List Mgmt. 2020 Draft Thread

[jackcass]

Some of the picks will disappear pre draft if clubs don’t have list spots to use their picks

That's been changed for this year. Clubs are allowed to carry and use more picks than live list spots.

 

[AndrewShawble]

Now now...mitigating circumstances Broomhead, Kennedy, Shaz and Freeman...nobody could foresee those issues.

What were the mitigating circumstances with these bolded players?

 

[Apex36]

What do you mean? Was he a party boy? Lazy on the track?

The latter.

 

[partypie]

Other than Treloar, what was the hit we took?

Phillips had already been moved from the midfield cohort. Beams was a non-event. Stevo had little impact. Varcoe was preferred @ HF or HB. Broomy was always seen as a HF more than a mid.

We already have Rantall and Bianco developing with both having midfield potential, Wilson is being groomed to play wing, the Brown boys seem better suited to a midfield role, Sier is due for a change in fortunes. That's without any additions we get through the draft.

Given Treloar's well known midfield issues, I'm just not seeing this significant hit.

We are down three best 22 players is where the problem lies. Yes we can cover them now, but the depth behind our first-choice midfield group is more than a bit thin both in bigger bodies and in experience.

The key point I'm making here is the number of totally untried and unproven kids you are mentioning who we are hoping will develop - they are the exact same names I threw into the "hopefully they can step up" group when doing a quick assessment of our list.

Whether enough of them will be ready to step up to fill those spots no only when the season begins, but when we inevitably get injuries is where the real question lies.

What if we lose someone like Adams for a string of matches? What happens if Sier can't get on the field consistently and play the role we hope he can? What if Pendlebury's decline progresses faster than we hope it will?

While someone like Wills isn't a great option if he is retained on minimum chops just as insurance in the form of a big body we can throw in there to help bash and crash at the stoppages and open things up a bit more for whichever kids we may have to throw into the fire in the worst case scenario then i'm fine with that.

 

[Forethought]

Was 38, 6 & 3. One of the Irish lads is a Cat A rookie.

Might be but this was the list I went from . States 4 x Cat B rookies.

 

[sr36]

That's been changed for this year. Clubs are allowed to carry and use more picks than live list spots.

I don't think it's actually been changed - a bit of misreporting. It's just that senior list sizes can vary so much that most clubs will have a fair few picks that they're not going to use in the draft, because they won't go to the maximum senior list size. It's the same, but more extreme to when we had theoretical list spots available a few years ago because we'd temporarily delisted and were going to re-rookie Murray and Broomhead, thus enabling us to take extra picks and points if we needed them to match bids for Callum and Daicos.

 

[magpies42]

What were the mitigating circumstances with these bolded players?

Lack of continuity through injury for Broomhead. I felt his confidence never really matched his ability. Had all the attributes to be a gun player, confidence for some players comes with games. Kennedy I thought had mental health issues that surfaced when he moved to Melbourne...

 

[jackcass]

Might be but this was the list I went from . States 4 x Cat B rookies.

Yeah, there's always been conjecture about Keane and Tohill but the rules (till this year) state clubs are only able to have a maximum 3x Cat B rookies, and only 1x Irish player as a Cat B rookie. From memory Keane was the Cat A and Tohill the Cat B. I'd assume that Wilson and Tohill will remain the 2x Cat B rookies allowed under the revised list size rules going forward. Madgen & Checkers will be elevated, Keane remaining the only definitive Cat A rookie depending on what we do with Wills and Appleby (retain or delist or delist and redraft as rookies). Lynch too potentially.

 

[jackcass]

I don't think it's actually been changed - a bit of misreporting. It's just that senior list sizes can vary so much that most clubs will have a fair few picks that they're not going to use in the draft, because they won't go to the maximum senior list size. It's the same, but more extreme to when we had theoretical list spots available a few years ago because we'd temporarily delisted and were going to re-rookie Murray and Broomhead, thus enabling us to take extra picks and points if we needed them to match bids for Callum and Daicos.

Swans, Pies among clubs buoyed by late draft rule tweak

Clubs matching bids on Academy and father-son players will be able to use the points from picks they didn't plan to use

www.afl.com.au

This was on the AFL's site so I'm assuming they agree with it.

 

[sr36]

Swans, Pies among clubs buoyed by late draft rule tweak

Clubs matching bids on Academy and father-son players will be able to use the points from picks they didn't plan to use

www.afl.com.au

This was on the AFL's site so I'm assuming they agree with it.

Like I said, I think it's been misreported that it is an actual rule change, rather than a clarification of the previously existing rules. You could previously take picks and points into the draft that you weren't going to use, as long as you had the available list spots. We did it when we'd agreed to take Broomhead and Murray in the rookie. It gave us two available list spots for academy points, but we were never going to draft anyone with those picks. The difference is that this year, all clubs will have available list spots that they don't intend to use in the draft, so all clubs will be able to effectively do what GWS did that made them change the rules a while back to having to have available list spots.

The examples they give were already possible:

the League gave clearance for clubs to use points from draft picks even if they are not going to use the selections to draft players.

In essence it means that the Swans, who will be forced to match bids for Academy pair Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden, could theoretically take six picks to the draft but only pick up three players, but use the remaining selections for points purposes.

 

[jackcass]

Like I said, I think it's been misreported that it is an actual rule change, rather than a clarification of the previously existing rules. You could previously take picks and points into the draft that you weren't going to use, as long as you had the available list spots. We did it when we'd agreed to take Broomhead and Murray in the rookie. It gave us two available list spots for academy points, but we were never going to draft anyone with those picks. The difference is that this year, all clubs will have available list spots that they don't intend to use in the draft, so all clubs will be able to effectively do what GWS did that made them change the rules a while back to having to have available list spots.

The examples they give were already possible:

the League gave clearance for clubs to use points from draft picks even if they are not going to use the selections to draft players.

In essence it means that the Swans, who will be forced to match bids for Academy pair Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden, could theoretically take six picks to the draft but only pick up three players, but use the remaining selections for points purposes.

Sounds like we're in furious agreement and arguing semantics.

 

[Apex36]

I don't think it's actually been changed - a bit of misreporting. It's just that senior list sizes can vary so much that most clubs will have a fair few picks that they're not going to use in the draft, because they won't go to the maximum senior list size. It's the same, but more extreme to when we had theoretical list spots available a few years ago because we'd temporarily delisted and were going to re-rookie Murray and Broomhead, thus enabling us to take extra picks and points if we needed them to match bids for Callum and Daicos.

No it’s been changed. The AFL confirmed it to clubs. It’s for this season only.

 

[Apex36]

Like I said, I think it's been misreported that it is an actual rule change, rather than a clarification of the previously existing rules. You could previously take picks and points into the draft that you weren't going to use, as long as you had the available list spots. We did it when we'd agreed to take Broomhead and Murray in the rookie. It gave us two available list spots for academy points, but we were never going to draft anyone with those picks. The difference is that this year, all clubs will have available list spots that they don't intend to use in the draft, so all clubs will be able to effectively do what GWS did that made them change the rules a while back to having to have available list spots.

The examples they give were already possible:

the League gave clearance for clubs to use points from draft picks even if they are not going to use the selections to draft players.

In essence it means that the Swans, who will be forced to match bids for Academy pair Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden, could theoretically take six picks to the draft but only pick up three players, but use the remaining selections for points purposes.

How many senior list spaces do Sydney currently have free? If they only have 3 or 4 then previously they’d only be taking those 3-4 selections to the draft. The way I read it is that now they’ll have 6 usable selections for points, regardless of how many list spaces they have free.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[Kappa]

Lack of continuity through injury for Broomhead. I felt his confidence never really matched his ability. Had all the attributes to be a gun player, confidence for some players comes with games. Kennedy I thought had mental health issues that surfaced when he moved to Melbourne...

Broomhead is a classic example of a player who gets better the more injuries he had. He was always a poor man's WHE, couldn't win his own ball, didn't chase or tackle, and always went missing for large periods of games.

 

[jackcass]

Broomhead is a classic example of a player who gets better the more injuries he had. He was always a poor man's WHE, couldn't win his own ball, didn't chase or tackle, and always went missing for large periods of games.

Overly harsh assessment. He's a 26yo old who has played 35-40 games across 8 seasons but he had games where he'd get 20 or more possessions and have scoreboard impact. That's no mean feat.

His problems were firstly a lack of continuity because of his injury issues. They were largely impact injuries (broken arm, shoulder, broken leg) and the complications that arose from them. Things just never went right for him after that broken arm in the preseason game down at Kardinia Park in 2014. And secondly, he was an inside mid stuck in an outside mids body. Maybe with greater continuity he'd have overcome that.

Very sad to see his time at the Pies come to an end. I always hate unrealised potential.

 

[No SPIN]

We are down three best 22 players is where the problem lies. Yes we can cover them now, but the depth behind our first-choice midfield group is more than a bit thin both in bigger bodies and in experience.

The key point I'm making here is the number of totally untried and unproven kids you are mentioning who we are hoping will develop - they are the exact same names I threw into the "hopefully they can step up" group when doing a quick assessment of our list.

Whether enough of them will be ready to step up to fill those spots no only when the season begins, but when we inevitably get injuries is where the real question lies.

What if we lose someone like Adams for a string of matches? What happens if Sier can't get on the field consistently and play the role we hope he can? What if Pendlebury's decline progresses faster than we hope it will?

While someone like Wills isn't a great option if he is retained on minimum chops just as insurance in the form of a big body we can throw in there to help bash and crash at the stoppages and open things up a bit more for whichever kids we may have to throw into the fire in the worst case scenario then i'm fine with that.

Agree - there is nothing wrong with mature experienced depth that’s also CHEAP.

 

[Jen2310]

 

[Pie 4 Life]

For those interested too...

 

[Soups]

For those interested too...

View attachment 1017120

I’ve been waiting for this beauty

 

[whiskeytown]

One of the issues with Kennedy was that Hine recruited him because he thought he'd be a top small forward. But the club bulked him up and tried to turn him into an inside mid - so he became an in-between nothing player. Something also went horribly wrong with his kicking.

Yeah I remember him kicking 5 playing as a small forward in the VFL. Had the goal sense but Bucks played him as a mid... several times only coming on late in the game due to that bastard sub rule.

I wouldn’t call him a draft fail. Just a bit unlucky at the time he come along. Not too different to C Brown stats wise. However Kennedy only played 55% game time compared to Browns 76%.

Callum Brown and Ben Kennedy AFL Stats Comparison

Callum Brown and Ben Kennedy AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

A trade fail for Melbourne though. Didn’t make it there for some reason. Probably the terrible kicking efficiency

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[magpies42]

Broomhead is a classic example of a player who gets better the more injuries he had. He was always a poor man's WHE, couldn't win his own ball, didn't chase or tackle, and always went missing for large periods of games.

Undoubtedly he never reached his best, and he was in and out of games. But he was nothing like WHE, he was hard as you can get. I put the inconsistency down to being played out of position and playing roles...he got better the older he got not with more injuries.

 

[partypie]

Looking at the Hun's mock draft Macrae, Powell and Reef would be nice enough, but I'm not sure if I'd leave Eddie Ford on the table with our second pick, given we'd already have Macrae as a skilled accumulamtor (Powell does look good though).

Hopefully we can squeeze pick 10 out of GWS somehow (eg. our future 1st and 2nd for their pick 10 and 29) and nab ourselves a KPP as well, which would make for a cracking draft.

 

[left at home]

As much as l would like us to get higher up the draft board
The cost could be to high a price
I would like us to get more picks as l think the talent is there even if it’s in the lower end of the first and second rounds