2020 Draft - Pick #3

[Thunder Shaker]

Maybe we could do a deal with 2 different clubs and downgrade ourselves in the draft to pick 7.
Give away pick 3 to Geelong for 2 picks in return 11 and 15 and maybe give a lower draft pick back. Obviously Geelong must think that they are going to get an amazing player with pick 3. But may be they have a decent list so they dont need so many picks.
Give the 2 draft picks to Carlton in return for pick 7, 2nd and 3rd rounder. They are going to need 2 picks in first round to get Zac williams and Adam Saad.
Get a good player with pick 7 and not to get into deficit next year with academy bids.

The only problem is that there are teams between pick 4 and 6 - Hawthorn, Essendon, gold coast who may select Braeden Campbell.

So it will only depend on where do our recruiters mark Campbell and what do they think they are going to get before him and is it a big loss if we lose pick 3.

I have a hunch that we will end up splitting pick 3 for two lower first-round picks. If we could get picks 11 and 16 from Geelong (perhaps for pick 3 and 2021 3rd round pick) we would be well placed to match an early bid on Campbell.

Suppose we have picks 11, 16 and 22. Pick 11 can match a bid at pick 7, pick 16 can match a bid at pick 12, and pick 22 can match a bid at pick 17. In all cases, there would be some points left over. We would have the entire range from pick 7 to pick 22 covered and this would give us a lot of draft flexibility. Two of these picks would be used to match bids (or we draft them ourselves if they are available) and the other pick is used to draft as normal.

Only if Campbell is drafted before pick 7 would this strategy not work as intended, but we would still end up with both players.

Because this strategy would be so effective, I doubt that Geelong would make that pick swap, but you never know. Geelong may want to get extra future picks because without them, they will be going into a serious rebuild soon. The average age of their best 22 is over 28 - about 2 years older than any other club.

[AB Swannie]

I don’t understand why we would use pick 3 to pay for a bid on Campbell by splitting it. It is normal to try to use late picks rather than early ones to pay for academy picks. Look at how GWS moved heaven and earth to get a pick before Green last year and how we played the system to pay for Blakey using late picks.

More likely is that we’ll split pick 22 for two or three later picks to gain more points.

Don’t overthink it. Pick best available at pick 3, Campbell, and Gulden and walk away with our best draft haul in 20+ years.

[Melbourne_Blood]

I don’t understand why we would use pick 3 to pay for a bid on Campbell by splitting it. It is normal to try to use late picks rather than early ones to pay for academy picks. Look at how GWS moved heaven and earth to get a pick before Green last year and how we played the system to pay for Blakey using late picks.

More likely is that we’ll split pick 22 for two or three later picks to gain more points.

Don’t overthink it. Pick best available at pick 3, Campbell, and Gulden and walk away with our best draft haul in 20+ years.

Yeah it’s puzzling to me. I take it to mean we should split the pick 3 and we end up with a spare pick in the teens, whilst matching bids for Campbell and Gulden? Why would we do that we can take a pick 3 and still match bids for those two ( albeit with a Points deficit potentially ) . Seems crazy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nico]

I'm worried that with no U18 this year, it is going to be incredibly tough to get picks right. Pick 3 might be as useful as pick 33.

Accordingly, I would be more than happy to trade it away and back our recruiting staff in to find some decent players with later picks.

I would be astounded at my own astonishment is we gave up pick 3.

[Nico]

The old KISS principle. Pick 3, Campbell, Gulden. What if we play funny buggers with splitting picks etc. and the pick 3 we could have got turns out a gun and goes to Geelong. Common sense says a pick 3 will be always be a highly rated player, so why pass it up or worse stuff it up with fancy foot work. He who hesitates is an old time waltzer.

[MattW]

The old KISS principle. Pick 3, Campbell, Gulden. What if we play funny buggers with splitting picks etc. and the pick 3 we could have got turns out a gun and goes to Geelong. Common sense says a pick 3 will be always be a highly rated player, so why pass it up or worse stuff it up with fancy foot work. He who hesitates is an old time waltzer.

A bit lost with the last bit, but thoroughly agree with the rest.

If we need collateral for a ruckman, trade out a 2021 pick.

[Nico]

A bit lost with the last bit, but thoroughly agree with the rest.

If we need collateral for a ruckman, trade out a 2021 pick.

It's an old saying. Meaning; do the obvious or get left behind. Don't prognosticate and miss the obvious.

[RogueSwan]

I actually thought about it, but I didn't know if it was way past it's use by date as a joke...

If you ask my daughter it would have to be "Heeney is hot" now. Or "Heeney, he's so hot right now"

[Thunder Shaker]

I don’t understand why we would use pick 3 to pay for a bid on Campbell by splitting it. It is normal to try to use late picks rather than early ones to pay for academy picks. Look at how GWS moved heaven and earth to get a pick before Green last year and how we played the system to pay for Blakey using late picks.

More likely is that we’ll split pick 22 for two or three later picks to gain more points.

Don’t overthink it. Pick best available at pick 3, Campbell, and Gulden and walk away with our best draft haul in 20+ years.

If you calculate the number of points we may need, we would come up about 500 points short. Splitting pick 22 won't provide enough to cover such a shortfall. Furthermore, the first round already goes out to pick 19, and the first round will extend further by the time picks are matched on Ugle-Hagan, Campbell and maybe one or two other players. It's not hard to see the first round going as far as pick 22 (and our pick 22 would go out to pick 25).

If we end up with a deficit by matching a pick at the end of such a bloated first round, that would come off next year's first-round pick. If we end up with pick 5 next year, such a deficit would push our first round pick down the draft by about 1 spot for every 100 points.

Our points-bearing picks after pick 3 are 22 (845), 54 (220), 56 (194) total: 1259 points.

A hypothetical draft situation:

* Campbell is bid on at pick 10 (1395 points). We match, and that costs us 1116 points. Pick 22 and pick 54 get used up, and 51 points comes off pick 56 that moves down to about pick 61. We have 143 points left.
* Gulden is bid on at pick 24 (785 points). We match, that costs us 628 points. Having only 143 points left, we end up with a 485-point deficit. If pick 24 is a second-round pick, our 2021 second-round pick moves about 24 places down the draft towards the end of the third round.
* If Gulden is bid on only a couple of picks earlier, that will be with a first-round pick. Such a points deficit will mean we won't be drafting next year until about pick 12 or so. Next year's draft is a strong draft. Compromising our draft hand in such a draft isn't a good idea.

This is why splitting pick 3 may be considered. It's an insurance policy. We would be trading down in this year's draft to minimise the risk of being forced down next year's draft.

Other options are possible, and IMO are much preferable. Like everyone else, I would like to see us take pick 3 to the draft, but it's important to know that we currently lack the points to recruit pick 3, Campbell and Gulden where they are likely to go in the draft.

[SwanSand]

If we know that the next years draft is strong ... then we give away one future 3rd rounder next year and take one 3rd rounder this year. This can be decided on the draft night after Campbell bid. That should be probably be enough to hold on to our first round draft pick next year. But going by the vision on highlights, I would be surprised if Campbell drifts down to 10. He looks amazing.

Amongst the midfielders - looking at the vision, I thought Finlay Macrae looks very good - composed, good vision and good kicking. We dont necessarily need someone like him given we have Justin McInerney and Dylan Stephens in similar mould.
Will Phillips to me looked a bit one dimensional, get in there and good hand ball based again only on 2 min Highlights
If we are reluctant to choose Elijah, then may be go for Tanner Bruhn or Finlay than Will Phillips.

[Ludwig]

Elijah Hollands would be an upgrade replacement for Elijah Taylor. Would he takeover the number 37?

[dejavoodoo44]

Elijah Hollands would be an upgrade replacement for Elijah Taylor. Would he takeover the number 37?

When Dylan Stephens was drafted, I recall one of his parents saying, that he was a good kid and that they'd never really had an angry word with him. Which sounded truly remarkable to me (I assume that it's true). So, given that record of behaviour, perhaps the club should ask young Dylan, if he wants to swap to 37? That would probably keep the number controversy free, for around ten years or so.

[Thunder Shaker]

If we know that the next years draft is strong ... then we give away one future 3rd rounder next year and take one 3rd rounder this year. This can be decided on the draft night after Campbell bid. That should be probably be enough to hold on to our first round draft pick next year. But going by the vision on highlights, I would be surprised if Campbell drifts down to 10. He looks amazing.

When I wrote my hypothetical Campbell-Gulden draft to demonstrate the need for more draft points, I felt that I was being a little conservative with my estimates of where Campbell and Gulden might go in the draft.

If you go by the Draft Central power rankings for September, Campbell is ranked at #7, Gulden outside the first 25. Back in March, ESPN's Draft Power rankings had them at #19 and #20. AFL.com.au's more recent (July) article 25 top prospects rated Campbell as a "possible top-10 selection", Gulden also made this list. I based my conservative assessment most closely on the AFL.com.au's list.

Swapping 3rd-round picks is an approach, but it may not be enough. I'm guessing that we may end up trading out some young players for draft picks.

[caj23]

If the Swans decide to split pick 3, it will be remembered up there with Horse's decision to use Mark Seaby as the sub in the first game the rule came in, an absolute disaster.

We haven't had a top 3 pick for over a decade, you don't palm them off for a hypothetical

[rb4x]

Ronke, Stoddart, Ling, O'Riordan, Brand, Foot, Thurlow, Clarke plus ?E Taylor! ET has a contract and I am not sure he can be delisted that easily. Remember M Talia.

We need to remove at least five of the above players from our list to make room for replacements and list reductions. Which of them could we trade for draft points. I suspect there is very little value to other clubs in any of them. Most clubs will be in a similar situation to the Swans and will show little interest in our list cloggers.

Unfortunately our worst list cloggers, Sam Gray and Squizzy have contracts and are likely to stay.