2023 List Management

[MattW]

The coverage of the pick trading hasn’t been as good this year as in previous drafts.

It does seem the trade pick that flashed up (with no further details) was us. Trusting an earlier post in this thread, we had enough points to match, so shouldn’t have needed to augment our hand. But I wouldn’t think there was much of a surplus to turn into something else.

It was prompt, but I thought the graphic suggested we effectively traded down, with now a worse third pick (70 rather than one in the 60s). I assumed it was because we're not using the third round pick and essentially did the Bulldogs a favour.

[Mountain Man]

Our need for a key defender is to match up against the likes of King twins, so if Green can convert to a KPD then he will prove a better selection for us than Leake.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Will adelaide pushing up to grab Curtin be one of the best moves in draft history the last 10 years or so?

[Dow]

Will adelaide pushing up to grab Curtin be one of the best moves in draft history the last 10 years or so?

I thought thinking the same thing

[Auntie.Gerald]

11, 15, future 24

in exchange for 8 and 17 this year and they got Curtin and still got Charlie Edwards

genius Adelaide

[troyjones2525]

A lot of talk regarding Green being converted into a defender. I just don't see it myself! From the vision I've seen, he looks like he moves like a ruckman.

If anyone has any other info regarding his impressive speed and agility tests at the combine, then I'll be happy to stand corrected.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[dejavoodoo44]

Same. Good video, looks athletic and smart:
Draft watch: Will Green.

We haven't had a good tap ruckman since Naismith had two good years. With Green and Grundy, we shave now turned a serious deficit in our list to a strength indefinitely:
Will Green Draft Profile - Aussie Rules Rookie Me Central (formerly AFL Draft Central).

I quite liked the AFL show reel. Although he still has a bit of baby giraffe about him: a bit gangly and a bit hesitant. But obviously that can be improved with training. With more muscle, especially the sort of muscle that gives him greater speed off the mark, and more match experience, he could develop into a very impressive unit.

And I'm curious now, if he's been recruited with an eye to turning him into a KPD? Which is an idea that seems to have some merit, as I would still like to see Caleb May rookie listed, since I tend to think that May has been the better tap ruckman, although he isn't all that athletic.

[rickmat]

I am disappointed that we didn't aim for an A grade gun defender for our first pick such as Leake. We will need to replace backmen such as Rampe, Cunningham, Fox and Lloyd within the next 2 years and I don't think we have the ready made replacements in our current squad. Don't have an issue with recruiting Green for the future but we have a more urgent need and this year's defender crop in the Draft would have given us that potential for the near future.

[The Big Cat]

At 204 cms Green is a ruckman and apparently the best young ruckman in the country. And if Leake is so promising why he fall all the way into the mid-teens.

With his build, Green will know he’s not going to play much AFL for a couple of years. If he develops quickly he will displace Grundy. That’s what teams do, they play their best players.

[707]

Well I got that all wrong, we probably could have got Green later with a pick swap but Cleary was a stumbling block that could have unraveled a swap. So we just bid a bit higher than we had to so we got our man.

I'll reserve judgement but his highlights look impressive enough and potentially got huge upside given he's a late serious starter. Looks to have a frame that will fill out into Grundy size. Remember that drafting is the long game, trading is the short game and we did well with the latter this off season.

Other than the two obvious winners, GC and the begging bowl that is Norf, the Crows scored two players I rated highly, they are building quickly.

Cleary at pick 24 may well prove a bargain, we were always matching.

In true broken draft fashion, we got Cleary at pick 24 but only gave up picks 43 & 47 but got back a bonus pick 63 (now pick 59) for the part of pick 47 not needed to match the bid. In the real world picks 43 & 47 do not get you pick 24 & 59.

I didn't see any pick trading by us on the screen but maybe I missed it. Lets see what the AFL site tells us tomorrow morning.

[dejavoodoo44]

So, going through the list changes. The players off the primary list are: Clarke (del), Franklin (ret), Gould (del), Hickey (ret), Rankin (del), Reid (del, probably to the rookie list), Stephens (traded).

Those no longer on the rookie list are: Hall-Kahan (del), McCartin (ret), Owen (del), Sheather (del), plus Fox has been moved to the primary list.

With Fox, the other additions to the primary list are the trades, Grundy, Jordon, Adams and Hamling, plus tonight's two picks, Green and Cleary. So, seven out and seven in, suggests that we might be done for this draft.

Along with Reid, we also have the midseason additions to the rookie list, Arnold and Buller. So, unless I'm missing someone, we have space to take two rookies (assuming that we keep the lists the same size).

[liz]

I haven't read all the posts while the draft was happening, so maybe someone has already raised this, but I don't understand some of the live trading.

In particular, Essendon giving up a second round pick to move up one spot in the draft. I reckon Geelong knew who Essendon wanted. If they'd been dead keen on Caddy they wouldn't have traded the pick. Essendon should have been able to work that out. So why not let Geelong pick whoever they were going to pick (ie O'Sullivan) and then pick Caddy with the very next pick?

I guess the only rationale would be to stop another club trading for Geelong's pick to jump in and take Caddy, but I suspect Geelong wouldn't have entertained a trade that moved them back more than a pick or two as they probably wouldn't have got O'Sullivan.

I am also curious about Beatson's comments that they wanted to trade to move forward but couldn't find a taker. GWS traded back with Adelaide to allow Adelaide to get Curtin. They got a (I think) future second rounder from Adelaide in return. Surely we could have trumped that by offering our end of first round pick? And then taken O'Sullivan. When the trade happened, I figured GWS didn't want to move back as far as our pick, but they then took Gothard, who would almost certainly still have been available at our pick.

Is it that Beatson had already decided they were just going Green? Or were they never interested in O'Sullivan but had interest in someone who had already gone? Or do Sydney and GWS not talk to each other?

[liz]

Along with Reid, we also have the midseason additions to the rookie list, Arnold and Buller. So, unless I'm missing someone, we have space to take two rookies (assuming that we keep the lists the same size).

One A and one B.

Or possibly two Bs if Edwards was shifted to the A list while we weren't looking.

[wolftone57]

It would make sense if we didn’t have Ladhams and MacDonald developing in 2s -

I think you mean McAndrew not Mcdonald. I know there are a lot of Macs, we'll be set for the wet haha

[707]

Heard from a close source we have interest in Kane McAuliffe from North Adelaide.

Do we have the space to take another on the main list after upgrading Fox? I assume our one rookie spot is taken by Reid.

Liz, like you, to me, some of the pick trading defied logic.