Discussion Re-Signings, Retirements, Delistings, Trade & Drafting

mike89

mike89

#4,821
Joined
20 Dec 2016
Messages
11,266
Likes
55,392
AFL Club
Carlton
#4,821
jaca said:
Bit of an outsider here, but I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Why do North do it?
Click to expand...
One of the things that stood out to me is that GWS moved up because they wanted Cadman. Were North ever thinking about him? If not, they've effectively got an extra #1 pick this year in place of one that doesn't want to be there. Sounds like a win win to me.

I wonder if this also does Brisbane a small favour. If GWS want a KPP, they're not going to bid on Ashcroft with #1, right?
 
Last edited:
AngryAnt

AngryAnt

#4,822
Joined
6 Mar 2013
Messages
10,212
Likes
31,202
AFL Club
Carlton
#4,822
mike89 said:
One of the things that stood out to me is that GWS moved up because they wanted Cadman. Were North ever thinking about him? If not, they've effectively got an extra #1 pick this year in place of one that doesn't want to be there. Sounds like a win win to me.

I wonder if this also does Brisbane a small favour. If GWS want a KPP, they're not going to bid on Ashcroft with #1, right?
Click to expand...
Apparently Carlton are looking at getting North's pick 3 by giving them our 10 and a future first. They're keen on getting Sheezel.
 
Goodie's Guns

Goodie's Guns

Leadership Group
#4,827
Joined
21 May 2012
Messages
22,366
Likes
31,319
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#4,827
jaca said:
Bit of an outsider here, but I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Why do North do it?
Click to expand...
Word going around other clubs recruiting circles is that North couldn’t split the three of Cadman, Wardlaw and Sheezel. So were happy enough to trade back from one to three, get the additional selections in, and take what will be Wardlaw and Sheezel at two and three.
 
AngryAnt

AngryAnt

#4,828
Joined
6 Mar 2013
Messages
10,212
Likes
31,202
AFL Club
Carlton
#4,828
Goodie's Guns said:
Word going around other clubs recruiting circles is that North couldn’t split the three of Cadman, Wardlaw and Sheezel. So were happy enough to trade back from one to three, get the additional selections in, and take what will be Wardlaw and Sheezel at two and three.
Click to expand...
I don't see this being that bad for North like some "analysts" (David King). Cadman would have filled a need for them but if 2 and 3 work out and they have another season of bottoming out with the eye on a key forward for next season, then it'll work out for them in the long run.
 
Leroy

Leroy

#4,837
Joined
24 Mar 2015
Messages
4,162
Likes
14,794
AFL Club
North Melb.
#4,837
jaca said:
Bit of an outsider here, but I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Why do North do it?
Click to expand...
Goodie's Guns said:
Word going around other clubs recruiting circles is that North couldn’t split the three of Cadman, Wardlaw and Sheezel. So were happy enough to trade back from one to three, get the additional selections in, and take what will be Wardlaw and Sheezel at two and three.
Click to expand...
AngryAnt said:
I don't see this being that bad for North like some "analysts" (David King). Cadman would have filled a need for them but if 2 and 3 work out and they have another season of bottoming out with the eye on a key forward for next season, then it'll work out for them in the long run.
Click to expand...
That is how I gauged it as well from the club media and such: we don't mind which of Cadman/Wardlaw/Sheezel we get, so swapping pick 1 for pick 3 is fine as we gain some leftovers in the process.

2 of those guys, plus a top 3 pick next year (can't see us moving much above that) and another top 10ish from Port's future first is an ok outcome from pick 1 and a wantaway player.
 
Rowsus

Rowsus

Statistician
#4,839
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
29,692
Likes
68,044
AFL Club
Melbourne
#4,839
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top