Opinion 2020 Draft #2: 1/9/22/23/40/80 (2021 + Melb 2nd, Haw 4th, Freo 4th)

[Deaneus!]

KEY DATES

Oct 30 – Nov 6: AFL Free Agency Period
November 4 – 12: AFL Trade Period
November 20: List Lodgment 1
November 27: List Lodgment 2
November 30: AFL Draft Nominations close
w/c December 7: NAB AFL Draft and Rookie Draft (exact date to be confirmed in due course)
Mid-December: Final List Lodgment & TPP estimates

As God is my witness, finding anything useful on the AFL.com.au site is practically impossible, may whoever designed it burn in hell.​

 

[Vader]

Pheww... had me worried there that I completely misread the Bris trade but I was looking at the Hinge trad.

I think the separate elements of that trade are completely non-dodgy even if the overall outcome could be perceived as dodgy.

I haven't seen anyone questioning the Brisbane trade, once the link to Hinge was pointed out to them.

 

[Vader]

The only reason I could see for that is to help them get their NGA's and in return they won't bid on ours.

It makes sense to move our points to the 2021 draft, even if it's at a "cents in the dollar" exchange rate, because we have no use for those picks in 2020 and the points would otherwise be lost to us completely.

However, the implication of moving those points from 2020 to 2021 is that they're not available this year, if we need them to match a Borlase bid. The logical conclusion here is that they don't expect to need any additional 2020 points, and that we'll be done & dusted at pick 40.

 

[Vader]

Also 56 & 63 (306) for a 2021 r4 from Freo that could range from pick 46(331, finish last) to 55(207, mid table) to 63(112, premiers) doesn't seem unreasonable.

Check your maths...

All other things being equal, R4 is nominally picks 55-72. We've given up 56 & 63 - 2x 4th round picks, getting 1x 4th round pick in return.

We've given up picks worth 306, in exchange for a pick worth somewhere between 19-207pts - probably less, given that this doesn't account for FA compensation picks being added to the order.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Do you think McDonald is a better fit structure wise?

I think the biggest question on taking 1 of the talls, is what we believe the best set up is. My preference is 3 talls, assuming there’s a balance in play style.

I really don’t think you can make a selection for a pick 1 on structure

you just got to take who you think will be the best player..... list balance changes over time so if it’s not the best fit for list balance immediately it can be eventually

The list will change over 12 years so just take who you think ends up best player

 

[Draft Bored]

Looking forward to the melts on draft night. May even top a Thursday night back em in.

Yep. I can see something like:

1. ADL: DGB
...
8. GWS: Hollands (trade up)
9. ADL: Someone I've never heard of.
...
22. RICH: We trade out for their future first. Richmond take Ford.
23. ADL: Some Tasmanian
...
40. ADL: Some vanilla mid.
41. WBD: Borlace (don't/can't match)
...
47. PORT: Newchurch (don't/can't match)

BF meltdown.
Calls for independant review of recruiting department.
Ogilvie heads to Tassy to regroup with Noble and lead the Hobart Kangaroos to the 2027 premiership.

 

[FAITH]

What a garbage article .....it's clear from the piece that Thilthorpe has the better skills, but we should take him because McDonald had 5 good WAFL games, and forgetting the last 3 games where he was ineffectual

So we're being asked to use pick 1 on the back of 5 games and "hope" he has development in him & it wasn't a flash of form .......very little strengths were identified

Welcome another Josh Schache

19

Josh Schache

Age

26

Ht

199cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.3

3star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.5

1star

K

4.0

1star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

0.0

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

10.2

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.8

4star

& Peter Wright ....who also were raved about in their Draft years .....look how that's worked out

McDonald is better than schache and Wright were at same age.

 

[GrommoT]

Check your maths...

All other things being equal, R4 is nominally picks 55-72. We've given up 56 & 63 - 2x 4th round picks, getting 1x 4th round pick in return.

Yeah, it looks like my maths is off ... off deleting I go.

 

[Golumless]

I really don’t think you can make a selection for a pick 1 on structure

you just got to take who you think will be the best player..... list balance changes over time so if it’s not the best fit for list balance immediately it can be eventually

The list will change over 12 years so just take who you think ends up best player

Pretty much, and at worse, you can always brute force your list to fit a player in. It just means someone else who, might be capable, needs to find a new home.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

I really don’t think I you can make a selection for a pick 1 on structure

you just got to take who you think will be the best player..... list balance changes over time so if it’s not the best fit for list balance immediately it can be eventually

The list will change over 12 years so just take who you think ends up best player

Im not saying we should, but it’s something I’ve considered. This also doesn’t answer the question.
Point is some couple don’t want a tall because of needs, but I think a 3rd key forward ( of high quality) is a need.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

McDonald is better than schache and Wright were at same age.

He’s definitely better performed in senior football

schache was well performed against kids , better than the other 2

wright was potential , in some ways could say same about Thilthorpe but he has more runs on board than Wright did

sam Hayes actually had more runs on board than wright in terms of performance

 

[TexForPM]

Isiah Winder if he's still there at #40 is the X factor guy for us.

Brodie Lake also if the GCS's pass on nominating him.

Hasn't this passed for nominations now? B Lake is free to get?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Im not saying we should, but it’s something I’ve considered. This also doesn’t answer the question.
Point is some couple don’t want a tall because of needs, but I think a 3rd key forward ( of high quality) is a need.

Tall forwards and mids are of equal needs

from mid- forward we struggle

the only positions that aren’t immediate needs on our list are backs

 

[Mego Red]

You're not wrong.

Note that we need to have a minimum of 36 players on our senior list, which is why we need to take 5 players in the ND. We could select 4 players in the ND and upgrade Butts or Keays from the rookie list, as some have suggested, but that's completely nonsensical given the decision to move Mackay & Davis from the senior list to the rookie list.

Why do you keep saying it's nonsensical?

Besides the fact the club said there was the potential of them doing that, it's absolutely OBVIOUS why you would potentially move someone back.

IF we live trade 40 AND we get to the end of the draft with Borlase and Newchurch slipping through, we are FAR better moving someone who is already on a two year contract to the main list so we have two one year spots on the rookie list, which could be used for pick one in the rookie draft OR during the supplementary period when we can have players train with us OR during the midyear drafts.

It's stunningly obvious why the club could choose to do this. You're just weirdly confused because we moved Mackay and Davis to the rookie list - but they're both on one year deals, so there's ZERO difference with being there, other than on the rookie list we can waive a percentage of their wage.

C'mon Vader - you're normally very good at this stuff.

 

[Mego Red]

One of the big problems we have in terms of bundling some picks to move up the draft order is that the options are very, very limited. Unfortunately, the way the trade period turned out with Essendon and GWS having multiple picks, it really limits the number of teams who might consider a swap.

The options seem like;

North pick 2 & 11 - No point in them swapping. They won't move 11 down I wouldn't have thought.
Sydney pick 3 then 34 - would only move up the order not down
Hawthorn pick 4 then 24 Can't see them being willing to move 4 down to 9 and don't think they need an extra pick around their 24 either
Gold Coast pick 5 then 27. Could possibly move to 9, but don't think they need any of our 22/23 picks. Highly unlikely, unless we include future picks.
Essendon picks 6,7,8. Could possibly be willing to do a deal if a player we want is available at 6 that they don't want, but then why not just wait until pick 9 anyway? Unlikely to move anything.

So it seems like any swap that includes pick 9 is very unlikely. It really is probably only Gold Coast that is remotely likely.

After our pick, the options for trading 22/23 look like;

GWS picks 10, 13, 15, 20, 29 They have plenty of picks. Nothing happening there.
North - pick 11 already covered
Fremantle - Pick 12 then 32. This one looks the most likely. Might depend on what points they need and their list size. Most likely I would have thought.
Collingwood picks 14, 16, 65 A possible move here. Could 14 for 22/23 work? Could we include a deal for their 1st round pick next year?
Richmond pick 17. I'd guess that unless there is someone we absolutely love still available, we are getting to the point of it not being worth swapping the picks. Could work though.


So it looks like;

Pick 9 swap - Gold Coast the most likely. Hawthorn maybe at a stretch. Otherwise no options. Looks very unlikely

Pick 22/23 swap - Fremantle at pick 12 the most desirable. Collingwood at 14 or 16 possible. Richmond at 17 possible but getting unlikely.

We really aren't flush with options.

We would use 9 to go down, not up.

The only way to go up would be if someone was really into getting our 2021 first.

I'm sure Collingwood would be interested in moving up to 9, and GWS would as well.

 

[Vader]

Why do you keep saying it's nonsensical?

Besides the fact the club said there was the potential of them doing that, it's absolutely OBVIOUS why you would potentially move someone back.

IF we live trade 40 AND we get to the end of the draft with Borlase and Newchurch slipping through, we are FAR better moving someone who is already on a two year contract to the main list so we have two one year spots on the rookie list, which could be used for pick one in the rookie draft OR during the supplementary period when we can have players train with us OR during the midyear drafts.

It's stunningly obvious why the club could choose to do this. You're just weirdly confused because we moved Mackay and Davis to the rookie list - but they're both on one year deals, so there's ZERO difference with being there, other than on the rookie list we can waive a percentage of their wage.

C'mon Vader - you're normally very good at this stuff.

Because it is completely and utterly nonsensical. It literally makes no sense at all to move 2 players to the rookie list, only to turn around and move 1 up to the senior list.

The only way that makes sense is if our list management team is staggeringly incompetent (granted, this is a possibility), or if you do some unnecessarily complicated mental gymnastics - which is what you seem to enjoy doing.

 

[Vader]

We would use 9 to go down, not up.

The only way to go up would be if someone was really into getting our 2021 first.

I'm sure Collingwood would be interested in moving up to 9, and GWS would as well.

Problem with this is that none of the picks above 9 are gettable.

 

[70lethal]

How so?... wont it go on the reverse of the ladder position at the time?..

In the case of the same player being nominated by two or more clubs, the player will go to the team lower on the ladder under a rolling process.

AFL scraps top-20 NGA picks, new mid-season draft plan

The AFL has changed its Next Generation Academy rules for top-end talent

www.afl.com.au

 

[Mego Red]

Ye

yep.. if we dont take Newchurch i’ll be fu**in over it.. kid has x-factor, speed and awesome skills and goal sense.. sure, there might be some minor mental/attitude issues but, fu** me, the lad is only young.. back yourself in to help him change these and coach them out of him.

you cant teach someone “x-factor”, you cant teach someone “speed” and thats not speed in how fast they can run “speed”.. but speed in decision making under pressure.. although the kid can run bloody fast too with ball in hand!.. and sometimes skills are hard to teach, some guys just naturally have a higher level of silky skills..

you can teach a player where to position himself in the contest, when to get involved and when to stand back and wait for delivery and you can help young lads make changes when it comes to attitude and effort.

I like the look of this Hinge lad but if getting him ends up costing us Newchurch.. thats just sh*t. We already have a shitload of defensive types.. what we desperately need are more forward/midfield x-factor types.. and Newchurch has that written all over him..

Newchurch had a very mediocre year and likely won't amount to anything. There are three or four other small forwards more likely than him, including some that may not get drafted.

I'll be pissed off if we take him as anything other than a Cat B rookie.

 

[ABAB]

Newchurch had a very mediocre year and likely won't amount to anything. There are three or four other small forwards more likely than him, including some that may not get drafted.

I'll be pissed off if we take him as anything other than a Cat B rookie.

Potential to be a very damaging outside mid if he can lift his effort, maybe rookie spot will give him the motivation to be a professional footballer and no need ot look any further than Menzel who tried to rely on his talent and look what happened to him.

 

[Mego Red]

Because it is completely and utterly nonsensical. It literally makes no sense at all to move 2 players to the rookie list, only to turn around and move 1 up to the senior list.

The only way that makes sense is if our list management team is staggeringly incompetent (granted, this is a possibility), or if you do some unnecessarily complicated mental gymnastics - which is what you seem to enjoy doing.

Obviously we would move Keays up, who is on a two year deal, you nincompoop.

It was fine that you ran for days on the "once you pass you can't match" bandwagon, without acknowledging the very large likelihood that you could be wrong. That was a very Vader act, even after someone pointed out that GWS had matches bids in Academy players after passing. You did acknowledge it, after someone pulled the paperwork.

Here, it's OBVIOUS why the Crows could do that. Just slow down, stop being so arrogant and think about it for a bit.

 

[Mego Red]

Problem with this is that none of the picks above 9 are gettable.

Which is why I said we would only use 9 to go down, not up.

No one on this board would want us to trade our 2021 first, but that's the only way to even get someone in the first 8 to take our call.

 

[zippity doedee]

 

[Mego Red]

Oh, Vader - did you ever acknowledge that you were wrong about nominated Father Sons being automatically being added to a clubs main list?

I know I gave you a few articles that explained it, and explained how Father Sons only went onto the rookie list if they were undrafted and nominated FOLLOWING the National Draft, but you were stubbornly disagreeing after I stopped reading the thread.

Anyway ... From AFL.com.au

FATHER-SON – ROOKIE PRE-SELECTION
The Father-Son Rule previously applied to players selected at the National Draft. Under the rule, other AFL clubs can bid for eligible players who have been nominated under the Father-Son Rule by an eligible club. The nominating club can select the eligible player by forfeiting its next available pick in the draft if a bid has been made by another club. If there is no bid from another club, the nominating club forfeits its last pick in the National Draft.

A club can pre-select an eligible player as a Category A rookie between the Pre-Season and Rookie Drafts (with the player’s consent) provided the player had nominated for but was not selected by another club at either the National or Pre-Season Drafts. In that case, the relevant club would forfeit its last available selection in the Rookie Draft to take the player

 

[Mego Red]

Lol - amazing.

 

[Mego Red]

Personally, I don't think either Borlase or Newchurch is in the top 38 or so players in the draft, so I'd be bitterly disappointed if we used that picking them or traded it for pennies on the dollar.