Trading the #1 pick

[JDavey]

Can't see why you'd bother either given the talent you already have.

To muse our Bomber friends/Dodoro, whose available/tradeable worthy given you already have a couple of #1 picks already

"Can't see why your club would want to try and improve its list"

Lol what?

 

[citizen-erased]

Interesting you would prefer picks over players. Don't mind that strategy

this draft has 2001 written all over it in terms of talent.
getting more picks in it with our list profile is essential

Id love to turn 1 into 5 & 7 and go after 15 and 16 as well with some later picks (Hibberd pick, 37, 55, 2017 2nd).

Brodie, Taranto, Battle, Bolton, Pepper-Powell.
Decent haul

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

GWS seem keen on another one...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-02/giants-bombers-in-talks-over-no1-draft-pick

OMG ... who would have thunk that? LMAO.

 

[White Dove]

"Can't see why your club would want to try and improve its list"

Lol what?

Um, your quotation seems incorrect.

I was implying that GWS don't need to sell the farm so to speak to chase pick 1 given they already have a plethora of young talent.

But thanks for posting

 

[Moist Biscuit]

this draft has 2001 written all over it in terms of talent.
getting more picks in it with our list profile is essential

Id love to turn 1 into 5 & 7 and go after 15 and 16 as well with some later picks (Hibberd pick, 37, 55, 2017 2nd).

Brodie, Taranto, Battle, Bolton, Pepper-Powell.
Decent haul

*Powell-Pepper

 

[citizen-erased]

*Powell-Pepper

I knew that too

 

[White Dove]

this draft has 2001 written all over it in terms of talent.
getting more picks in it with our list profile is essential

Id love to turn 1 into 5 & 7 and go after 15 and 16 as well with some later picks (Hibberd pick, 37, 55, 2017 2nd).

Brodie, Taranto, Battle, Bolton, Pepper-Powell.
Decent haul

Of course it sounds amazing, but why wouldn't GWS just bank those picks they get for Marchbank etc

 

[citizen-erased]

Um, your quotation seems incorrect.

I was implying that GWS don't need to sell the farm so to speak to chase pick 1 given they already have a plethora of young talent.

But thanks for posting

i think their view would be 5 & 7 will be a Taranto, Ainsworth, etc.
Another kid beating on the door of a midfield yet to add Kennedy and with more coming through.
McGrath, while a great mid, is proven as a running defender with composed disposal.
If anyone can sell the farm to get the kid they want, its them.
If they get 5 & 7, giving it up for 1 would amount to pragmatic trading.
For us, it would be smart trading. Give up the best in the draft, but take 2 in the top 10.

If we get Taranto & either of Brodie/Ainsworth, i'll be stoked.

 

[citizen-erased]

Of course it sounds amazing, but why wouldn't GWS just bank those picks they get for Marchbank etc

i think their view would be 5 & 7 will be a Taranto, Ainsworth, etc.
Another kid beating on the door of a midfield yet to add Kennedy and with more coming through.
McGrath, while a great mid, is proven as a running defender with composed disposal.
If anyone can sell the farm to get the kid they want, its them.
If they get 5 & 7, giving it up for 1 would amount to pragmatic trading.
For us, it would be smart trading. Give up the best in the draft, but take 2 in the top 10.

If we get Taranto & either of Brodie/Ainsworth, i'll be stoked.

Linking my reply to your other post.

I think it all comes down to how much they want McGrath.
Patfull struggled with the pace against the Dogs and Shaw didn't cover himself with glory when the dogs got niggly.
McGrath, while still a kid, looks composed, mature beyond his age and a perfect replacement for those players in a team entering a period of dominance.

 

[White Dove]

i think their view would be 5 & 7 will be a Taranto, Ainsworth, etc.
Another kid beating on the door of a midfield yet to add Kennedy and with more coming through.
McGrath, while a great mid, is proven as a running defender with composed disposal.
If anyone can sell the farm to get the kid they want, its them.
If they get 5 & 7, giving it up for 1 would amount to pragmatic trading.
For us, it would be smart trading. Give up the best in the draft, but take 2 in the top 10.

If we get Taranto & either of Brodie/Ainsworth, i'll be stoked.

It'd be amazing if Dodoro can pull that off

 

[Determinant]

Can't see why you'd bother either given the talent you already have.

To muse our Bomber friends/Dodoro, whose available/tradeable worthy given you already have a couple of #1 picks already

Just a dumb move, there's a reason Ess would like two lowish picks, it's an even draft, only way it's possible is if we have want outs that want to be bombers

 

[citizen-erased]

It'd be amazing if Dodoro can pull that off

Did amazingly well with the Carlisle situation.

I also think GWS will drive most of this trade if I'm honest. I can't imagine Dodoro will have much to do other than look at their high draft picks and point to ones he wants.

Just a dumb move, there's a reason Ess would like two lowish picks, it's an even draft, only way it's possible is if we have want outs that want to be bombers

i think you more want McGrath than 2x top 10 you would get.
i don't know for sure. just seems the way its been reported.

 

[White Dove]

Just a dumb move, there's a reason Ess would like two lowish picks, it's an even draft, only way it's possible is if we have want outs that want to be bombers

I agree it doesn't seem smart from a GWS pov, hence my interest in asking.

 

[citizen-erased]

Just a dumb move, there's a reason Ess would like two lowish picks, it's an even draft, only way it's possible is if we have want outs that want to be bombers

id also be more interested in keeping 1 and get 15 and 16 from you guys for some picks that would help with the academy crop this year and next.
Also, Jake Barrett and Pat McKenna.
A young inside bull and athletic tall would go well for us while we build our list

 

[Suma Magic]

Why not just trade for pick 2 if they are taking mcluggage

 

[Determinant]

Did amazingly well with the Carlisle situation.

I also think GWS will drive most of this trade if I'm honest. I can't imagine Dodoro will have much to do other than look at their high draft picks and point to ones he wants.


i think you more want McGrath than 2x top 10 you would get.
i don't know for sure. just seems the way its been reported.

Not sure why he is a need, we have 7 best 22 backs playing each week, with Buntine and Corr out through injury affected seasons.
We can't play 10 backs and no pick one likes being left out of the team for a couple of years while Shaw keeps playing well.
Patful more likely to finish up, but signed replacements exist.
Again, the story as reported doesn't make much sense.

 

[citizen-erased]

Not sure why he is a need, we have 7 best 22 backs playing each week, with Buntine and Corr out through injury affected seasons.
We can't play 10 backs and no pick one likes being left out of the team for a couple of years while Shaw keeps playing well.
Patful more likely to finish up, but signed replacements exist.
Again, the story as reported doesn't make much sense.

i don't get it either.
Personally, would prefer to keep 1 and trade towards 15 and 16.
1, 15, 16 and 19 is my wishlist (plus Barrett).

GWS should be able work 7 into 3 with McCarthy and possibly get McGrath.
not guaranteed though

 

[blitzer]

The real question is: How badly do GWS really want pick #1? Like all things there's clearly a point where it's too expensive. Its not clear where this point is for GWS.
I'm pretty sure GWS could come up with a deal that would satisfy Essendon either in pure picks or via picks + players. GWS just has so much currency in terms of players and draft picks - its not hard for them to involve a 3rd party if required.

FWIW i'd be happy with #1 for #5 and #7.

If GWS really wants it badly I would also try to negotiate with them for other picks that might be useful for them in terms of their points this year or next but could improve our drafting position at the same time.

 

[Ants]

There are actually a few good reasons GWS might consider focussing on #1 over keeping #5 and #7.

I think GWS is trying its best to get a good mix of talent in the door. The issue isn't that they need McGrath so much (although he'd obviously be very useful as a replacement for Shaw). It is that you're already getting Setterfield and Perrymen. So you are already getting two midfielders who are top 10 picks. Mutch is also rated top 15 and another midfielder. So if you're already getting 3 top of the line mids, do you need another one? McGrath gives a nicer mix, especially if you're not a fan of Ainsworth's attitude (who reportedly a few recruiters aren't).

The other element with those two is where they will be bid on? I've seen/heard a number of recruiters rate them both as top 5 worthy. Hell, some think Setterfield could be the next Bont. So its quite possible that they will be bid on before #5 and #7, wiping out the value of those picks. Yes, GWS would get replacement picks later in the draft but they're unlikely to be as much use.

The final question is how many picks will GWS be taking? You would expect them to take Seterfield, Perryman, Mutch, Sproule and McReadie as academy bids. They might normally have considered taking Gathwaite or Lynch, but probably not. So that is 5 players, plus potentially a 2 player reduction in their list space, before they even use any picks on non-academy players. Given that, do they even want/need two extra players, or would the be better consolidating picks into a single one (#1) and taking academy players with what is left?

Another option may be to trade one of #5 or #7 for a 2017 pick. The question is whether they would get full value? The talk is that 2017 could be a strong draft, with a stronger emphasis on KP players. Teams who might expect to finish in the bottom 8, would they be willing to trade out for #5/#7 on its own? And if you have to sweeten the deal, well then why not just do the same this year to get #1? And how risky is it hoping a club will finish low? Because GWS can be sure anyone who expects to finish low (e.g. Carlton) won't do that deal. It is a risky option.

So trading out one or both of #5/#7 may make sense, either for a higher pick or a 2017 pick. If GWS really want to guarantee McGrath to go with the three top midfielders you're already getting, GWS need #1 to guarantee it. Essendon has definitely been considering McGrath at #1 since the champs, although who knows where he's ranked exactly.

How much GWS want McGrath is unknown. How willing clubs would be to trade out of a (reputedly) KP strong 2017 draft for a #5/#7 this year is also unknown. How many free list spots GWS will have is also unknown. It might be GWS feel trading #5 and #7 for #1, taking the academy kids with #15/#16 etc. is a less risky and better strategy than keeping them and hoping #5 & #7, #15 aren't wiped by academy bids leaving them to be using #16 (or even later) on an extra kid.

Given all that, I can definitely see why GWS would consider it.

 

[Ants]

BTW, I doubt it would be #5 and #7 straight. I think its more likely to be #5, #7 and #15 for #1, #19 and our 2017 2nd. Technically GWS almost certainly win that on points (as a way of scoring), but with an even draft this year I think EFC would definitely jump at it.

 

[Seb78]

Im a little confused with how exactly pick 5 is even in the picture? Dont Carlton have that pick?

 

[Jeremias]

Im a little confused with how exactly pick 5 is even in the picture? Dont Carlton have that pick?

Yes we do, but people are assuming it will head to GWS as part of a deal for Marchbank.

 

[DapperDon]

Im a little confused with how exactly pick 5 is even in the picture? Dont Carlton have that pick?

Assumption it will be part of the Marchbank trade

 

[Ants]

I think its also assumed that if EFC can't stay in the top 5, we're probably not interested in a deal (well, unless a very good player was attached). Hence why it is being discussed.

 

[Vindicater]

If we get 5 and 7 for 1 we will be laughing.