Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
What's this guy's ceiling? Scott Thompson (crows)? Matt Priddis?
Traded Jack Steele [traded to St Kilda for 2017 second rounder]
- Thread starter Established1870
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No one is really sure at this point what his ceiling is - could be a Cal Ward, could be an Anthony Miles.
What we can say is that his floor is 'kinda useful midfielder', which means he's a pretty decent bet as a footballer.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,270
- AFL Club
- GWS
Wasn't there threats during the trade period about it anyway?
- Oct 9, 2014
- 1,869
- 3,422
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
A Ward type would be a terrific result, but even if he doesn't peak as much I think you could do much worse than have him as your 7th or 8th best mid
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,270
- AFL Club
- GWS
His manager was saying he would supposedly see out his contract if trade didnt happen.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Tulip
Hall of Famer
- May 3, 2009
- 37,249
- 34,495
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham
Think cheaper architecture
So for Saints fans arguing that they can just hand over pick #20 odd worth of points, does the same apply for GWS? Can they just hand over Steele and #33 for #10? Rates Steele about pick #23.....
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
What good are points to us?
RandomDents
Cancelled
- May 6, 2016
- 220
- 266
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #312
Points aren't any good to GWS either if my understanding is correct....doesn't the rule change about the # of live picks and list spots come in this year?
RandomDents
Cancelled
- May 6, 2016
- 220
- 266
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #313
For what it's worth, I think the rule change was a very good one - stops teams offloading late picks to academy clubs - someone correct me if I'm a year early.....
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,094
- AFL Club
- West Coast
You're spot on.
GWS and GC will have little interest in lower picks this year. They may be interested in some 2017 lower picks, but their preference will be for players, high picks and probably pick upgrades.
Don't GWS have a bunch of list spots free at the moment though? If they were full to the brim then this new rule change could affect them, but if they have say 7 list spots spare (after delistings/trades) they could use the points from 7 picks in the draft, even if they only intend on making 4 selections.
Tulip
Hall of Famer
- May 3, 2009
- 37,249
- 34,495
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham
Not sure what the point of this post is, Priddis has won a Brownlow and Thompson has been an outstanding mid for the best part of 15 years. Tyson will do very well to reach those kinds of levels, and I can't see him getting there. Steele will do well to reach Tyson's current level.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,094
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Where would the other three players come from though?
They would just go into the following season with 3 list spots spare, like they apparently did this year (give or take one or two).
Isn't the new rule that you're only allowed to use points from the number of picks that you have list spots spare?
Ie. if you have 5 list spots spare before the draft you're only allowed to use the points from 5 draft picks for academy selections (whether you use all 5 picks or not)?
I'm pretty sure the rule was brought in to stop the teams with academies from loading up on late picks that they won't be able to use because they don't have that many list spots available (eg. to stop a team with 5 spots available going into the draft from using the points from 7 picks they'd accumulated for their 3, 4 or 5 selections), but if GWS have a few spots spare still, it might not start affecting them yet.
If port managed to convince him to go there would pick 9 and 45 land us Steele, 17 and 33?
Dunno if that is a deal gws would go for though as they might like a pick in the teens for Steele and rate that better than upgrading that pick 17 into the top ten.
Dunno if that is a deal gws would go for though as they might like a pick in the teens for Steele and rate that better than upgrading that pick 17 into the top ten.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,887
- 17,631
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #320
That only rates Steele at around 200 points, so pick 54 - late 3rd round pick - so no, not likely.
Take out pick 23 and it's 816 points, or pick 23 - more likely.
Make it 9 & 45 for Steele, 17 & 51 - about pick 34 - and I'd think GWS might do it if there was a reason to get another first round pick in the top 10 (for instance, going after Marshall).
Make it Port's 2017 first rounder and probably even more likely. GWS would presumably want a future pick from one or two of their trades.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,094
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I wasn't aware they could just have spots spare. I had thought it was just like other lists (except larger) where if the main list is smaller then the rookie list is bigger.
Do you have any information on how many list spots they can choose to have vacant?
I'd have to look it up, but I've seen posts from those who barrack for GWS on here that said they were well short of the maximum number they could have on their list/s this year. Presumably to help them keep everyone they really wanted and to stay under the salary cap.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,887
- 17,631
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #323
Main list size is a range, reducing each year, with up to 9 rookie list on top. So 2015 was maximum 48 minimum 44. That reduced in 2016 to max 46 min 42. The heavy trading last year saw GS go down to the minimum 42 with 2 rookies. Next year it drops to max 44 min 40. I'd expect GWS to again aim at the bottom minimum number again, so roughly trade out 6 and draft 4, plus probably get another couple of rookies to end up with 40 + 4 on the list.
So the new trading rule, as I understand it, would allow us in that case - having traded out 6 players to reduce to 36 - carry 8 picks (i.e. to the max 44).
So the new trading rule, as I understand it, would allow us in that case - having traded out 6 players to reduce to 36 - carry 8 picks (i.e. to the max 44).
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,094
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Thanks everyone for the info.
So sounds like GWS could (at best) use 8 picks to pay for 4 players.
Handy advantage over the other Academy clubs who wouldn't have the same luxury.
So sounds like GWS could (at best) use 8 picks to pay for 4 players.
Handy advantage over the other Academy clubs who wouldn't have the same luxury.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
We already have 5 picks in the first 2 rounds. More trades of 2 picks for 1 player wont be much use unless it future picks.
Similar threads
