The Ward Compo Pick

[The Coon Dog]

So, how do we use it?

a) Use it in the 2011 National Draft (at the end of the 1st round).

b) Retain it for use in the 2012-2015 National Draft (directly after our 1st round selection).

c) Trade to GWS to secure a gun 17 year old.

d) Trade it during the 2011 Trade Week to secure a player.

[Remi Moses]

B or C I'd hope.Personally prefer the trade for one of their 17y/old's.

[LongWait]

B or C I'd hope.Personally prefer the trade for one of their 17y/old's.

Agree Remi.

C if we are very confident of the quality of the 17 year olds available - that would then be the equivalent of a number 1 or 2 draft pick. Failing that, use it in the 2012 "super draft".

[Mantis]

C if we are very confident of the quality of the 17 year olds available - that would then be the equivalent of a number 1 or 2 draft pick. Failing that, use it in the 2012 "super draft".

Agree that B or C are the best options..... but why will the 2012 draft be 'super'?

[The Underdog]

Agree that B or C are the best options..... but why will the 2012 draft be 'super'?

Agree, I would have thought it would be diluted if anything.
I'd be fine with C with B a close runner up.
A or D would be wrong

[LongWait]

Agree that B or C are the best options..... but why will the 2012 draft be 'super'?

The industry is abuz with talk that the quality of players in the top 20 prospects for 2012 is as good as any we have seen in the past decade or more. Personally I wouldn't know, but it appears to be accepted wisdom that 2011 will be a shallow draft and 2012 a "super" draft with very high quality players available in the first round.

[The Doctor]

I went for C

Try and get one of the young hotshots. Let him play school footy next year if we have to and put 12 months development and support into him.

[bornadog]

I voted B as its less risky than C and there are more options over the period.

[Bulldog4life]

I went for C

Try and get one of the young hotshots. Let him play school footy next year if we have to and put 12 months development and support into him.

Sounds good. C for me.

[GVGjr]

I think GWS can do better than our pick for one of the gun youngsters in the mini draft so as much as option C would be a great outcome, I don't think we have the currency.

[The Underdog]

I think GWS can do better than our pick for one of the gun youngsters in the mini draft so as much as option C would be a great outcome, I don't think we have the currency.

C'mon, much like our player's, our draft picks are worth more than other team's draft picks:) Isn't this where the might of Sam Reid comes into it?

[ledge]

The 2012 super draft isnt that where the 17 yo that GWS pick come in?
I would presume they would be the best but chosen a year before.
I would be tempted to take one of them as our list seems to be getting younger and they would fit in, also you get a year to familiarize them with what the club wants and team mates, in effect your 2 years ahead when they are available to play, its a bit like a F/S.

[LostDoggy]

The 2012 super draft isnt that where the 17 yo that GWS pick come in?.

So we could find ourselves trading our own pick to someone to select a kid they are going to trade to us for the right to pick that same kid in the first place?:confused:

Actually wouldn't that work out well??? Provided the GWS finish lower than the Dogs, the pick would become a higher selection than if we had it?

Does anyone still follow what I'm saying?

[bulldogsman]

Option C, even if we only get the last pick.

We would have to offer up more then the compo pick probably though.

[chef]

I think GWS can do better than our pick for one of the gun youngsters in the mini draft so as much as option C would be a great outcome, I don't think we have the currency.

And GWS are only giving out two of those picks this year aren't they?


I voted for this option, but I wouldn't mind us trading it now as long as we get a young quality KPD or KPF.

[soupman]

So we could find ourselves trading our own pick to someone to select a kid they are going to trade to us for the right to pick that same kid in the first place?:confused:


My head hurts.

[bulldogsman]

And GWS are only giving out two of those picks this year aren't they?

Four, but it depends what GWS want to do.

They can do two this year, then two next year.

[chef]

Four, but it depends what GWS want to do.

They can do two this year, then two next year.

I've read somewhere that they only want to give out two this year.

[bulldogsman]

I've read somewhere that they only want to give out two this year.

That's what will happen most likely, but if GWS get a few good offers I guess that could change.

[G-Mo77]

I chose B but C would be fine with me also.

[Go_Dogs]

I voted to bank the pick.

[stefoid]

I voted B.

Im not sure that C is really an option, with GWS supposedly given those options so they can attract established talent, not more draft picks.

However, if it is an option, it will depend where we expect to finish. If we expect to finish higher up the ladder, and the 17yo would probably have been an earlyish pick , then its a good option.

But if we expect to finish lower on the ladder, then it makes more sense just to keep the low pick to pick a gun 18yo in 12 months time - less risky.

On that logic, GWS is more likely to trade for a compo pick from a club that they expect to finish lowest on the ladder - Adelaide, Melbourne or Dogs, who would you place your money on?

[Greystache]

I voted bank it. We probably won't get pick 1 or 2 from GWS anyway, but even if we did, it's still a big risk to invest so much into a young kid. GC and GWS took 7 (?) of these kids each before the main draft and not all of them are being talked up as emerging stars.

[Sedat]

Bank it. Anything that prevents us from doing something stupid and knee-jerk during trade week.

[The Coon Dog]

Bank it. Anything that prevents us from doing something stupid and knee-jerk during trade week.

Do you think James Fantasia has logged on & voted?

[LostDoggy]

I voted B.

Im not sure that C is really an option, with GWS supposedly given those options so they can attract established talent, not more draft picks.

However, if it is an option, it will depend where we expect to finish. If we expect to finish higher up the ladder, and the 17yo would probably have been an earlyish pick , then its a good option.

But if we expect to finish lower on the ladder, then it makes more sense just to keep the low pick to pick a gun 18yo in 12 months time - less risky.

On that logic, GWS is more likely to trade for a compo pick from a club that they expect to finish lowest on the ladder - Adelaide, Melbourne or Dogs, who would you place your money on?

The Ward pick has "floating" status in the draft as it's used straight after the clubs first pick in the draft. Ergo, if we traded it to GWS it would theoretically become pick #2 in next years draft (2012) as they will finish last and have pick 1 and could use it to select pick #2. If we keep it ourselves (and finish say 10th) it would become pick #10 in the 2012 draft as we would get pick #9 and exercise the pick straight after. It's surely then got huge currency for the 17 year old mini-draft unless someone is prepared to swop a top player for a Kennedy or an O'meara. If I was GWS I'd certainly rather bank pick #2 next year than take a mid-road player or even 2. I can't see any club trading a trengrove, griffin type player for a mini-draft pick which is what picks 2 or 3 can secure for a club. Gotto go with C I rekon.

[The Coon Dog]

The Ward pick has "floating" status in the draft as it's used straight after the clubs first pick in the draft. Ergo, if we traded it to GWS it would theoretically become pick #2 in next years draft (2012) as they will finish last and have pick 1 and could use it to select pick #2. If we keep it ourselves (and finish say 10th) it would become pick #10 in the 2012 draft as we would get pick #9 and exercise the pick straight after. It's surely then got huge currency for the 17 year old mini-draft unless someone is prepared to swop a top player for a Kennedy or an O'meara. If I was GWS I'd certainly rather bank pick #2 next year than take a mid-road player or even 2. I can't see any club trading a trengrove, griffin type player for a mini-draft pick which is what picks 2 or 3 can secure for a club. Gotto go with C I rekon.

That's not right. The pick is reflective of where we finish, regardless of who we trade it to.

This the other day from the AFL's Patrick Keane on Twitter:

AFL_PKeane Patrick Keane
Further, Compensation picks, if traded, are tied to the finishing order of the club that traded them, NOT the club that receives them.

[LostDoggy]

That's not right. The pick is reflective of where we finish, regardless of who we trade it to.

This the other day from the AFL's Patrick Keane on Twitter:

AFL_PKeane Patrick Keane
Further, Compensation picks, if traded, are tied to the finishing order of the club that traded them, NOT the club that receives them.

Right. OK. Less trade value then. Yuck.

[strebla]

Struggled between b and c settled on c but don't mind either way.

[Maddog37]

Do you think James Fantasia has logged on & voted?

I reckon he will wait and see the outcome of the vote and then do the complete opposite just to upset Sedat.;)

[Drunken Bum]

I voted C on the proviso that GWS would accept that and no more than say a Sam Reid with it if not then B and the other 2 aren't even options as far as i am concerned.
The main reason i went C is because at the minute i am almost wanting us to not win a game next year because of the way we have been shafted again and i want us to get something good out of it. If we trade it to GWS every place we finish higher on the ladder makes the pick worth less to them and i will be cheering harder than i prob ever have before because i want to **** those ****'s and that ***** Sheedy in the **** like we have had happen to us repeatedly over the years. I hope we trade it to them and pull a season out of the hat, play finals and jag a cpl of wins in there.
Unlikely i know but hey i can dream can't i?