draft !

[Ludwig]

This is a really shallow draft. no depth at all.

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?

Due to the shallowness of the draft there are some decent opportunities to pick up a mature aged player. They're all a bit hit and miss, but in this year the hit and miss range probably starts around pick 30, so there may not be much difference in pick 40 and pick 60. We are definitely getting one elite midfield prospect in this draft, so if we do have a later pick to use, I would rather see it go for a KPP.

Derickx still has another year on his contract and it makes sense to have a ready made delistee for next year when the draft is likely to be deeper and we don't have anyone looking like a first rounder from the academy. He's probably on a low salary, which helps our transition from the COLA. The team also lacks a bit of depth in the model-player category.

[crackedactor]

Noticed in today's herald sun that west coast player Andrew Gaff suggested getting Callum Sinclair was a real steal!!

[stevoswan]

Noticed in today's herald sun that west coast player Andrew Gaff suggested getting Callum Sinclair was a real steal!!

Saw that too. Hope he's right.....personally, I think we did well there.

[Mug Punter]

Saw that too. Hope he's right.....personally, I think we did well there.

I like the fact the he also has a bit in him up forward as well. I'd like to see us initially rotating Tippett and Sinclair through the ruck and forward line as I really do believe we have become a bit predictable since Buddy arrived. If Big Sam gets his fitness and form together then we'll have a great selection dilemma on our hands.

[lwjoyner]

Here we go again ,according to the herald sun some clubs are claiming collusion in the draft fearing that Mills etc wont be called at their right position.

[Mug Punter]

Here we go again ,according to the herald sun some clubs are claiming collusion in the draft fearing that Mills etc wont be called at their right position.

Pathetic, he'll go at 3 or 4 which is his rightful position. Clubs do need to actually bid for players though to make this system work. Surely clubs aren't saying that Carlton or the Lions should pick him at 1 or 2.

Just Eddie being a king sized knob again....

Ironic thing is it won't really matter for us if he goes at 3 or 4 as we can afford him and Dunks anyway and clubs need to be very careful about phantom bidding on Dunks.

[Auntie.Gerald]

equally we can only take Dunks at the position / cost we value him at also

he doesn't appear a top 10 player to me on the small video content we have seen

[Mug Punter]

equally we can only take Dunks at the position / cost we value him at also

he doesn't appear a top 10 player to me on the small video content we have seen

Ultimately this system will work itself out.

The system does require an element of good faith, which is something that is sadly lacking amongst Melbourne clubs at the moment as they face their fight to the death.

It is why clubs do need to bid for players but they need to bid fairly. Ultimately a few academy picks will need not to be matched but I can't see it happening this year. I think a consistent unofficial policy of not bidding in other academy kids, especially in the first round is fair enough.

We'll cop having to pay for Mills at 3 if need be and I think that's fair enough but for us this situation won't happen that often. The situation of the Lions is much more where we'll be in the future I'd think - a couple of top 20 (Keays and that beanpole forward) and maybe another couple in the top 40s. A decent crop for sure but not players they'll pay overs for. And not a batch the likes of Eddie should be having kittens over either.

It's much more likely that any scurrilous tactics will come from Melbourne Clubs. Regardless I don't think there'll be an issue because we'll be seen to be paying top price for Mills.

It is just tiresome though - I guess it is too much to ask for Gillon to show some leadership on this one...

[Scottee]

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.

I share your excitement about Davis. Awsome versatlity and a potential midfield juggernaut , especially if he still has some griwing to do.

[707]

So the AFLs draft guru in his final phantom draft has managed to elevate Mills from 3 to 2 despite him hardly pulling on a boot this year.

How does this magic happen? You don't play but keep leapfrogging players who are having great seasons?

This does of course happen when you work for the VFL and are told what to do by Eddie and Newbold! Sheesh, this is just getting ridiculous. If Mills gets bid on at 1 or 2 I will go berserk as it will only happen because the VFL issued the dodgy bidding edict a few days ago that was entirely about clubs NOT bidding when the VFL reckons they should and said nothing about vexatious bidding to push up a players price.

[Mug Punter]

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.

Whilst I think you are right re telegraphing our intentions I think that we have made the fair assumption that Weitering and Schache are absolutely locked in and that we have planned with the assumption that Mills may go at 3. In fact I'd now like him to go there just to put and end to some of the pathetic belly aching from Melbourne.

No way will Brisbane not select Schache and Carlton would be very silly indeed to test our resolve with a vexatious bid for Mills at #1. Think about what could happen there - they get a player who clearly doesn't want to go there and Weitering goes to the Dees at #3.

If I was the Swans I'd seriously consider letting Mills go at #1 simply to prove a point but it would have to be in concert with Mills' response. Imagine the response in Carlton if he says publicly that he believes it was a vexatious bid and that he will give a 100% guarantee that he will request a trade at the end of 2016?

And as for the Plan B, I'd happily have us play the odds and draft players at 33,35,36 and 37. Look at some of the talent we have taken at that level in previous drafts....

[Mug Punter]

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.

Agree with the Davis comment but some of your 29 senior players are generous at best (imho of course) - Rose is nowhere near, Johnson will not be ready next year and Hewett and Sam are entirely untested. So that gets us down to 25 players which is just not enough even assuming Brandon takes the step up and Mills is the business as we expect. For mine it all points to a mature age recruit, I'd like to see Adcock if we have enough cash in the kitty...

I just think we are still a year away from having the depth and balance we need. Of course you may be right, and I hope you are, and those players may all just burst onto the scene after paying their dues

It will be an interesting year