Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2019 Draft Almanac

[wizzard400]

Knightmare you might have already answered this but where do you rate Kysaiah Pickett? Been seeing a fair bit of him in the media lately.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare you might have already answered this but where do you rate Kysaiah Pickett? Been seeing a fair bit of him in the media lately.

See him going 10-30.

In my own power rankings he's around 30 and given his projected range someone I'd let another club pick.

 

[Peel67skin]

If Adelaide have excess late picks, it’s here nor there if they include them in a trade or not.

On the Brisbane board, one person proposed the trade of 16, 21 and 34 for pick 6, if GWS are unsuccessful in trading up.

We have two, to many picks as it is. Two academy kids we are keen on drafting that probably don’t get bid on until after pick 30.

Our head of football, David Noble has said picks 16 and 21 are on the table for a top 10 pick. And 34 is on the table for a future second round pick.

If we can’t trade out pick 34 for a future second round pick, may as well offer our top 3 picks to get as high as we can.

GWS can give back pick 40 along with pick 6 if it means they end up with to many picks themselves.

16 and 21 will match a bid on Green at pick 4 and generate enough residual points to match a later bid on their other academy kid, Liam Delahunty. And they still have pick 34 to draft another kid.

I still think pick 15, 20 and GCS future 1st - pick 11 swap with GWS future 1st look much better than what you offer. GWS can offer future 1st pick 11 and future 2nd later if they really want somebody still available around pick 15-35 range in this year draft or offer their future 2nd and pick 40 to move up.

 

[master bate]

The GWS price paid to get pick 4 and Green would be: 2019 pick 12, 18, 40, 59, 60 and 2020 1st, 2nd and 3rd = 2 top players for 8 draft picks.

I assume if they make those moves they'd be rating both Green and the player they pick at 4 as the kind of elite prospects you rarely see outside the top 5, maybe even top 3 draft picks. Another Hopper and another Taranto or a Josh Kelly.

In which case it's a steal. All those picks outside 40 can't be worth much to a Giants list that is absolutely stacked, especially given the chance to bring depth players in with mid season and preseason selections these days and an academy which means there's always ample depth options if you're clever. If it's 12, 18 and a future pick that's 15+ for picks 3 and 4 it's happy days.

 

[Demon 16]

I’m starting to think Melbourne will nominate Green and happily take him.

I think GWS will match though, then Melbourne will happily take Young.

On our next pick I think we’ll just wait to see who falls and take one of Serong, Kemp, Jackson etc.

Nice and simple - let everyone else do the ****ing about.

 

[Giant Strides]

I still think pick 15, 20 and GCS future 1st - pick 11 swap with GWS future 1st look much better than what you offer. GWS can offer future 1st pick 11 and future 2nd later if they really want somebody still available around pick 15-35 range in this year draft or offer their future 2nd and pick 40 to move up.

I think the Adelaide plan would be the preferred.

Essentially, GWS really rate someone this year, and have Greene coming through too, so a deal that enables us to gain both would be their preferred choice. If that costs us picks next year, we'll take it to the limit that the AFL allows. And deal with the issues of next year, next year.

The GCS trade with a mid-first 2020 is probably next best. We can match for Greene and fill up with later picks, academy kids or rookie upgrades. And then have an extra pick next year. But not as good as someone we appear to have really targetted this year.

Next best would be Geelong or Brisbane trades - depending on which gives us the best outcome - to match for Green and have a second round pick this year. But I sense that GWS desn't really rate the second round picks available this year.

 

[briztoon]

I still think pick 15, 20 and GCS future 1st - pick 11 swap with GWS future 1st look much better than what you offer. GWS can offer future 1st pick 11 and future 2nd later if they really want somebody still available around pick 15-35 range in this year draft or offer their future 2nd and pick 40 to move up.

No doubt it’s a better offer.

But that has nothing to do with my post, as I wasn’t trying to out bid another mythical offer.

 

[TryAnHit]

Why does everyone call him greene

 

[Draft Bored]

I think the Adelaide plan would be the preferred.

Essentially, GWS really rate someone this year, and have Greene coming through too, so a deal that enables us to gain both would be their preferred choice. If that costs us picks next year, we'll take it to the limit that the AFL allows. And deal with the issues of next year, next year.

The GCS trade with a mid-first 2020 is probably next best. We can match for Greene and fill up with later picks, academy kids or rookie upgrades. And then have an extra pick next year. But not as good as someone we appear to have really targetted this year.

Next best would be Geelong or Brisbane trades - depending on which gives us the best outcome - to match for Green and have a second round pick this year. But I sense that GWS desn't really rate the second round picks available this year.

I think a bid for Green will come at 3 so GWS need to come to an agreement with a club like Adelaide where they trade out of this draft temporarily at the Green bid as bids are paid for with their highest draft picks, and then trade back into it.

[TRADE 1]

GWS: 6 + Future 2nd + Future 3rd + 80
ADL: Future 1st + 37 + 45 + 49

This gives GWS the points to match the Green bid. Adelaide will hold 4, 6, 23, 28, 80. GWS holds two future 1sts. Then when pick 23 rolls around:

[TRADE 2]

GWS: Future 1st (GWS)
ADL: 23

So essentially swapping picks next year and moving picks around in this draft to pay for Green. Equates to roughly (* is estimated future pick based on Crows finishing 13th, GWS finishing 3rd in compromised draft):

ADL get: 6 + 22* + 41* + 58* + 80
GWS get: 8* + 23 + 37 + 45 + 49 (eg. Green, Pick 23 and Pick 8 2020)

 

[TryAnHit]

I think a bid for Green will come at 3 so GWS need to come to an agreement with a club like Adelaide where they trade out of this draft temporarily at the Green bid as bids are paid for with their highest draft picks, and then trade back into it.

[TRADE 1]

GWS: 6 + Future 2nd + Future 3rd + 80
ADL: Future 1st + 37 + 45 + 49

This gives GWS the points to match the Green bid. Adelaide will hold 4, 6, 23, 28, 80. GWS holds two future 1sts. Then when pick 23 rolls around:

[TRADE 2]

GWS: Future 1st (GWS)
ADL: 23

So essentially swapping picks next year and moving picks around in this draft to pay for Green. Equates to roughly (* is estimated future pick based on Crows finishing 13th, GWS finishing 3rd in compromised draft):

ADL get: 6 + 22* + 41* + 58* + 80
GWS get: 8* + 23 + 37 + 45 + 49 (eg. Green, Pick 23 and Pick 8 2020)

No way adel swap future first for change.
Adel could well be bottom 4 next year while gws top 4

 

[LegendLewis]

If GWS do that deal they would end up with around negative 770 points for 2020 which should come off their 2020 first rounder, but if they have traded that pick I guess it's a quirk of the system and it comes off their 2nd rounder and probably 3rd rounder???

Another little quirk of the deficit system is that it is NOT applied to the first round the following year. It starts at the second round.

 

[briztoon]

Another little quirk of the deficit system is that it is NOT applied to the first round the following year. It starts at the second round.

It’s applied to the round the bid comes in.

If the bid comes in the first round, and a deficit carries over to the next years draft, 100% the deficit comes off the first round pick.

If a bid comes in the second round, then it comes off the next years second round pick.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Why the need to bring in points?

It only makes it complicated and hurts my head.

 

[Mego Red]

They would get enough of Adelaide's later picks thrown in this year to match the Green bid and avoid a deficit.

6 and a future first for 4, 37 and 49 gives GWS one more point than they need to match a bid at 5. That values the future pick at 17.

GWS get two top talents, Adelaide trade two mid draft picks for an extra first, and still have a fair chance at getting who they wanted at four plus three more picks inside 50.

Zero chance the Crows do that. Absolutely zero.

 

[Mego Red]

(a) Points are irrelevant to Adelaide.
(b) Any club would trade a late second and mid third for a future first.

It all hinges on whether Adelaide are happy at 6 rather than 4, and if they're into someone like Dylan Stephens who should still be there, they might well be.

Flawed logic.

Of course the Crows would trade a second and a third for a future first in isolation, but we're not doing that and ALSO trading down in the first round.

The GWS future first is worth about pick 20. That may already not be enough to get from pick 6 to pick 4.

 

[Mego Red]

If i was Adelaide i would want a future first. Having multiple 1s next years will help them to try trading up to get hometown boy Riley thilthorpe because we all know Adelaide's record of losing kpp's to the go home factor.

What KPPs have the Crows lost to go home factor?

 

[Mego Red]

No way adel swap future first for change.
Adel could well be bottom 4 next year while gws top 4

Adelaide swapped their future first for pick 6 this year. That's pretty good return for them.

 

[Draft Bored]

No way adel swap future first for change.
Adel could well be bottom 4 next year while gws top 4

And in my trade suggestion they're essentially bringing that pick forward to 6 this year.

 

[Draft Bored]

Adelaide swapped their future first for pick 6 this year. That's pretty good return for them.

Yeah I actually think the Crows will go alright and finish around 10th-12th while GWS might have the same drop off the Crows had after their demorilising defeat to Richmond in the GF.

I'm really open to the idea of a future pick swap if it gets us pick 6 while retaining 4.

 

[josh the gent]

Hi KM, firstly - I’m an avid reader of your BF Almanac year after year. Awesome content and thank you for all the insights you bring to the upcoming draft every year.

Regarding my beloved Doggies...

Media word has it that we’re interested in the likes of Bergman, Pickett, and Weightman.

But none of those players really seem logically in the equation (per yours and most other draft watchers) at the pick 13 mark. Our next pick isn’t til pick 51.

Are you sensing that the Dogs will trade down the draft order to split 13 to two picks in the 20s - and that’s why we’re linked with those three players?

 

[Knightmare]

Hi KM, firstly - I’m an avid reader of your BF Almanac year after year. Awesome content and thank you for all the insights you bring to the upcoming draft every year.

Regarding my beloved Doggies...

Media word has it that we’re interested in the likes of Bergman, Pickett, and Weightman.

But none of those players really seem logically in the equation (per yours and most other draft watchers) at the pick 13 mark. Our next pick isn’t til pick 51.

Are you sensing that the Dogs will trade down the draft order to split 13 to two picks in the 20s - and that’s why we’re linked with those three players?

It sounds like the views in clubland are different to my own on Bergman/Pickett/Weightman. For me they're all 20-30 guys on quality.

The Dogs might be able to move down 2-3 choices and still get one of those, but probably not much further. Maybe a trade with Geelong for the second of their picks feels probably about as far back as the Dogs could go and still get at least one of those three. Perhaps a trade can be facilitated with one of those clubs to move back a few choices and get perhaps another top-40 pick.

Have yet to hear anything strong on a possible trade of picks. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but I'm yet to hear the Dogs have been among those active clubs.

 

[Peel67skin]

I think the Adelaide plan would be the preferred.

Essentially, GWS really rate someone this year, and have Greene coming through too, so a deal that enables us to gain both would be their preferred choice. If that costs us picks next year, we'll take it to the limit that the AFL allows. And deal with the issues of next year, next year.

The GCS trade with a mid-first 2020 is probably next best. We can match for Greene and fill up with later picks, academy kids or rookie upgrades. And then have an extra pick next year. But not as good as someone we appear to have really targetted this year.

Next best would be Geelong or Brisbane trades - depending on which gives us the best outcome - to match for Green and have a second round pick this year. But I sense that GWS desn't really rate the second round picks available this year.

I think if Melbourne bid green at pick 3, GCS is a better option but after that Adelaide is the better option,much depend on where the bid come at 3 or after three. GWS got a lot of option just need to choose what is best for GWS.

 

[Giant Strides]

I think if Melbourne pick green at pick 3, GCS is a better option but after that Adelaide is the better option,much depend on where the bid come at 3 or after three.

Yes, I'd agree there. I think GWS watch and see what happens - if Melbourne bid on Green then the Adelaide swap is negated and it's a case of trading backwards with one of GCS, Cats or Lions. But clear hope would be that Demons don't bid.

 

[Peel67skin]

Yes, I'd agree there. I think GWS watch and see what happens - if Melbourne bid on Green then the Adelaide swap is negated and it's a case of trading backwards with one of GCS, Cats or Lions. But clear hope would be that Demons don't bid.

Even if you get past Melbourne, I think Adelaide will ask for a lot more than what is suggested here.

 

[Giant Strides]

Even if you get past Melbourne, I think Adelaide will ask for a lot more than what is suggested here.

Possibly. In which case we say no, and if they bid on Green (which I do expect), we then activate the backwards trade. The ruling from the AFL allows us some flexibility to manage this as the night goes (good for us, and perhaps for the spectacle too) - obviously we still need to have other clubs agree to any trade, but I suspect GCS, Cats & Lions would be keen to get that pick 6.