2023 List Management

[liz]

Depending on what happens in round 1 for the Suns they may not need all of this years picks 24,26,27,32,36,38 ??

As round 1 unfolds the Suns maybe happy to trade one of or a mix of picks in exchange-for our future first rounder “IF” we have our eyes on 3 important players in and around the top30?

Seems unlikely. They look short on points to me. It will depend on where the bids come, but Walter (2), Read (9) and Rogers (16) will require 4,043 points, and those six picks they carry into the draft represent 3,858 points - and that is AFTER allowing for 32 and 36 to shift up two places as a result of the Walter bid and match, and pick 38 to shift up three spots in total after the Walter/Read bids and matches.

So they already look short, and that's before factoring in their fourth academy player in Graham.

They might be able to create some more points by trading some of those down on draft night (when they are magically allowed to hold more picks than they have spots for) but I imagine they'll be looking for multiple picks in the current draft looking to consolidate up, or trading in a future pick (2nd round onwards) into this year. Hard to see them wanting to trade out of this year's draft into next.

Of course, if a pick for Walter doesn't come until 4 or 5, that will make their life a lot easier. I can't see why North wouldn't bid on him, but stranger things have happened.

[707]

In yet another blunder by the inept Norf, they failed to make Pies pay full price for Daicos, should have bid on Diacos at pick 1. For a probable multiple Brownlow winner, Pies paid just 1627 points with a bunch of late picks, pick 1 is worth 3000!

We can only hope Norf have learned from that and bid on Walter, justifiably, at pick 2? Who knows with Norf though?

Unfortunately for our picks, GC may well trade their valuable 20's picks, at the start of the draft night, for a bunch of picks further out than ours.

Doubt we'll ever see a draft as compromised and flawed as this one. Surely the AFL make changes to what has become a farce!

[Thunder Shaker]

Seems unlikely. They look short on points to me. It will depend on where the bids come, but Walter (2), Read (9) and Rogers (16) will require 4,043 points, and those six picks they carry into the draft represent 3,858 points - and that is AFTER allowing for 32 and 36 to shift up two places as a result of the Walter bid and match, and pick 38 to shift up three spots in total after the Walter/Read bids and matches.

So they already look short, and that's before factoring in their fourth academy player in Graham.

Gold Coast also hold picks 66, 71 and 74. Those picks will be worth a few points as earlier picks are removed. Even pick 74, currently worth no points, would gain in value as earlier picks are removed.

I'm not sure how many picks are live though. I have not found a clear authoritative explanation anywhere how bid matching works currently.

[liz]

Gold Coast also hold picks 66, 71 and 74. Those picks will be worth a few points as earlier picks are removed. Even pick 74, currently worth no points, would gain in value as earlier picks are removed.

I'm not sure how many picks are live though. I have not found a clear authoritative explanation anywhere how bid matching works currently.

Unless there is a special "Suns Rule" (quite possible) I think they're set to forfeit those picks. There's a resource over on BF that shows that number of list spots each team has, and thus how many picks they can carry into the draft. As I understand it, picks over and above list spots will get culled ahead of the draft, and the pre-draft pick swapping window has now closed.

Analysis - How many live picks will your team take to the 2023 draft> | BigFooty Forum

[Auntie.Gerald]

Liz the deal that the Hawks and Swans did with the future pick - that happened on Draft night from memory?

[liz]

Liz the deal that the Hawks and Swans did with the future pick - that happened on Draft night from memory?

Yes. That was a mid-draft live trade.

[707]

The exact number of picks each team holds will be known once the last list lodgement is done, I think it's this Tuesday. Quite a number of those later picks will disappear before the draft.

It's why clubs are moving players to the rookie list and delisting contracted players with a promise to redraft them in the rookie draft.

Only when the AFL announces the final picks can we get an idea of what may transpire on draft night.

[707]

Draft rumour from a solid source said Collingwood (first pick 24), Richmond (first pick 34) & WC (second pick 28) are very interested in Cleary, because there is some thought we may not match in that range, hmmm. Are we planning something?

But just a rumour. Watch this space :-)

[Mark26]

Draft rumour from a solid source said Collingwood (first pick 24), Richmond (first pick 34) & WC (second pick 28) are very interested in Cleary, because there is some thought we may not match in that range, hmmm. Are we planning something?

But just a rumour. Watch this space :-)

I think we should match a bid on Cleary with any of those bids, if we think Cleary is good enough to break into our squad. It doesn't have to happen in his first year, but the club would know Cleary better than anyone. He's evolved in our Academy's program and there is no go home factor. As long as we get another player with our first bid, then there's no harm in matching. I'm sure our recruiting team have plans for all possibilities.

[Auntie.Gerald]

At those picks we can use “45” and “55” and come out even ish

Any other thoughts 707 because I just can not imagine we won’t match between 24 and 34?………how about u?

[Thunder Shaker]

Ollie Murphy highlights.

Lots of contested marks in defence (I counted 10).

[707]

At those picks we can use “45” and “55” and come out even ish

Any other thoughts 707 because I just can not imagine we won’t match between 24 and 34?………how about u?

I'm sure we'll match but it does prevent us grabbing one of those 20's GC picks as we'd have to do that before the Walter bid at pick 2 and then hope the 20's pick doesn't evaporate having to match a Cleary bid in the 20's.

I haven't seen Cleary in action so I'm perplexed why he's rated so far out in what "seems" a shallow draft.

[troyjones2525]

My current draft preferences in order -

Connor O'Sullivan - unlikely unless we trade up or by some miracle he slides.

Ollie Murphy - has apparently dropped down a bit in some draft rankings but still looks to be the 2nd or 3rd best key defender at this stage and its a needs based pick IMO.

Charlie Edwards - one who has burst onto the scene in the 2nd half of the year as a tall midfielder with good skills and burst speed. Another one that I think is needs based as we lack size in the midfield compared to some other top sides.

Will Green - seemingly the best available ruckman not tied to GC! Good size and will have Grundy to teach him over the next few years. Go home factor a concern if he gets impatient in a couple of years.

Finally, the obvious last one is match a bid on Cleary as he looks a solid prospect.

Looking forward to seeing us not pick any of these and blind side us all with some strange player from nowhere that nobody expects to be picked in the first round.... [emoji12]


Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[lwjoyner]

agree osulliavn or murphy. from the write ups gearge stevens might be ok (either edwardes or stevens) Isnt may from the academy a ruckmanso is this is right him and macandrew would cover ruck.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I'm sure we'll match but it does prevent us grabbing one of those 20's GC picks as we'd have to do that before the Walter bid at pick 2 and then hope the 20's pick doesn't evaporate having to match a Cleary bid in the 20's.

I haven't seen Cleary in action so I'm perplexed why he's rated so far out in what "seems" a shallow draft.

I think he's suffering for being viewed through the lens of what he can't do (explode from a contest, raking kick, speed) as opposed to what he can do (gather a truckload of ground and contested balls, defend, and run from contest to contest). I've said before I probably started the year in the first camp and finished in the second.

In some ways, it reminds me of Josh Dunkley coming into his draft year. The view was he was tough as nuts, but a bit slow and a poor kick. Leaving aside all the stuff around his dad and whether or not Josh wanted to come to Sydney, I know the Swans viewed him as a bit of a plodder. What turned out to be the case of course was that his strong point - winning contested ball - is the essence of the game, and he went away and worked on the rest and developed into a terrific two-way player, excellent mark, and more than adequate kick. Given Cleary has the same critical skill of winning the ball in tight, and seems professional as hell, we should match any reasonable pick and back ourselves and him to work on his 'weaknesses'.