their indigenous programmes, I reckon there's no way Port will go past him if GC doesn't take him.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...o/news-story/c01d4682c8ed9b958157e0f11e712c9f

 

[Geoffa32]

The article on AFL website with Ports Geoff Parker is interesting for a few points.

“We threw up some different scenarios and they came back with different scenarios but in the end it's not going to work out that way and they'll probably keep their two picks and we'll keep pick five."

"I'm assuming Adelaide, with their draft picks, are in a similar spot to us so I'm not sure what else they could do that we couldn't do so I think Gold Coast are just keen to have those picks," Parker said.

This suggests three things
1. Port are very keen to trade up.
2. GC will trade if the price is right
3. Port must have already offered 5 and 10/15 as well as future first and got knocked back.
Otherwise why would he assume that Adelaide can’t do anything different to them.

Or Us and GC have a deal in place and GC flat batted Port when they enquired?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Elite Crow]

The article on AFL website with Ports Geoff Parker is interesting for a few points.

“We threw up some different scenarios and they came back with different scenarios but in the end it's not going to work out that way and they'll probably keep their two picks and we'll keep pick five."

"I'm assuming Adelaide, with their draft picks, are in a similar spot to us so I'm not sure what else they could do that we couldn't do so I think Gold Coast are just keen to have those picks," Parker said.

This suggests three things
1. Port are very keen to trade up.
2. GC will trade if the price is right
3. Port must have already offered 5 and 10/15 as well as future first and got knocked back.
Otherwise why would he assume that Adelaide can’t do anything different to them.

Maybe they were only offering 10&15, which isn’t too far off 8&13. I cant see why Port would waste another quality pick to move down from 5 where they will get a gun.

 

[GROTTO]

The article on AFL website with Ports Geoff Parker is interesting for a few points.

“We threw up some different scenarios and they came back with different scenarios but in the end it's not going to work out that way and they'll probably keep their two picks and we'll keep pick five."

"I'm assuming Adelaide, with their draft picks, are in a similar spot to us so I'm not sure what else they could do that we couldn't do so I think Gold Coast are just keen to have those picks," Parker said.

This suggests three things
1. Port are very keen to trade up.
2. GC will trade if the price is right
3. Port must have already offered 5 and 10/15 as well as future first and got knocked back.
Otherwise why would he assume that Adelaide can’t do anything different to them.

4. AFC and GCS have done a deal in principal for pick 3 to unload on draft night.

 

[hey shorty]

The article on AFL website with Ports Geoff Parker is interesting for a few points.

“We threw up some different scenarios and they came back with different scenarios but in the end it's not going to work out that way and they'll probably keep their two picks and we'll keep pick five."

"I'm assuming Adelaide, with their draft picks, are in a similar spot to us so I'm not sure what else they could do that we couldn't do so I think Gold Coast are just keen to have those picks," Parker said.

This suggests three things
1. Port are very keen to trade up.
2. GC will trade if the price is right
3. Port must have already offered 5 and 10/15 as well as future first and got knocked back.
Otherwise why would he assume that Adelaide can’t do anything different to them.

8, 13 and 16 would get it done IMO. I suspect Port really didnt want to give up 5 AND 10 to get 2 or 3.

 

[Crows I Am]

Im honestly gonna laugh in 5 years time when Carlton inevitably picks Walsh and he's the second coming of Marc Murphy, solid without being elite.

whilst Smith, Caldwell, Rankine look like the new Judd, Dangerfield and Mcleod

Carlton almost need to do something crazy to get them back in the news, no one is talking about them and nobody cares.

From an outsider's point of view it seems like a much better option for them to swap pick 1 for 2 x top 10 picks if GC were keen.

They could end up with Rankine and Smith instead of just Walsh... I know which outcome I would prefer! Weather or not GC would do it is another question.

 

[Hodgy]

Maybe they were only offering 10&15, which isn’t too far off 8&13. I cant see why Port would waste another quality pick to move down from 5 where they will get a gun.

Yeah I agree. But why then say that he can’t imagine what Adelaide could offer that they can’t?

 

[Crow till I die]

The article on AFL website with Ports Geoff Parker is interesting for a few points.

“We threw up some different scenarios and they came back with different scenarios but in the end it's not going to work out that way and they'll probably keep their two picks and we'll keep pick five."

"I'm assuming Adelaide, with their draft picks, are in a similar spot to us so I'm not sure what else they could do that we couldn't do so I think Gold Coast are just keen to have those picks," Parker said.

This suggests three things
1. Port are very keen to trade up.
2. GC will trade if the price is right
3. Port must have already offered 5 and 10/15 as well as future first and got knocked back.
Otherwise why would he assume that Adelaide can’t do anything different to them.

Port are idiots if they are trying to burn more picks. Don't they realise their list is in big trouble in the next year or two with Gray, Ryder, Westhoff, Boak all coming to the end and having lost Wingard and Polec who were the ones that provided their outside run. For them to be even thinking about thinking of trying to bundle up picks to move further up again from pick 5 when they need every high pick they have and more to bring in quantity of quality just shows how mentally ******ed they are down there. We have a vastly different and much more balanced list to them and can far more afford to bundle up picks to move up the order without mortgaging the future of our club in doing so. I am going to laugh very very hard if we do have a deal in place with GC and GC have effectively shut the door on port at the same time

 

[hey shorty]

Yeah I agree. But why then say that he can’t imagine what Adelaide could offer that they can’t?

Or wouldn't offer......

 

[FR0GGY]

8, 13 and 16 would get it done IMO. I suspect Port really didnt want to give up 5 AND 10 to get 2 or 3.

Thats ports problem, they are a little too far up to get 2 or 3 without significantly overpaying.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is there a chance Carlton spring a surprise and take Vontae Mack at #1?

Turn the draft on its head

 

[jbanger]

So carlton are picking carlton? What losers.

 

[radiojake]

just realised I'll be working tomorrow night when the draft is on

I'll miss the melts live and then will have to trawl through 100 new pages to find them

 

[Hodgy]

From an outsider's point of view it seems like a much better option for them to swap pick 1 for 2 x top 10 picks if GC were keen.

They could end up with Rankine and Smith instead of just Walsh... I know which outcome I would prefer! Weather or not GC would do it is another question.

Personally if I wasCarlton I would even prefer 8 and 13 to pick 1. Say Caldwell and Hately instead of Walsh.
Taking only one kid in the first 80 in a strong draft when your list is in the state Carlton’s is seems almost insane.

 

[hey shorty]

To put it another way, a trade would leave Port with 2 or 3 and 85. They wouldn't even be that stupid.

We have 21 to fall back on which is still a decent pick.

 

[arrowman]

If the rumours are correct and we trade up for Lukosius I am not sure I 100% agree but the club is really in a no win position on this one. If we dont and Lukosius turns into a Pavlich type star, sooky fans and media will bag the crows for the next 15 years. If we do trade up, I will bet even if Lukosius is a star for us, sooky fans and media will still complain if pick 8 and 13 are stars and we will hear about that shit for the next 15 years. God help us if Lukosius just turns into a Sam Day or Tom Boyd type.

Overall on this one, I think I am willing to sit on the fence. Either decision really isnt a wrong decision.

Just on this - you can look at a draft / trade deal in two ways
1. Is it a good idea / does it make sense at the time;
2. Did it work out with the benefit of hindsight.

IMO the first one is the most important, really, because the rest is hindsight and it doesn't change whether the logic behind the deal was valid in the first place. That player you paid the farm for may turn out to be the next Carey, or the next Watts.

Yes, it's or depending on how it works out, but that doesn't mean the original idea / deal was wrong in the first place.

And with that in mind, I'm not willing to "sell the farm" for Luko (e.g.). Not when we've got the draft hand we have, which is likely to produce at least 3 very good players and possibly an outright star or two, and fill out our list very nicely for the coming 5-10 years. Sure, Luko'd be great, sure, if he pans out we'll all love watching him play for the Crows. But that doesn't make selling the farm (e.g. 3 first round picks) for him, right now, a sound decision.

WWHD? I have no idea, but my gut tells me Hamish is not the kind of guy to want to give up multiple picks lie the ones we have, for one player. He'll back himself in, and so should we.

 

[hey shorty]

Personally if I wasCarlton I would even prefer 8 and 13 to pick 1. Say Caldwell and Hately instead of Walsh.
Taking only one kid in the first 80 in a strong draft when your list is in the state Carlton’s is seems almost insane.

Seems ??

No no, it IS insane.

 

[FR0GGY]

Personally if I wasCarlton I would even prefer 8 and 13 to pick 1. Say Caldwell and Hately instead of Walsh.
Taking only one kid in the first 80 in a strong draft when your list is in the state Carlton’s is seems almost insane.

Maybe its risk mitigation from them, they only get to stuff one players career, not two.

 

[Marks Prosciutto]

8, 13 and 16 would get it done IMO. I suspect Port really didnt want to give up 5 AND 10 to get 2 or 3.

I'd do this if we could also get 24 and 29 back. Then try and bundle them to someone, maybe Richmond for a late first.

3, 17, 21, 73 & 83 is still a decent hand.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

8, 13 and 16 would get it done IMO. I suspect Port really didnt want to give up 5 AND 10 to get 2 or 3.

In the unlikely event that we give up 8/13/16 for 3, would we then maybe think about swapping pick 21 for maybe two picks in the 30s?

Then we'd have 3, 30-something, 30-something and 73. Rather than 3, 21, 73 & 80. Jez McLennan and Tom Sparrow could then be in the picture. Of course, we could back in our pick 73 to be a diamond in the rough (e.g. Woodcock).

Just 'thinking' out aloud...

 

[GROTTO]

Personally if I wasCarlton I would even prefer 8 and 13 to pick 1. Say Caldwell and Hately instead of Walsh.
Taking only one kid in the first 80 in a strong draft when your list is in the state Carlton’s is seems almost insane.

If I was Carlton I would take Port's picks 5 and 10. Two picks in the top 10 and one of which is a top 5. No brainer.

But Carlton posters are deluded. They dont understand value and common sense.

 

[Crow till I die]

I'd do this if we could also get 24 and 29 back. Then try and bundle them to someone, maybe Richmond for a late first.

3, 17, 21, 73 & 83 is still a decent hand.

or 21 & 24 to Richmond for 17 and a 2019 2nd (which you would imagine will be in the mid to late 30's)

 

[Hodgy]

If I was Carlton I would take Port's picks 5 and 10. Two picks in the top 10 and one of which is a top 5. No brainer.

But Carlton posters are deluded. They dont understand value and common sense.

Even better, trade with GC for 3 and 24. They would do that. Then trade 3 to Port for 5 and 10 (failing that with us for 8 and 13) and you have turned your pick into 5, 10 and 24. That is so much smarter considering their list.
Personally it seems like SOS just loves the prestige of owning pick 1.