Dib from Oakleigh Chargers
Aged 19
Height 174cm
Weight 76kg
The 2021 Great Big Consolidated Trade & Draft thread
Moderator: bbmods
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
-
MJ23
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:52 pm
- Location: Sydney
^ I was told a few weeks ago Lynch was really keen to stay. Subsequently, Harvey signed with the Hawkes and it seems things may have changed.
Ive said all along I really want him to stay. IF he were to leave I think he is worth a heel of a lot. Just look at Ceglar after we developed him.
Ive said all along I really want him to stay. IF he were to leave I think he is worth a heel of a lot. Just look at Ceglar after we developed him.
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
Michael Jordan
There’s a lot of options available to Collingwood right now if they want to switch things up and get busy again through the draft.
As long as Daicos isnt called out at #1, the club isn’t far away ( points wise ) from positioning itself to shop around #27 and receive something more beneficial in return ( likely future second rounder )
The two scenarios that make the above easiest to achieve are either walk Lipinski to the PSD or trade out either Cox or Lynch for a pick around #50 odd.
I’d like to keep Lynch too but if trading him out was the difference between using pick 27 on something other than Daicos points, then I’m ok with the Lynch trade going through. We need to keep either one of Lynch or Cox and obviously there will be different views as to who should stay or go. I’m not overly fussed but I know I would prefer a future second rounder to either of them, given that we would keep the other anyway.
If Lynch goes and Cox stays on for a year, then we just join the back up ruckman merry go round next trade period. At least we would have plenty of picks to do so.
As long as Daicos isnt called out at #1, the club isn’t far away ( points wise ) from positioning itself to shop around #27 and receive something more beneficial in return ( likely future second rounder )
The two scenarios that make the above easiest to achieve are either walk Lipinski to the PSD or trade out either Cox or Lynch for a pick around #50 odd.
I’d like to keep Lynch too but if trading him out was the difference between using pick 27 on something other than Daicos points, then I’m ok with the Lynch trade going through. We need to keep either one of Lynch or Cox and obviously there will be different views as to who should stay or go. I’m not overly fussed but I know I would prefer a future second rounder to either of them, given that we would keep the other anyway.
If Lynch goes and Cox stays on for a year, then we just join the back up ruckman merry go round next trade period. At least we would have plenty of picks to do so.
Gary Player “ the harder I practice, the luckier I get “
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times
-
mattdally
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 10 times
- Contact:
Hearing Graeme Wright just now I would take away the following:
- JT not offered new contract - unlikely to be with us next year
- Cox not yet offered new contract - unlikely, but see what happens
- Lipinski - PSD is an option - preference is to not go down that path though
Key point he noted re Nick Daicos bid - we are only allowed to use the same number of picks as per available list spots to match the bid.
Therefore if we have 3 spots on our list, we can't use 27, 36, 43, 46, 48, 55, 58 to match it. We can only use 27, 36 and 43
- JT not offered new contract - unlikely to be with us next year
- Cox not yet offered new contract - unlikely, but see what happens
- Lipinski - PSD is an option - preference is to not go down that path though
Key point he noted re Nick Daicos bid - we are only allowed to use the same number of picks as per available list spots to match the bid.
Therefore if we have 3 spots on our list, we can't use 27, 36, 43, 46, 48, 55, 58 to match it. We can only use 27, 36 and 43
-
think better
- Posts: 3113
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:42 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 40 times
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45001
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact:
-
WhyPhilWhy?
- Posts: 9546
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: Location: Location:
- Has liked: 43 times
- Been liked: 37 times
So Mitchell and O'meara up for sale at hawthorn and anybody 26 or over it seems.
The above 2 will be 28 next season.
Wanting first round picks it seems.
They are opting for a full rebuild.
We signed Pendles at 33 for 2 more years.
I was the only person on this board who thought it was risky.
It seems the draft over the years has become more focused on the age profiles.
I can't see many clubs being sucked into giving away great picks for aging stars.
Only those clubs who are convinced they are in the premiership window would apply.
The above 2 will be 28 next season.
Wanting first round picks it seems.
They are opting for a full rebuild.
We signed Pendles at 33 for 2 more years.
I was the only person on this board who thought it was risky.
It seems the draft over the years has become more focused on the age profiles.
I can't see many clubs being sucked into giving away great picks for aging stars.
Only those clubs who are convinced they are in the premiership window would apply.
Cheers MD. I’m under the impression this is why we have so many unsigned players at the moment. The club will have to continue to run the numbers carefully until it all comes together at crunch time. Obviously Mayne and Greenwood are already off the primary list. Thomas looks in trouble and Lipinski is an upgrade on Sier, so there’s a start. Lynch, Cox and Rantall are all unsigned. Not sure on contract status of Madgen or Chugg ?mattdally wrote: Key point he noted re Nick Daicos bid - we are only allowed to use the same number of picks as per available list spots to match the bid.
Therefore if we have 3 spots on our list, we can't use 27, 36, 43, 46, 48, 55, 58 to match it. We can only use 27, 36 and 43
They would be looking at trading out a couple during this trade window, delisting others shortly after the trade period and also promising to re sign those left via the rookie draft ( possibly Rantall ) The other option is to keep rolling up those later picks together and turning them into one earlier pick.
It’s just another piece to the AFL F / S bidding process jigsaw.