2012 Draft Discussion

[cotter101]

An elite mid prospect is sound good. Hoping for one of Wines, Toumpas, Stringer or O'Rouke who I rate as a possible A-grader.

 

[dlanod]

I'm really finding it hard to get my head around where the hell Grundy is supposed to fit in the pecking order.

A couple of weeks ago, he was a virtual lock for GWS at 2 or 3.......and now, some have him sliding as far as 14

I'm on record as having limited knowledge of most of the names being thrown up in phantom drafts and the like....but hell....if a beast like Grundy was still there at 8, surely he's worth a look.

It's a combination of factors by the looks of it. The big one is GWS doesn't seem keen on drafting rucks. That accounts for five of the first 14 picks. Essendon's pick is spoken for, and Carlton, Gold Coast and us are already set in the ruck division with good young rucks - that's nine out of 14 done. The remainder are picks 4 to 7 and pick 9 - Melbourne, Bulldogs, Port and Richmond. The question is whether all four decide that their midfield is a bigger issue than their ruck division. Richmond probably wants an immediate impact draftee, but I still expect one of the other three to pull the trigger on Grundy. If he gets to 15 I'm going to be spewing (with my GWS hat on there as well).

How many rucks have been traded for an early first rounder in the past 10 years?

Depending on what you mean by early, either none (top 10 picks) or a fair few (first rounders period).

St kilda paid pick 13 for Hickey? That's the best I can remember.

Hickey, Jolly and Wood all went for picks around 13 and 14. Mumford probably should have if Geelong drove a hard bargain.

 

[dlanod]

Unlike the Toumpas hopes, the Wines sliding is very plausible. It basically hinges on Melbourne rating Toumpas above Wines, which will be a very interesting development if true.

BTW AFL, THIS IS WHY COUNTING FROM 1 TO 10 INCREASES SUSPENSE!

 

[whatboutbob]

Depending on what you mean by early, either none (top 10 picks) or a fair few (first rounders period).

Was a response to the musing I've seen from a few that we can trade Grundy/Longer down the track if they're excess to needs, so I meant better than pick 8. Years of development down the drain AND downgrading your picks would make that notion a complete non-starter.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I'd be surprised if the Bulldogs took either Toumpas or Wines if they were available at their pick. Obviously Wines is more in and under than Toumpas, but they're both still inside midfielders primarily in my mind. If they decided to take whichever one of them slid (assuming one does), it's not going to help their list greatly overall. They really need someone who can invigorate their forward line (key position or small/medium) and a skilful outside mid. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if they went for Menzel and Stringer - both players with massive question marks hanging over them, but who could be exactly what the Dogs need if they can get themselves together injury wise. Probably more likely to be something like Menzel and Macrae/Mayes, but who knows.

I don't think it would be wise for them to take Toumpas or Wines at all, although I have a feeling if either were there at 5, they would do it anyway.

I'm now at the 'completely unsure' stage about who we'll take tomorrow night with pick 8, but I'm willing to back some others in and say it'll be Sam Mayes. Still very keen for Mason Wood with 24 too.

 

[jackess]

My preferrence for pick 8 (in rough order):

1. Whitfield
2. Toumpas
3. Plowman
4. O'Rourke
5. Wines
6. Stringer
7. Mayes
8. Macrae
9. Menzel
10. Simpson
11. Grundy
12. Lonergan
13. Jaksch
14. Vlastuin
15. O'Brien
16. Corr
17. Clurey

 

[jackess]

Thought this was worth another read on Draft eve.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/glen-jakovichs-phantom-draft.773866/

 

[Offsider]

I'd be surprised if the Bulldogs took either Toumpas or Wines if they were available at their pick. Obviously Wines is more in and under than Toumpas, but they're both still inside midfielders primarily in my mind. If they decided to take whichever one of them slid (assuming one does), it's not going to help their list greatly overall. They really need someone who can invigorate their forward line (key position or small/medium) and a skilful outside mid. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if they went for Menzel and Stringer - both players with massive question marks hanging over them, but who could be exactly what the Dogs need if they can get themselves together injury wise. Probably more likely to be something like Menzel and Macrae/Mayes, but who knows.

I don't think it would be wise for them to take Toumpas or Wines at all, although I have a feeling if either were there at 5, they would do it anyway.

I'm now at the 'completely unsure' stage about who we'll take tomorrow night with pick 8, but I'm willing to back some others in and say it'll be Sam Mayes. Still very keen for Mason Wood with 24 too.

Toumpas is much better as an outside mid, but he is capable winning his own ball. He would be best played off the wing with his speed, run and carry making him a damaging player. He will go to Melbourne imo, or the dogs will snap him up. Personally I think the Bulldogs will go for Menzel and either Wines or Macrae if that happens. I highly doubt that Stringer will go to the Bulldogs, but apparently they are interested so hard to know. Port seem likely to pick up a South Australian, they have been burnt by Jacobs, and have only just managed to hold onto Butcher and Boak. I think that Grundy is a huge chance their, Mayes as well and Menzel if he slides.

So that would be:
1. Whitfield
2. O'Rourke
3. Plowman
4. Toumpas
5. Menzel
6. Macrae/Wines
7. Mayes/Grundy
8. Whoever is left out of Wines, Macrae and Mayes.

Also it will be interesting to see who slides to pick 24, we could get some real quality there. If Gartlett is there I wouldn't be adverse to taking the risk.

 

[thoselionslads]

Toumpas is quality. Seems more a damaging outside player for mine - fits the dogs needs to a tee. I don't think he gets past Melbourne.

FWIW, reading through EQ's blog yesterday, saw a comment saying she had Jaksch going to us at 8.

 

[jackess]

I'm really having trouble getting excited about Jaksch. His highlights were poor bordering on terrible. Him droppping his head three times going for marks being the standout. If we take him at 8 I'm going to be disappointed unless a decent mid slides to 24.

 

[Dan12]

I can't see much point for the dogs in drafting Wines and don't think it will happen. If Toumpas goes to the dees, I can see Wines heading north

 

[POBT]

I'm really having trouble getting excited about Jaksch. His highlights were poor bordering on terrible. Him droppping his head three times going for marks being the standout.

I saw him play in the champs and, to be honest, I didn't think commitment to the marking contest was a problem. While I don't think he's worth pick 8 (for the reasons cited earlier in this thread), he's certainly a top 20 prospect and probably top 15 (IMO). I won't be too disappointed if we take him although the thought of a Wines/Menzel type now being potentially available will make it a bit more of a head scratcher for me if we take Jaksch.

 

[Football Pope]

According to the Contract status thread, Leunberger is out of contract at the end of next year? If so you would think a cashed up Freo could have a real go at him (although they would be a big gun shy in tussling with Kerr again), in which case another elite ruckman on the books wouldn't hurt.

Dunno....Atm, Freo seem to be well stocked with rucks.Sandilands (30), Griffin (26) Clarke (22)... Talk was they were going to use that cash to lure home Western Australian forward/defenders to take over from McPharlin & Pavlich...with McPhee retiring a forward might become a bit more urgent...

 

[POBT]

I know that the consensus is that Port will take a local but someone like Wines, O'Rourke or Menzel slipping might have them re-thinking. For the past few months, Wines in particular has been generally considered a top 5 prospect. Mayes has mostly been considered as a 6-12 player. Port might be willing to sacrifice a bit to get a local but at what point do they say "we can't overlook someone that we rate this highly." eg if Port see Wines as the 4th best player in the draft and Mayes as the 9th - taking Mayes with pick 7 is probably a good call normally, even though it might be one or two spots higher than you rate him - the local factor evens it out. But what if Wines slips - all of a sudden, taking Mayes means taking someone who you rank 5 places lower. At what point does Port have to put aside the desire for local boys and take the best available?

 

[dlanod]

I know that the consensus is that Port will take a local but someone like Wines, O'Rourke or Menzel slipping might have them re-thinking. For the past few months, Wines in particular has been generally considered a top 5 prospect. Mayes has mostly been considered as a 6-12 player. Port might be willing to sacrifice a bit to get a local but at what point do they say "we can't overlook someone that we rate this highly." eg if Port see Wines as the 4th best player in the draft and Mayes as the 9th - taking Mayes with pick 7 is probably a good call normally, even though it might be one or two spots higher than you rate him - the local factor evens it out. But what if Wines slips - all of a sudden, taking Mayes means taking someone who you rank 5 places lower. At what point does Port have to put aside the desire for local boys and take the best available?

I agree with your general point, but the way you've put it is probably not how Port would look at it - they'd have their rankings which would factor in all sorts of things including, presumably, "SA boy" (as well as all the usual things, including needs) and both Wines and Mayes would be on it in some order. I would be surprised if they had a "we rate Mayes 9th but he gets a +2 local boy bonus" system. Rather it would be "once everything's factored in, we rate Mayes as the 4th best prospect for our team" (using 4th as an example of different ratings). Then the question becomes whether Wines is rated higher than Mayes.

And on a completely unrelated note, for everyone who says clubs (including our's) should just draft best available, I'd like to introduce you to Brodie Grundy.

 

[Offsider]

I know that the consensus is that Port will take a local but someone like Wines, O'Rourke or Menzel slipping might have them re-thinking. For the past few months, Wines in particular has been generally considered a top 5 prospect. Mayes has mostly been considered as a 6-12 player. Port might be willing to sacrifice a bit to get a local but at what point do they say "we can't overlook someone that we rate this highly." eg if Port see Wines as the 4th best player in the draft and Mayes as the 9th - taking Mayes with pick 7 is probably a good call normally, even though it might be one or two spots higher than you rate him - the local factor evens it out. But what if Wines slips - all of a sudden, taking Mayes means taking someone who you rank 5 places lower. At what point does Port have to put aside the desire for local boys and take the best available?

I think the question would then be: how well did Wines interview? What sort of character is he? Will he be likely to stay or jump ship as soon as possible? If he did very well in the interviews and impressed Port then they might well pick him up. Also I have heard that Port have looked quite closely at Macrae, so he could be an option there.

Personally I don't think there is a wrong choice at pick 8, between potentially Mayes, Macrae, Wines if he slides, or Jaksch who looks even more impressive the more you watch him. I think the only mistake would be to pick Grundy up imo as he is a ruckman first and foremost not a forward. You don't pick a young player up to trade him you pick him up to be a central part of the team for the next 10 years. The reason not many ruckman have been traded for high picks is that once a club has an elite ruckman they don't really trade them.

 

[chopperduck]

If GWS don't go toumpas, Melb will. Think dogs might overlook wines for 1 of Stringer/Menzel and maybe Macrae, based on needs. You would think Mayes or Grundy would tempt Port, but wines will too. Wines might just slip, and I hope he does, if not I'm hoping for Mayes.

 

[Sanchez365]

If GWS don't go toumpas, Melb will. Think dogs might overlook wines for 1 of Stringer/Menzel and maybe Macrae, based on needs. You would think Mayes or Grundy would tempt Port, but wines will too. Wines might just slip, and I hope he does, if not I'm hoping for Mayes.

There is something in the back of my mind that feels slightly unjust if Melbourne get Toumpas (who it seems we were all hoping would slide down to us) after they ninjaed Hogan with their under the table deals with GWS and GC. Twice in one draft period is pretty harsh.

(Also I don't want them to ruin him aswell, but at least we can do a package trade for them in 3 years ).

 

[Quigley]

I would not rule out Grundy to Port either.

 

[spotthedog1]

Grundy to Port is the only way i see us getting Toumpas, and even then only as a remote possibility. It'd also require the top 10 to be a lot more even than Bigfooty perhaps suggests...
Only way I see it happening:
1-3 - Whitfield, Plowman, O'Rourke
4 - Wines
5-6 - Two of Menzel, Stringer, Simpson, Mayes, Macrae
7 - Grundy

I can justify 1-4 and 7, but I don't see the dogs skipping on him if he were free. I can see them possibly taking Menzel, but they'd then have to rank another higher from the other lot, which would be tough. Port can justify 7 as best available if they like, and he's an SA boy too... I'll be satisfied if we get a Wines/Menzel/Stringer/Mayes at 8. Time will tell...

 

[chopperduck]

I would not rule out Grundy to Port either.

He would have to be tempting for them, I know they have some depth in the ruck, but he will overtake most of them in a year, can play forward for them. Being a local boy he will be a draw card for them too, important for a struggling club trying to rebuild.

 

[Harris Specter]

According to a pretty reliable Facebook page;

The Demons are set to pass on Jack Viney's best mate, Oliver Wines tomorrow night. With the GWS set to take the likes of Whitfield, O'Rourke and Plowman, Melbourne will more than likely swoop on South Australian, Jimmy Toumpas.

It's crazy that they would pass Wines and choose Toumpas instead. More reason to hate Melbourne

 

[Harris Specter]

Are future draftees allowed to do this?

 

[Haso]

According to a pretty reliable Facebook page;



It's crazy that they would pass Wines and choose Toumpas instead. More reason to hate Melbourne

I would quote an article before I quoted a facebook page. That piece of news comes from here:

Demons deny Viney his dream as they opt for late change with Toumpas

MELBOURNE is set to crush Jack Viney's fairytale by overlooking his best mate with pick four at tomorrow night's draft after a last-minute reshuffle of Greater Western Sydney's top three picks.

The Dees will land South Australian captain Jimmy Toumpas in a draft bonanza, pushing Viney's childhood friend Ollie Wines to Western Bulldog calculations at pick five.

Facebook is the devil.

 

[Sunny_]

Like I said in a mock thread, Boomer does training with youngsters every year. He does a development role for them.

Did the exact same thing with Toy a few years ago.