If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4

[mad saint guy]

So everyone thinks that the top 6 are guns and that's why we should not accept 8 and 15 for 4. If it was 100% certain that the top 6 were in fact guns then I would not want 8 and 15 either. The fact is it never ends up this way. What better example than Mc Cartin? Imagine what our list would look like if we had traded pick 1 to GWS for 2 top 10 picks???

Yep we could have got Jarrod Pickett and Paul Ahern instead.

Or Jordan DeGoey and Jake Lever.

[dragit]

So everyone thinks that the top 6 are guns and that's why we should not accept 8 and 15 for 4. If it was 100% certain that the top 6 were in fact guns then I would not want 8 and 15 either. The fact is it never ends up this way. What better example than Mc Cartin? Imagine what our list would look like if we had traded pick 1 to GWS for 2 top 10 picks???

Yep we could have got Jarrod Pickett and Paul Ahern instead.

Or Jordan DeGoey and Jake Lever.

It's much easier 4 years later, I don't recall anyone suggesting they would be the two best players before the draft.

[DJ Higgins]

Silly agreement again. Pick 4 is better than pick 8 because you get more choices. If you make the wrong call that is on the drafter not the draftees. Also it doesn't take into account that the first pick goes to the worst team. Ie poor coaches, mentors, club morale

[the dome]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

[mad saint guy]

It's much easier 4 years later, I don't recall anyone suggesting they would be the two best players before the draft.

To be fair many people were saying Lever would have been in contention for the top 3 if not for his injury and while an outsider to many, Emma Quayle was talking up DeGoey as being the best prospect in the draft.

Although if I was picking at the time with 4 and 7 I would have taken Marchbank and Wright.

[Scollop]

I understand that all scenarios should be planned and discussed but the focus should be to recruit the best players available and to ensure that we try and unearth the next DeGoey or Lever. I remember one of the main characteristics discussed a few years back was the family background rather than the focus being on the player's ability and talent. We were interested in getting an 18 year old from a 'good home' and perhaps missing out on the best footy players available in the draft

You can't really guarantee that you'll get the players you want so I'd prefer the recruiting team find the right talent instead of trying to outsmart themselves and their counterparts with these sort of hypotheticals.

[ListManager]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

[silverhalo]

No deal - would look at Port's 5 & 15 for 4 maybe....

[desertsaint]

From an age article 2015 covering the best picks from 20 down.

No. 15 Pick
Scott Camporeale - Carlton, 1994, 252 games
The shortlist: Andrew Jarman (Brisbane, 1987, 110 games) Max Hudghton (St Kilda, 1996, 234 games), Brady Rawlings (North Melbourne, 1998, 245 games)

No.8 Pick
Jimmy Bartel – Geelong, 2001, 272 games
The shortlist: Chris Tarrant (Collingwood, 1997, 268 games), Jude Bolton (Sydney, 1998, 325 games), Joel Corey (Geelong, 1999, 276 games)

No.4 Pick
Peter Matera - West Coast, 1989, 253 games
The shortlist: Justin Leppitsch (Brisbane, 1992, 227 games), Scott Lucas (Essendon, 1994, 270 games), Matthew Pavlich (Fremantle, 1999, 335 games)

Now from that is a Pavlich or Matera worth a Bartel + Camporeale?
Certainly take Bartel out in exchange for Tarrant or Bolton and its an easy yes.
But we need to look at all the other pick 15 and 8s vs 4. All the chumps or gops that didn't make the list.

Draft pick 4 has a 98 game average (lower than picks 5, 7 and 8 (98))
15 have hot over 100 games. Nine all australians.
missing from that list above is Gaff, Oliver, Bontempelli and one Josh Kennedy!

Draft 8 has 13 100 gamers and 6 all australians. the best pkayer not listed above is probably Ty Vickery, Daniel Motlop, or Ben Reid.

Draft pick 15 has no one even close to the players listed above - troy chaplin and lyndon dunne, or daniel rioli would be the next best. in 28 years 10 players have made 100 games. 5 all australians.

So go for double the likelihood of a really good player, or increase your chances of not getting a one hundred gamer? i say keep pick 4.

even more cut and dried since 2010.

pick 4:
gaff, hoskin-elliot, toumpas, bontempelli, pickett, oliver, ainsworth, davies-uniacke

pick 8:
heppell, longer, mayes, mcdonald, wright, ah chee, logue, coffield

pick 15:
smedts, ellis, garner, jones, rioli, gallucci, bailey.

[skeptic]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

[Cairnsman]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

[skeptic]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

[skeptic]

Hey CM... just read in another thread that you've suggested #5 and #15 is a possibility...


That deal I would take in a heartbeat

[silverhalo]

If we're not looking at taking Max King at 4, and he is for mine the logical choice at 4 if Walsh, Luko and Rankine go 1, 2 and 3, then we'd be crazy not to do 4 for Port's 5&15 if offered. If we want Max, we don't do the trade and take him at 4, to me it's that simple.

[DJ Higgins]

If King is available we should get him and suck it up for another year as we will suck again. King will spend most of the year in the VFL so our mid field issues remain but "if" he comes good we will be happy in a years time.

I am also expecting to get pick get 1-3 next year as well so it would make more sense to get a potential full forward elite player this year for the future and get an elite outside mid next year rather than get a good inside mid this year and get an elite outside mid next year

[desertsaint]

another year of sucking and picking up a first or second draft pick is probably much needed.

[Cairnsman]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?

[skeptic]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?

Are you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?

[Cairnsman]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?

Are you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?

Nup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.

[skeptic]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?

Are you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?

Nup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.

Well I’m not like some of the other forumites here... I have no inside sources, no pretend inside sources, am certainly not a dark mystic and to be honest, outside of the top 10 haven’t followed this draft as closely as others.

I have to form my opinion based on the available reading and footage.

I’ve reviewed it and come to as best a decision as I can

[Cairnsman]

"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"

If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.

Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.

Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.

It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.

It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).

The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.

I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15

If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15

2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.

In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier

So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal

You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?

Are you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?

Nup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.

Well I’m not like some of the other forumites here... I have no inside sources, no pretend inside sources, am certainly not a dark mystic and to be honest, outside of the top 10 haven’t followed this draft as closely as others.

I have to form my opinion based on the available reading and footage.

I’ve reviewed it and come to as best a decision as I can

Just Mystic please Speptic. It's the circles that are dark.

...if the club can land the midfileder that ticks the boxes and pick up 2 first round DPs...well...but a midfielder is the prime target. Take it to the bank.

[sunsaint]

another year of sucking and picking up a first or second draft pick is probably much needed.

I dont mind that thinking
but you can also add to the equation of possibilities...WOULD we be having this dilemma if -
# we didnt snag a clutch goal in the dying moments fo the game against Gold Coast ?
3 we dint extend McCartins contract at the start of 2018 & we were identifying draft talent two years out (Max King)
# the experts truly believe that talent pool for mids in 2020 will be as GOOD as what is available this year
# we didnt give away future picks easily - or give away next years future greedily this year

Im not denying it isnt complicated but thats why we pay big money to experts to make the right call
And we are being run by experts

My philosophy to explain the difference between winning clubs and the rest
is not the number of right calls you make - but the number of mistakes you make
eg Paddy vs Petracca both are a right call - but if paddys diabetes kicks in ...

[MC Gusto]

6 and 24 for 4 prob makes sense. I have a feeling king and smith will still be around at 6

[fugazi]

6 and 24 for 4 prob makes sense. I have a feeling king and smith will still be around at 6

Smith will, but unlimely Max King

Would be Rozee to GC and Max to PA

We would have Smith, Ben King, Caldwell etc to choose from.

[fugazi]

6 and 24 for 4 prob makes sense. I have a feeling king and smith will still be around at 6

Smith will, but unlikely Max King

Would be Rozee to GC and Max to PA

We would have Smith, Ben King, Caldwell etc to choose from.