- Dec 5, 2012
- 13,257
- 35,828
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Knicks, Giants
Realistic to be fair....9 and 16 with Bolts and 29 coming back
If we have 4-5 top 20 picks we wont need the later picks.
We wont be taking 8 players in the draft.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Realistic to be fair....9 and 16 with Bolts and 29 coming back
I'd expect a pick to be closer to 50 if we got anything back with 9 and 16. Basically just a token pick Richmond wouldnt be using but we need for list spotsRealistic to be fair....
If we have 4-5 top 20 picks we wont need the later picks.
We wont be taking 8 players in the draft.
As opposed to the clowns saying 9 & 16 is overs?It is but the clowns over on the Tiggers board think that even 9 and 10 is unders
No, you said he was better in a better team, so you dont need to hope, but even based on 2024, playing mostly forward in the worst team, if he brought that form to Freo, you are instantly better and you would have played finals.So you agree his 2024 wasn't as good as previous seasons. And we would have to hope that he improves in a better team. He can be a great player but is inconsistent and that is a risk we will have to take.
I do hope we get him. There is some risk. I do think he will be better than in 24 but that doesn't mean he is risk free. It also doesn't mean that 9 and 16 won't sting.
Now show me the gulf between our opinions. I am not the one who said he had a middling year.
Or just pick better lol
Bet I can find a sick combo within 5 picks after each of those years
As far as I'm concerned that's about right.As opposed to the clowns saying 9 & 16 is overs?
Now this is an interesting line of thought.
Firstly you acknowledging we would 'definitely get something back' is an acknowledgment it is overs.
Secondly, There are only a handful on that list I would take over Shai.
Something to consider.
It's just easy to pick apart a flawed postObviously you can, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As far as I'm concerned that's about right.
It's just easy to pick apart a flawed post
There were clearly players in that range that were good.
If you don't rate your list manager to find them then that's another problem but it does change the fact that players will be there
That's not our problem once the picks are tradedBut you can use that on any year, the likelihood of always picking the best players with picks is very low. It just doesn't happen. I'm sure even Freo have had plenty of misses. Its just part and parcel of the game of drafting.
We saving him from the third worse fans.I’m really looking forward to freo fans pivoting on their appraisal of shai the minute he becomes a docker
Will be a massive Uturn
Only acknowledging it as with the picks that we currently have, we would rather offer later picks and get something much better in the 1st round.
I suspect acceptable deals could be something like:
9, 16 and Simpson - with maybe pick 47 going back
Or
9, and 10 - with 2 3rds (1 in each year) going back, lets say 39 and F3rd (which could help provide value for Warner next year).
Bearing in mind we would also likely offer $500k per year for the length of his current contract, then thats the overs right there. There would be unlikely that extent of salary cap contribution if we didn't get 9 and 10 included.
IMO, the Shai trade will indicate how confident Freo are of getting Warner. Trade a bit more this year to get salary covered, trade your 16 for Brisbanes F1st and Warner is on IMO.
You could be going into next year with your 1st, 2nd and 3rd, Brisbane's 1st, Richmonds 3rd and anything else you might trade in.
With you paying all his salary or with the Tiges covering a decent proportion of it?
Simpson won’t be tradedSimpson would make the deal incredibly one sided. More than 9 & 10. And that is a bridge too far on its own.
Shai might want #29Simpson won’t be traded