If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4

[ListManager]

We should take it..lf Gallagher knocks it back he should be sacked on the spot.. He said in the podcast that the top 6 are way ahead but FFS this is just perception. The truth will not be known for at least 4 years. Take 8 and 15 and pick up 2 200 gamers otherwise Gallagher walks.

[skeptic]

I would pass...
The consistent feedback across all media and sports writers is the top 6-8 are a clear standout.

You can’t just assume that by having more picks, we’ll automatically select 200 game players. If we have someone that we really rate, and think will be a gun... get him.

What we need is a future star. One elite player, the next Riewoldt standard player and it’s all worth it even if the rest are duds.

The water the picks down strategy isn’t an overly successful one

If the club is in the position that it can’t trust it’s own judgment to pick a highly elite player in what is rated the best draft since 02... we may as well pack it now.

In terms of trading, I would only consider dealing with Port

[DJ Higgins]

We should take it..lf Gallagher knocks it back he should be sacked on the spot.. He said in the podcast that the top 6 are way ahead but FFS this is just perception. The truth will not be known for at least 4 years. Take 8 and 15 and pick up 2 200 gamers otherwise Gallagher walks.

Sacked on the spot, kidding right. Top 4 pick is more likely to be a gun than a pick 8 or pick 15. King most.likely and apparently could have been 1 except for his injury. I'd take him over pick 8 which will be worth pick 9 10 or 11 after Sydney take their academy player and west goes to dogs on father and son rule and the Tasmanian kid tarryn I think goes to north.
So you would give up pick 4 for potentially pick 11 and 18. That's makes nI sense, it really doesn't.

[degruch]

If Rankine or Smith are still available at #4, we'll take 'em...if not, I'm sure we'd entertain an offer from Adelaide. Better do a deal for Port's #5, but I'm sure they'll be trying to leapfrog us and cut as deal with the Suns, as has been touted.

[saynta]

We should take it..lf Gallagher knocks it back he should be sacked on the spot.. He said in the podcast that the top 6 are way ahead but FFS this is just perception. The truth will not be known for at least 4 years. Take 8 and 15 and pick up 2 200 gamers otherwise Gallagher walks.

I think that that is pure foolishness.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

How about no ListManager.
Sacked on the spot...are you for real?

[takeaway]

I think ListManager is stirring the pot. Adelaide don't have pick 15 anyway - bit better - 13, and 21. I wouldn't trade 4 for anything outside pick 6, plus extra pick. So Port or Gold Coast, or Adelaide if they trade into the top 6.
It would have to be a great deal to part with 4, and 8 plus is not good enough.

[skeptic]

I think ListManager is stirring the pot. Adelaide don't have pick 15 anyway - bit better - 13, and 21. I wouldn't trade 4 for anything outside pick 6, plus extra pick. So Port or Gold Coast, or Adelaide if they trade into the top 6.
It would have to be a great deal to part with 4, and 8 plus is not good enough.

Well the poster has form

[guitars4]

I think ListManager is stirring the pot. Adelaide don't have pick 15 anyway - bit better - 13, and 21. I wouldn't trade 4 for anything outside pick 6, plus extra pick. So Port or Gold Coast, or Adelaide if they trade into the top 6.
It would have to be a great deal to part with 4, and 8 plus is not good enough.

Yep I agree with you nothing less than 5 & another pick or we keep 4

[prwilkinson]

No. Take best available for our needs at pick 4.

[Cairnsman]

Have we bottomed out yet? I've been reading a lot on here about how we are going to go even lower down the lader next year so if that is true then would you use your pick 4 on this uber super once in a generation draft and go for the 2 for 1 deal in next years draft by trading pick 1 to 3?

[skeptic]

The draft is no certainty regardless of what pick you have so the rationale of this deal is to increase the likelihood of selecting a gun by having 2 picks in the top 20 as opposed to one.
The trade off however is that you’re lowering the pick, in a draft where it has been suggested the top 6-8 are performing at a high standard then previous drafts, to have an extra crack in the mid teens.

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

Pick 4 seems to be our best bet to draft a champion. It’s one thing to trade it down for 3-4 extra picks in the top 25 but we’re talking about just one more pick in the teens.

It’s not a good deal. The only deal worth taking is the Port one though I doubt they’ll offer it

[dragit]

Have we bottomed out yet? I've been reading a lot on here about how we are going to go even lower down the lader next year so if that is true then would you use your pick 4 on this uber super once in a generation draft and go for the 2 for 1 deal in next years draft by trading pick 1 to 3?

It would be hard to get much lower at any rate, 4 wins would get you the spoon most years.

I don't think it really matters, we really need top end talent as we have plenty of 'decent' players. I would rather 2 genuine stars than 4 more Newnes/Ross type players.

There's a good reason the SA clubs are scrambling big time to try and get into the top 4, we'd be mad to trade down to 8 IMO. One of Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine & Smith will be there at pick 4… but you get the feeling we will take King anyway, so who knows.

If Adelaide really want 4, then I would be asking for 8, 13 & 16 for 4 & 32.

It needs to be a colossal win if we are to trade down in my opinion.

[bigred]

I'm laughing.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Apparantly the Suns want our pick 4 too. Big rumour getting about.

[dragit]

Apparantly the Suns want our pick 4 too. Big rumour getting about.

How would they do that Ted?

they have 2,3, 6 then 24 & 29

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

No idea.

Give us 6, 24 and 29 back.

[Cairnsman]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

[dragit]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

Obviously there is no maths to support "certain guns" at any pick, but there would be good data to support higher picks being more likely to become better players. It would be interesting to see "games played" for each pick and sets of 1-5 - 5-10 etc over the years.

Who qualifies as a "gun" is a highly debatable discussion in itself. Jack Newnes is on track to play 250 AFL games, but is never going to be elite… we don't need 3 more Newnes, we need a Dustin Martin (Rankine).

It sounds like this draft has a particularly strong top 6, so trading out of it could really hurt down the track.

[fugazi]

Would consider 6 and 24 from GC

They would take Luko, Max King and Rozee

Port would take Rankine

We take Smith

Plus pick 24.

Would not go below 6....either Max King , Smith or Rozee will be available....after that it qill be down to Ben King and next tier.
We need the best.

[Cairnsman]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

Obviously there is no maths to support "certain guns" at any pick, but there would be good data to support higher picks being more likely to become better players. It would be interesting to see "games played" for each pick and sets of 1-5 - 5-10 etc over the years.

Who qualifies as a "gun" is a highly debatable discussion in itself. Jack Newnes is on track to play 250 AFL games, but is never going to be elite… we don't need 3 more Newnes, we need a Dustin Martin (Rankine).

It sounds like this draft has a particularly strong top 6, so trading out of it could really hurt down the track.

Mathematically speaking, you contradicted yourself, maths supports everything. In actual fact nearly all of the clauses in your post can be represented in math. I'm guessing there are clubs relying on the expertise of mathematicians to augment thier decision making.

[saintsRrising]

We should take it..lf Gallagher knocks it back he should be sacked on the spot.. He said in the podcast that the top 6 are way ahead but FFS this is just perception. The truth will not be known for at least 4 years. Take 8 and 15 and pick up 2 200 gamers otherwise Gallagher walks.

If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4 we would be silly to take it. Only reason to accept such a deal would be if at least two of Walsh, Lucky and Rankine have not been taken in the Top 3. Even then pick 8 may be too far down the list.

Otherwise it will we most likely like draft like last year where our first two picks are ok looking talent, but are outside the Guns.

200 games? So another Geary would make you grin ear to ear?

We have ok depth at present, what we need is the cream. We are severely short of top-end elite players
Get such talent, and then watch what we already have walk taller.

[DJ Higgins]

Bottom line from the majority of posters is no. Take pick 4 to the draft and get a "potential" star of tomorrow not trade for two potential good not great players

[dragit]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

Obviously there is no maths to support "certain guns" at any pick, but there would be good data to support higher picks being more likely to become better players. It would be interesting to see "games played" for each pick and sets of 1-5 - 5-10 etc over the years.

Who qualifies as a "gun" is a highly debatable discussion in itself. Jack Newnes is on track to play 250 AFL games, but is never going to be elite… we don't need 3 more Newnes, we need a Dustin Martin (Rankine).

It sounds like this draft has a particularly strong top 6, so trading out of it could really hurt down the track.

Mathematically speaking, you contradicted yourself, maths supports everything. In actual fact nearly all of the clauses in your post can be represented in math. I'm guessing there are clubs relying on the expertise of mathematicians to augment thier decision making.

You can use all the maths you like, no pick is a certainty… of course data is used to help with selections, but mathematically speaking every single club has stuffed up first round selections many times, there is no sure thing in selecting players.

No mathematician or scientist would bet their career on a particular draft range (1 - 6) of players becoming 'certain stars" as there are far too many variables.

You are asking

"Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns"

A: There is none.

I think you are just nit picking skeptics post as you know very well that he is not claiming a "certain gun" will result, he believes the chances are higher with a 1-6 pick in this draft rather than 7-20 pick… a view held by many keen draft watchers.

[Joffa Burns]

We have ok depth at present, what we need is the cream. We are severely short of top-end elite players
Get such talent, and then watch what we already have walk taller.

This!