Page 391 of 521 FirstFirst ... 291341381387388389390391392393394395401441491 ... LastLast
Results 4,681 to 4,692 of 6242

Thread: 2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #4681
    Quote Originally Posted by Aprilbr View Post
    I would love to pick up Green. Just what we need! I hope your theories are right, gang.

    Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
    We haven't suggested many theories. The best was the rather lame, "maybe Giants won't match" and hopefully it won't be Adelaide that make the bid in that case. I think the Giants are destined to match, their strategy of trading up to pick 6 (at great expense) only makes sense if they move ahead of the bid for Green with their first pick. Anything else winds up being a disaster for them. So they have put themselves over a barrel and will have to do a deal, even a fairly unfavourable one, which is why one of Melbourne, Adelaide or us is likely to profit out of the situation, but not by getting Green.

  2. #4682
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    We haven't suggested many theories. The best was the rather lame, "maybe Giants won't match" and hopefully it won't be Adelaide that make the bid in that case. I think the Giants are destined to match, their strategy of trading up to pick 6 (at great expense) only makes sense if they move ahead of the bid for Green with their first pick. Anything else winds up being a disaster for them. So they have put themselves over a barrel and will have to do a deal, even a fairly unfavourable one, which is why one of Melbourne, Adelaide or us is likely to profit out of the situation, but not by getting Green.
    Lets say no one offers for green before 6 and they dont take Green at 6?. Can they then match someone elses bid after that with enough points from lower order picks?

  3. #4683
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Magoo View Post
    Lets say no one offers for green before 6 and they dont take Green at 6?. Can they then match someone elses bid after that with enough points from lower order picks?
    Yes, but they will have to go into deficit and lose points next year. I believe this has been analysed in several earlier posts.

    I don't think GWS handled this situation well. They are just giving up too much to try to get 2 high draft picks this year and now find themselves in a position of uncertainty about executing the strategy as it still involves trading up once again, and probably at a very high cost.

    Imagine if GSW trade up to pick 3 and GC bid on Green, leaving GWS with the choice of taking Green or Noah Anderson.

  4. #4684
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Imagine if GSW trade up to pick 3 and GC bid on Green, leaving GWS with the choice of taking Green or Noah Anderson.
    That would be uncomfortable for GWS (and unlikely) but they could probably live with Noah Anderson.

  5. #4685
    GWS traded up to pick 6, on the belief that we would use pick 5 in a daniher trade.

    I think Green is a pick 5 or 6 player, so if they got Sydney out of the way, he could easily slip to 6th allowing them to pick someone else with their 6th and then match any bid for green in the 7th, 8th or 9th pick.
    I cant see Melbourne or any non-NSW team bidding on Green earlier than pick 5. He's not a top 5 player.

    You would think there would be a gentlemans agreement between GWS and Sydney regarding academy players. No doubt the reverse situation will happen to us soon enough.

  6. #4686
    AFL Draft Central have also published their latest draft power rankings: Draft Central Power Rankings: October 2019 - Aussie Rules Draft Central. They rank in order: Rowell, Anderson, Serong, Young, Ash, Flanders, Green, Dylan Stephens, Kemp, McAsey, Jackson, Gould.

    Cooper Stephens is another we may be interested in around our second pick. Or if any of Robertson, Rivers or Gould should slip through (unlikely but possible). But more likely our draft gurus are 10 steps ahead and have identified someone we won't see coming. Nobody picked Rowbottom, let alone McInerney, last draft.

  7. #4687
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    GWS traded up to pick 6, on the belief that we would use pick 5 in a daniher trade.

    I think Green is a pick 5 or 6 player, so if they got Sydney out of the way, he could easily slip to 6th allowing them to pick someone else with their 6th and then match any bid for green in the 7th, 8th or 9th pick.
    I cant see Melbourne or any non-NSW team bidding on Green earlier than pick 5. He's not a top 5 player.

    You would think there would be a gentlemans agreement between GWS and Sydney regarding academy players. No doubt the reverse situation will happen to us soon enough.
    I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).

  8. #4688
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).
    This.

    But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.

  9. #4689
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).
    It would be poor management on our behalf if we didnt protect our Academy prospects with a bit of quid-pro-quo with GWS. It will never be disclosed, but common sense should prevail.

    GWS obviously have a player they are targetting other than Green. I could see them passing on a top 4 pick on Green. and hope to get him as a "go home" trade in few years.
    They have already "spent" their 20% point discount by trading up to pick 6. Diminishing returns to blow more pick points.

    GWS will know which way the wind is blowing by draft day, so we will see if they do a regarding trades.

  10. #4690
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    This.

    But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.
    I think this forum is getting a little obsessed on trying to block GWS's play rather than the value of Green as a player.
    Green as a pick 5 could well be a wasted pick 5 for us, (if GWS dont match) if he's only a pick 10+ player.

    We very rarely get a top 5 pick. Lets not waste it playing silly games.

  11. #4691
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    I think this forum is getting a little obsessed on trying to block GWS's play rather than the value of Green as a player.
    Green as a pick 5 could well be a wasted pick 5 for us, (if GWS dont match) if he's only a pick 10+ player.

    We very rarely get a top 5 pick. Lets not waste it playing silly games.
    I can't speak for "this forum", only myself. But nothing in my post you quoted is relevant to your response.

    I specifically said that the Swans should only bid on Green if they genuinely want him, not for the sake of scuppering GWS. He is certainly in the mix of many draft pundits with a pick in the top 5. He fills a genuine list need for the Swans. And the Swans are reported to have visited his home and to have come away impressed. It is therefore highly likely he will be in their sights come draft night, if he is still on the board. As a draft option in his own right (notwithstanding the fact he'll likely land up at GWS), not for any other reason. And if he's best available in the eyes of Dalrymple and Beatson (and were to land up on our list), that's hardly wasting a top 5 pick.

  12. #4692
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    This.

    But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.
    If there aren't any pick swaps until it's our turn on draft night and Green is the player we want, then we make a bid, if not, we don't, and take the player we want, which is the same point you make. But say that besides Green we find it hard to split the 2 next best players in the pool, say Serong and Flander for instance, and GWS come with an offer for pick 5 that has good value, then why not trade down. We aren't there to hurt the Giants, but rather get the best deal for the Swans. If the Giants then go on and take Serong, for example, we bid on Greeen at 6, the Giants match, and then we take Flanders. It shouldn't matter that the Giants benefit, so long as we benefit as well.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO