2017 Draft thread

[briztoon]

Interesting article from Gary Buckenara
His top 30 very different to what we have been discussing on this thread.

http://bit.ly/2vTWFtK


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

He’s copped a fair bit of flack on the draft board from a few of the draft watchers for his ratings.

 

[Gadzorks]

I expect ballenden to be picked before 15 even if it is just to force us to bid so we don't get 3 top 20 and ballenden. Would appreciate if the league would put the word out to let him slide in light of our current positon. A Gary ablett style equalization measure.

 

[M Malice]

If they happen to bid on him with their pick 6, we would surely just have to pass wouldn't we?

I'd be very reluctant not to match even that high, the little bits I have seen of him live I think there is a hell of a lot there to work with, great kick on him.

 

[luthor]

Reluctantly match for me. First round Qld born talent is something I don’t want to see get away.

By my calculations, if they do bid at 6, we would need to find 1401 points to match (after the 20% discount.)

We could do that by combining 18 with 40 (985 +429 = 1414)

Still seems expensive but at least we would still have 15.

 

[M Malice]

By my calculations, if they do bid at 6, we would need to find 1401 points to match (after the 20% discount.)

We could do that by combining 18 with 40 (985 +429 = 1414)

Still seems expensive but at least we would still have 15.

You have to match with your next pick so in that instance we would have to match a bid at 6 with 15.

 

[blackpowerlappin]

Surely the planning was to insure us to gain 3 first rounders plus Balllenden.

It would be very disappointing if we don't end up with that result

 

[countryVicLion]

He’s copped a fair bit of flack on the draft board from a few of the draft watchers for his ratings.

As he should this list has Dow as possibly our second pick and no A Bonar anywhere


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Comeback Lions]

I expect ballenden to be picked before 15 even if it is just to force us to bid so we don't get 3 top 20 and ballenden. Would appreciate if the league would put the word out to let him slide in light of our current positon. A Gary ablett style equalization measure.

No one can force you to match a bid, though. We can pass and have in past drafts, (eg Wagner, Watson) in which case the club gets that player, they can't turn around and say sorry, we'd prefer someone else. So I don't see an early bid coming for Ballenden unless a club thinks he's absolutely the best option at their pick. For example, Collingwood would have to know that we're at least some chance not to match at 6, so they'd want to have Ballenden first on their board at that pick.

 

[luthor]

You have to match with your next pick so in that instance we would have to match a bid at 6 with 15.

15 is still well short, even after the discount (about 280 points)

So what happens with the deficit?

Does that then get carried forward to next year? Or does our next pick (18) get pushed down by the equivalent of the deficit ?

 

[JasRulz63]

Does that then get carried forward to next year? Or does our next pick (18) get pushed down by the equivalent of the deficit ?

The latter.

 

[Lacesout]

Surely the planning was to insure us to gain 3 first rounders plus Balllenden.

It would be very disappointing if we don't end up with that result

Yeah everything we did suggests this was our goal. Particulaly the Richmond trade. Why would we get back to 15 and lose a second rounder if we thought we were giving it away anyway. Both the Dogs and Richmond had reasons to draft Ballenden. Now they are hopefully content.

 

[Lacesout]

The latter.

Didn’t know that. So it’s an an equivalent of the pick 6 this year in total. Surely we don’t match that. If you simplify it, if we had pick 6 we wouldn’t be using it on him I would say, so we pass.

 

[luthor]

The latter.

So that would push 18 back to 27

YUK!!

Thanks a lot (for nothing)

 

[greendiesel]

Any club that takes Ballenden in the top 12 is taking a massive risk.
The risk of go-home factor way too high for a top dozen selection.
We should pass if he is taken top 10.

 

[Lions Lions]

It wouldn't surprise me to see us take a tall defender if the mids that we like are all gone at 15/18. It would want to be someone that we really rated though.

I think we would be looking at a 3rd tall like Murphy who can play back and forward and has good upside.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Didn’t know that. So it’s an an equivalent of the pick 6 this year in total. Surely we don’t match that. If you simplify it, if we had pick 6 we wouldn’t be using it on him I would say, so we pass.

Equivalent of pick 6 with a 20% discount, which is actually the equivalent of pick 10.

 

[Nunez]

Given we moved picks with the dogs and Richmond who were both likely to bid on Conor, I don't think we've got anything to worry about now. I reckon a bid will come between 19-25. It just makes too much sense when analyzing our trades.

 

[Forward We Go]

Does any one know when we hear about the future of William, Close, Hammelman, Eagles etc?

 

[Comeback Lions]

Does any one know when we hear about the future of William, Close, Hammelman, Eagles etc?

Key dates are in the List Changes, Contract Status and Key Dates - 2017 thread above.
Rookie upgrades and elevation to primary list by Tuesday 2pm Oct 31.
Free agency for delisted players begins the day after, Nov 1.

As already discussed in this thread, if we want to take 1. 15, 18, 40, 44 and 52 to draft, we will need 6 list spots and will have to delist Close and C. Beams (as only uncontracted players). If we want to offer one or both of them rookie spots, we will have to draft them again in rookie draft. Same applies to Hammelmann (or upgrade him). Waiting on answer from AFL re exemption for Hanley.

So basically by Tuesday next week, if not before.
Primary list lodgement November 9, so might not find out until then for Beams and Close, but would think if we're going to delist them, would have to do it by Nov 1, to be fair.

 

[The Golfing Lion]

I don't believe for a moment clubs would compromise their list building in a draft by secretly agreeing not to bid on certain players.
The list management team would simply have a good idea of who is going where on people's boards and then hope it occurs.

The trade period weakened us at the draft two ways. It put us at a greater risk of losing a pick to Ballenden. I suspect anyone from 10 - 17 could bid and know we would certainly match to take him. They have a free hit against us, it's just whether they take it. If I was them I would, take the chance to weaken an opponent.

Ballenden is arguably the 2nd best tall in the draft behind Brander. The irony of him sliding when we need mids is that we have to hope clubs take mids before us so they don't bid on the big fella.

But it is what it is as they say playing in the VFL

 

[POBT]

Ballenden is arguably the 2nd best tall in the draft behind Brander.

It seems to me that, in most pundits' opinion, Ballenden is behind Brander, Naughton and Hayes as far as talls go.

 

[Forward We Go]

Key dates are in the List Changes, Contract Status and Key Dates - 2017 thread above.
Rookie upgrades and elevation to primary list by Tuesday 2pm Oct 31.
Free agency for delisted players begins the day after, Nov 1.

As already discussed in this thread, if we want to take 1. 15, 18, 40, 44 and 52 to draft, we will need 6 list spots and will have to delist Close and C. Beams (as only uncontracted players). If we want to offer one or both of them rookie spots, we will have to draft them again in rookie draft. Same applies to Hammelmann (or upgrade him). Waiting on answer from AFL re exemption for Hanley.

So basically by Tuesday next week, if not before.
Primary list lodgement November 9, so might not find out until then for Beams and Close, but would think if we're going to delist them, would have to do it by Nov 1, to be fair.

I was kinda thinking some decisions made early this week. Still do.

 

[Forward We Go]

I don't believe for a moment clubs would compromise their list building in a draft by secretly agreeing not to bid on certain players.
The list management team would simply have a good idea of who is going where on people's boards and then hope it occurs.

The trade period weakened us at the draft two ways. It put us at a greater risk of losing a pick to Ballenden. I suspect anyone from 10 - 17 could bid and know we would certainly match to take him. They have a free hit against us, it's just whether they take it. If I was them I would, take the chance to weaken an opponent.

Ballenden is arguably the 2nd best tall in the draft behind Brander. The irony of him sliding when we need mids is that we have to hope clubs take mids before us so they don't bid on the big fella.

But it is what it is as they say playing in the VFL

Don't think for 1 moment that opposition clubs would nominate Ballenden if they didn't want him at their respective club just to weaken the 2017 wooden spooner. If they think he is worth their pick at that time of the draft, so be it. No conspiracy's here IMO. Up to the Lions to decide if they override the nomination or let it go through to the keeper if they think someone else is a better prospect. I have faith our guys will get us the best result.

 

[luthor]

Don't think for 1 moment that opposition clubs would nominate Ballenden if they didn't want him at their respective club just to weaken the 2017 wooden spooner. If they think he is worth their pick at that time of the draft, so be it. No conspiracy's here IMO. Up to the Lions to decide if they override the nomination or let it go through to the keeper if they think someone else is a better prospect. I have faith our guys will get us the best result.

.....and iit's not a "free hit" either (for other clubs)

If they bid, they better be 100% prepared to take the player when the target club passes.

There's no "Oops...we didn't really mean it" option

 

[weevil]

I don't believe for a moment clubs would compromise their list building in a draft by secretly agreeing not to bid on certain players.
The list management team would simply have a good idea of who is going where on people's boards and then hope it occurs.

The trade period weakened us at the draft two ways. It put us at a greater risk of losing a pick to Ballenden. I suspect anyone from 10 - 17 could bid and know we would certainly match to take him. They have a free hit against us, it's just whether they take it. If I was them I would, take the chance to weaken an opponent.

Ballenden is arguably the 2nd best tall in the draft behind Brander. The irony of him sliding when we need mids is that we have to hope clubs take mids before us so they don't bid on the big fella.

But it is what it is as they say playing in the VFL

Feel that Academy prospects often get rated below their natural level. It’s like the overhanging go-home prospect unconsciously knocks them down a few picks in people’s minds. Feel if he was a Vic Metro kid he would be ranked way higher.

Most of the draft commentary is just people regurgitating groupthink. I do find it interesting that many do not rate him, perhaps I’m missing something.