List Mgmt. 2016 Potential Draft Picks

[ScooterBrother]

I understand that, but we wont be drafting what the industry considers the 9th best player.

Makes me inclined to think - **** it, load up, get some older gun types and try and snag a couple of flags whilst the drafts are so compromised by GWS/Gold Coast. Then rebuild when the going is good.

 

[CharlieKelly]

so I've done some number crunching, here's a possible scenario...

* Brisbane are granted a priority pick by the AFL, they then have picks #2 (2517 points) and #3 (2234 points)
* Gold Coast then have picks #5 (1878) and pick #9 (1469)
* Port then has pick #10 (1395)
* Brisbane bid on Jack Bowes with Pick #2, worth 2517 points
* Gold Coast match, 2517 x 0.8 = 2013 points
* 2013 points - 1878 (pick #5) = 135 points, Gold Coast spend pick #5 and need a further 135 points from their next pick
* 1469 - 135 = 1334 points, this is less than Port's first pick at 1395
* therefore, that means Port and Gold Coast do a switcheroo, Port now has Pick #9 and Gold Coast has pick #10

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

so I've done some number crunching, here's a possible scenario...

* Brisbane are granted a priority pick by the AFL, they then have picks #2 (2517 points) and #3 (2234 points)
* Gold Coast then have picks #5 (1878) and pick #9 (1469)
* Port then has pick #10 (1395)
* Brisbane bid on Jack Bowes with Pick #2, worth 2517 points
* Gold Coast match, 2517 x 0.8 = 2013 points
* 2013 points - 1878 (pick #5) = 135 points, Gold Coast spend pick #5 and need a further 135 points from their next pick
* 1469 - 135 = 1334 points, this is less than Port's first pick at 1395
* therefore, that means Port and Gold Coast do a switcheroo, Port now has Pick #9 and Gold Coast has pick #10

If Brisbane have picks 2 and 3 why would they make a bid for one of their academy players, they just select him? If they have pick 2 and 3 they pick up two non Qld players with those picks and then provided they have banked enough points use the other picks to snare Bowes when someone else selects him.

Isn't that how the system works, as soon as club X nominates a kid from an academy, then the relevant northern club has the right to match that pick?

 

[philthy05]

If Brisbane have picks 2 and 3 why would they make a bid for one of their academy players, they just select him? If they have pick 2 and 3 they pick up two non Qld players with those picks and then provided they have banked enough points use the other picks to snare Bowes when someone else selects him.

Isn't that how the system works, as soon as club X nominates a kid from an academy, then the relevant northern club has the right to match that pick?

Bowes is gc academy not Bris

And being a qld kid and worthy of a high pick why not bid on a local with your pick?

I don't buy this crap that academy teams will play nice and not bid on each other kids. It's a competition and they are competing with each other as much as anyone else

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Bowes is gc academy not Bris

And being a qld kid and worthy of a high pick why not bid on a local with your pick?

I don't buy this crap that academy teams will play nice and not bid on each other kids. It's a competition and they are competing with each other as much as anyone else

Ah my bad. Well they then would be nuts to bid on him with pick 2 when they can use pick 3.

 

[shewho]

Ah my bad. Well they then would be nuts to bid on him with pick 2 when they can use pick 3.

On the contrary. If they want Bowes and, say, Marshall with picks 2 and 3, by using 2 on Bowes they cost GC considerably more points if they match. This has two benefits (1) making a match less likely and a greater chance of keeping Bowes for themselves and (2) if GC match anyway GC's other picks are shuffled further down helping BL later on.

In fact, if they have 2 and 3 and rate Bowes in the top 3, it makes no sense using pick 3 instead of 2 on Bowes.

Also, isn't the rumour that they will get pick 1 as the compo pick to prevent Essendon profiting too much from their drug saga?

 

[vozzon]

Essentially with the academy players we will get the 12-13th best player in the draft. Looking at all the phantom drafts it looks like that will be a half back flanker again lol. Wish we were able to trade out this years pick for an established player, if only prestia or mitchell were interested in coming to port.

 

[shewho]

Essentially with the academy players we will get the 12-13th best player in the draft. Looking at all the phantom drafts it looks like that will be a half back flanker again lol. Wish we were able to trade out this years pick for an established player, if only prestia or mitchell were interested in coming to port.

We are able to trade out our first rounder this year. We have decided not to because (1) it's time to invest in youth and (2) it would hamstring us next year.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

On the contrary. If they want Bowes and, say, Marshall with picks 2 and 3, by using 2 on Bowes they cost GC considerably more points if they match. This has two benefits (1) making a match less likely and a greater chance of keeping Bowes for themselves and (2) if GC match anyway GC's other picks are shuffled further down helping BL later on.

In fact, if they have 2 and 3 and rate Bowes in the top 3, it makes no sense using pick 3 instead of 2 on Bowes.

Also, isn't the rumour that they will get pick 1 as the compo pick to prevent Essendon profiting too much from their drug saga?

Yes correct I incorrectly looked at discounted points value at 2 vs non discounted at pick 3. Shouldn't have done a quick post.

 

[vozzon]

I get that we need to invest but invest in what? Pick 9 isnt that good of a pick and looking how the talent will be spread we wont get true value of that pick. I really hope I am wrong, but in an ideal world we could entice a prestia/titchell to come and give up that pick.

Look at our drafting with Butcher/A Moore/B. Jacobs. that 2009/2010 is the reason we have wholes in our list, being one Key/tall Forward and One inside mid short on the list.

I want to keep next years pick as it has been said to be a tall players draft, which we can then trade some unwanted commodities to get a few picks.

Id consider trading pick 9 to GWS to get Steele. Would fit the team now and at least looks like a 150 game player.

 

[strath39]

I get that we need to invest but invest in what? Pick 9 isnt that good of a pick and looking how the talent will be spread we wont get true value of that pick. I really hope I am wrong, but in an ideal world we could entice a prestia/titchell to come and give up that pick.

Look at our drafting with Butcher/A Moore/B. Jacobs. that 2009/2010 is the reason we have wholes in our list, being one Key/tall Forward and One inside mid short on the list.

I want to keep next years pick as it has been said to be a tall players draft, which we can then trade some unwanted commodities to get a few picks.

Id consider trading pick 9 to GWS to get Steele. Would fit the team now and at least looks like a 150 game player.

Disagree that's one bad draft. And we also chose the bolter in Moore.

If you look below thats 2007-2011. Some very solid players there.

Steele still unproven, Neafl a long way from the afl.

happy to give up pick 20 from him .


2007 draft

Pick 8-Henderson
Pick9- Mcevoy
Pick 10- Dangerfield


2008 draft
Pick 8-Vickery
Pick9- Zieball
Pick 10- Davis

2011 draft

Pick 8-Longer
Pick9- Tomilson
Pick 10- Sumner

 

[vozzon]

Disagree that's one bad draft. And we also chose the bolter in Moore.

If you look below thats 2007-2011. Some very solid players there.

Steele still unproven, Neafl a long way from the afl.

happy to give up pick 20 from him .


2007 draft

Pick 8-Henderson
Pick9- Mcevoy
Pick 10- Dangerfield


2008 draft
Pick 8-Vickery
Pick9- Zieball
Pick 10- Davis

2011 draft

Pick 8-Longer
Pick9- Tomilson
Pick 10- Sumner

I dont think in 06/07/08 we had any good picks. We used the Burgouyne pick from hawks for Adrew Moore. I feel with a fit list thats the type of trade we should be doing.

 

[strath39]

I dont think in 06/07/08 we had any good picks. We used the Burgouyne pick from hawks for Adrew Moore. I feel with a fit list thats the type of trade we should be doing.

A Last first rounder was Ollie wines in 2012. We need young talent.

 

[Chachi]

I dont think in 06/07/08 we had any good picks. We used the Burgouyne pick from hawks for Adrew Moore. I feel with a fit list thats the type of trade we should be doing.

We traded out; Shaun picks 40 + 56
We traded in; 9 (Moore), 16 (Pittard), Jay Nash.

 

[JUSTWORK]

A Last first rounder was Ollie wines in 2012. We need young talent.

And before that Wingard.

We could certainly do with another 2 players of their caliber.

If we do bring in a first rounder hopefully we get another Wingard and Wines level players.

Not Moore and Butcher.

 

[vozzon]

A Last first rounder was Ollie wines in 2012. We need young talent.

I agree, we need top talent, i just dont think we will get it by trading out lobbe and Hartlett. Or by using pick 9.

To get a good talent like Wines/Wingard you need a top 3 pick. We were lucky GWS heavily influenced the outcome of those 2 slipping to us.

Wines was meant to go to melbourne, but GWS didnt pick toumpus with there early pick (picked Plowman) which left wines to slip. Wingard just played the homesick card so we were lucky.

 

[strath39]

I agree, we need top talent, i just dont think we will get it by trading out lobbe and Hartlett. Or by using pick 9.

To get a good talent like Wines/Wingard you need a top 3 pick. We were lucky GWS heavily influenced the outcome of those 2 slipping to us.

Wines was meant to go to melbourne, but GWS didnt pick toumpus with there early pick (picked Plowman) which left wines to slip. Wingard just played the homesick card so we were lucky.

disagree with that. odds are better for a top 3 pick but a still handy for a top 10 pick . Jack steele doesnt save our problems.

 

[Leaveit2charlie]

There's always a player no one will touch but you could make the case " Who doesn't deserve a second chance? "


Was talk he could end up at Fremantle ( go figure) a rumour only but by accounts is going well. The highlight package is old but is a pretty good package.

 

[Alyx]

Josh Bootsma ... a pretty good package.

 

[Leaveit2charlie]

Ok I should have thought that though [emoji57]

 

[Visenfest]

There's always a player no one will touch but you could make the case " Who doesn't deserve a second chance? "


Was talk he could end up at Fremantle ( go figure) a rumour only but by accounts is going well. The highlight package is old but is a pretty good package.

I hope you are taking the piss lel.

 

[1954]

I hope you are taking the piss lel.

If that was the Bootsma who was delisted by the blue baggers I reckon he would be no hope to be drafted again, he was miles off the pace of afl footy when he was there.

 

[Visenfest]

If that was the Bootsma who was delisted by the blue baggers I reckon he would be no hope to be drafted again, he was miles off the pace of afl footy when he was there.

Yep one and the same. And he was sacked, not delisted:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ial-media-hookup/story-fni5f22o-1226943496685

 

[Leaveit2charlie]

I hope you are taking the piss lel.

Of course we won't pick him up but every year there's a player like him that gets discussed just putting it out there.

 

[Hellgood]

Bootsma is a guy who I reckon everyone made their mind up about based on his appearance rather than what he actually does on the field. I don't think he's out of place on an AFL list.