Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 404

Thread: draft !

  1. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    So do you think Melb will still bid on Mills even though they have no hope of getting him and Parish is really the one they want?
    I wouldn't have an issue with that if they feel he is the best mid in the draft. it's hard to say with any certainty but if they end up getting Parish and bid on Mills I'd have no huge grudge there.

    By my calcs we can still easilly accomodate Mills at 3 and Dunkley as a very early second rounder

    The alternative is our second pick at 43 and a pick or two in the mid 50s

  2. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Pick #3 in the ND gets a bonus payment from the AFL of $5,000. Pick #4 gets a bonus payment of $2,500. See Schedule C section 2(g) of the CBA.

    Darcy Parish was going to use the extra money to help pay for his Mum's liver transplant. I guess she won't make it now. Thanks Melbourne. Oh Well. That's life.
    Wasn't aware of that. I wonder if that's a disincentive for Melbourne to make a vexatious bid on Mills? That'll be $2500 that Parish misses out on and could be a bad start to their relationship. Not that he'll need the money but you would think that Melbourne would want to be seen to do the right thing by him.

  3. #39
    On the Rookie List Conor_Dillon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    Wasn't aware of that. I wonder if that's a disincentive for Melbourne to make a vexatious bid on Mills? That'll be $2500 that Parish misses out on and could be a bad start to their relationship. Not that he'll need the money but you would think that Melbourne would want to be seen to do the right thing by him.
    I'm sure if this was an issue that Melbourne could somehow find a way to make up for the $2500, either legitimately or in a brown paper bag.
    Twitter @cmdil
    Instagram @conordillon

  4. #40
    Salt future's rising SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gala Mill
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I wouldn't have an issue with that if they feel he is the best mid in the draft. it's hard to say with any certainty but if they end up getting Parish and bid on Mills I'd have no huge grudge there.

    By my calcs we can still easilly accomodate Mills at 3 and Dunkley as a very early second rounder

    The alternative is our second pick at 43 and a pick or two in the mid 50s
    The disadvantage of the approach Sydney has taken has been not only to telegraph its intentions, but to leave it no practical fallback option. If we don't get Mills (and if Dunkley declines to accept nomination), then loads of picks in the 30s and later do not suit either the profile of the 2015 draft nor Sydney's needs. And draft day is too late to sell all of picks 33, 36 and 37 for pick 8 (as a matter of interest, that's what they add up to). So we have no option but to match any bid for Mills, even #1 (based on my calculations, Swans lose all points, go to the end of the draft for their 2nd pick of this draft, and are still over 200 points in deficit for 2016). Not that opponents 'care' as such (picking Mills early only punishes Sydney; it doesn't help them) but simple competitiveness (coupled with the fact that Mills is simply a bloody good player that any club would be happy to have) means that when a competitor has put themselves in a position of weakness, it might be hard to resist kicking them. Whereas if Sydney had accumulated the same points that it now has access to, but by picking up 3rd-and-4th-round picks while still leaving its first-rounder intact, it would have a meaningful fallback position to retreat to�and other clubs would know it.

    On the other hand, and with reference to another thread on this site: there is no basis to be accusing anyone of anything, but given the massive points difference between picks 3 and 6 (equivalent to the difference between pick 18 and pick 36) and the identity of the clubs that control picks 3, 4 and 5, it is certainly interesting that there's a guy at Melbourne who (IIRC) has some vague association with the Swans, and the Dons have in the exchange period picked up a useful Sydney player for almost literally nothing. The Dons in particular are (if Melbourne doesn't select Mills at 3) able to 'gift' Sydney 283 points, for no cost to them and really no care factor for them. We will see.

  5. #41
    I wonder if any other clubs would draft Lachie Keeffe or Josh Thomas with a Rookie draft pick before the Pies were able to.

    Magpie duo Keeffe and Thomas eligible to play again in February, 2017 - AFL.com.au

  6. #42
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Just had some good news, got tickets for the National Draft here in Adelaide.

    Getting my best yelling voice ready in case Mills is vexatiously bid on before pick 4 :-) Will get kicked out, but worth it if it gets picked up by the broadcast.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by iigrover View Post
    I wonder if any other clubs would draft Lachie Keeffe or Josh Thomas with a Rookie draft pick before the Pies were able to.

    Magpie duo Keeffe and Thomas eligible to play again in February, 2017 - AFL.com.au
    Only Brisbane, as they are Qld boys. Think Gold Coast has had a gutful of drugs!

  7. #43
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    I notice the Melbourne recruiting manager on todays AFL website mentions who they ''may" be looking at with pick 3 and says they will make a decision shortly. Didn't mention Mills in his wrap up, did mention midfielder Darcy Parish who he says couldn't have done any more over the last two years to stake his claim.

    So are we to now assume that a bid on Mills at pick 3 would indeed be a vexatious bid?

    Draft night will be interesting, particularly from my seat in the audience :-)

  8. #44
    Melbourne did say "they will take the best available", whatever that means

  9. #45
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Dillon View Post
    Matthew Wright just delisted by the Crows,

    Played 16 games this year, averaged 23 touches and 8 tackles, only 25 y.o.

    Could be a handy depth player and I'd assume would come very cheaply - maybe worth a shot on the rookie list?

    This is the sort of player we should be looking for as depth. He is fast and a good crumber.

  10. #46
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    This is the sort of player we should be looking for as depth. He is fast and a good crumber.
    Mathew Wright is the kind of player that raises the debate about the difference between a depth player and a list clogger. As Conor noted, he's aggressive, competes well, and can hit the scoreboard from time to time. So you would wonder why Adelaide, who just lost their best player, would give up on him.

    The problem is that he's 25yo and still makes too many poor decisions that are often exploited by the other side. He's how BJ will end up unless he improves in this area. On the Swans, Wright would just be a list clogger. He competes with other marginal midfielders, like Robbo, BJ and Foote for those spots that crop up due to injury. So he just hinders the development of other potential senior players. That last draft pick we have is not likely to turn up a winner, but is probably still a better choice than filling it with someone who is almost certain to go nowhere. There are better options in drafting a mature aged KPP from one of he state leagues.

  11. #47
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I agree that the analysis by swansfan51 was a good one with many insights.

    Part of lack of experienced depth is due to players going out as a result of acquiring Tippett and Franklin. So we locked in the most important position on the field and enter next season with arguably the best tall forward line in the game. They just need to stay healthy.

    Geelong have rolled the dice on acquiring Dangerfield and Henderson in exchange for virtually opting out of the next 2 drafts, as well as taking away a lot of their trading power next year. But when Danger comes knocking on the door, you have to let him in. Geelong was faced with a difficult regeneration problem with so many top end aging players. They were doing a pretty good job, but have been a bit unlucky with long term injuries to important players, particularly Menzel and Vardy. With the 3 player acquisitions this year as well as the return of Menzel and Vardy, they have put themselves right up there as a top 4 contender. The downside is that they still have a few key players on the wrong side of 30 that will need replacing in the next few years and have given up some of their ability to do so.

    The Swans have succeeded in regenerating their list with quality young players, but at the expense of experienced depth. The fate of the Swans next year will depend on how fast those young players can step up an play major roles in the side. It probably won't be enough to win a premiership, but hopefully it will be enough to make the top 4 again. The vulnerable part of our list in the next few years is at KPD. We now have 5 reasonable replacements for Richards and Grundy (who still has a few years to go) in Xav, Allir, Talia, Melican, AJ and Davis (who is most likely slated for a key forward role). If we can get a couple of those to come through, we should be okay, else we may have to trade for a ready made one.

    It will be a challenging year for Horse & Co finding the right balance to challenge for a flag and getting the senior game development time into some of our young players, effectively looking to next year with one eye and 2017 with the other. The key players for me are Talia, Xav and Hewett. The first 2 need senior time to work their way into our future backline. Hewett is a real talent who will only be 20 next year, but we need to find a way to work him into our midfield, as he has the kicking skills that we lack with so many of our mids, who are good a finding the ball, but too often kick to the opposition.

    I think the Cats didn't go far enough in cleaning their list out. They have still retained Bartell, Mackie, Enright & Lonergan. The first three have very obviously slowed down and Tom is injury prone and wasn't that flash when he did play. But of course they have Henderson to take over from Lonergan, Scott Selwood to replace either Bartell or Enright. Who replaces Mackie, who can play either small or tall, Kolodjashnij? But will Scott's bid to buy a premiership work? It worked for hawks.

    Now to us. Yes we have a developing list. That was obvious last year. I never expected us to vie for the Premiership at any time last year. there were significant gaps and an age factor, some too old and others too young or to be more precise immature in a footy sense. We have probably 30 players who will be regularly in the mix for games this season if you include Mills. I left off at 28 with Sam Naismith included and Mills missing. But here is a list with Mills and Hewett included and games played. Young George was close to selection last year and he is a developing talent with super ball skills.

    1. Rose (2) 3. Mcveigh (266) 4. Hannaberry (144) 5. Heeney (14) 6. Mitchell (39) 7. Cunningham (52) 8. Tippett (152) 10. Jones (15) 11. Laidler (68) 12. Kennedy (158) 15. K. Jack (185) 16. Rohan (61) 20. Reid (98) 21. McGlynn (153) 22. Towers (17) 23. Franklin (221) 24. Rampe (72) 25. Richards (253) 26. Parker (101) 27. Robinson (4) 29. Hewett (0) 32. Talia (30) 33. B. Jack (27) 34. Johnson (45) 35. Naismith (1) 39. Grundy (187) 40. Smith (142) Sinclair (29) Mills (0)

    Some of the players I have left off may get games; 13. Nankervis (5) 42. X. Richards (2), 36.Aliir (0) 28. Newman (0) 43. Melican (0) & 17. Hiscox (0) 9.Davis (0)


    We are still way behind the other sides as far as players who have played 50 games. Even Cats will have more with their trading. If I take Naismith and Hewett out of the 30 that leaves 28 including Mills. We have 11 players under 50 games. That is really high. Give us one more year and time to develop several of our players and blood several more and I think our depth will be strong enough. Young players like Davis, who I think has huge potential as either a mid or third tall, will have got some senior experience. Think of it a 192cm really strong mid. I have seen him just walk through a pack at a centre bounce at NEAFL level and give the ball off. Quite exciting.

  12. #48
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Mathew Wright is the kind of player that raises the debate about the difference between a depth player and a list clogger. As Conor noted, he's aggressive, competes well, and can hit the scoreboard from time to time. So you would wonder why Adelaide, who just lost their best player, would give up on him.

    The problem is that he's 25yo and still makes too many poor decisions that are often exploited by the other side. He's how BJ will end up unless he improves in this area. On the Swans, Wright would just be a list clogger. He competes with other marginal midfielders, like Robbo, BJ and Foote for those spots that crop up due to injury. So he just hinders the development of other potential senior players. That last draft pick we have is not likely to turn up a winner, but is probably still a better choice than filling it with someone who is almost certain to go nowhere. There are better options in drafting a mature aged KPP from one of he state leagues.

    This is a really shallow draft. no depth at all. Once you leave second round there isn't anything worth taking. As far as picking up someone from the state leagues you have the same problem as Wright. why have they been overlooked? What are their major issues? Wright has experience at AFL level and his value to any side would be around goal. The reason he was delisted from the Adelaide list is that he played a role similar to Eddie but didn't have Eddie's talent. Yes his delivery needs attention but so does the delivery of just about every player on our list. Picked up on a 1 year Rookie contract he is not a very big risk and if he list clogs you just offload him next year. I think we have a much bigger list clogger there at the moment, Derrickx. Really don't know when they got Sinclair why they didn't delist him?

    So whether we go with Wright or a VFL, SANFL or WAFL player in the rookie draft it is still a risk.

    As far as the main draft is concerned I would pick up speed and good deliverers.

Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO