If we don’t trade an earlier pick to move up or move it into 2021, then we are picking Borlase with 40 if we aren’t forced to match with it earlier. Seems pretty obvious to me.
2020 Trade & List Management discussion
- Thread starter Mego Red
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And Crocker.
I have seen this suggested a few times on here
You guys would be absolutely mad to use pick 40 to select Borlase.
If you trade it out instead for equivalent points (to someone who won't bid on him) at the absolute worst someone bids on him the very next pick then the difference between pick 40 and pick 41 (with the discount) is 114 points.
Or essentially pick 63 for free and the longer no one bids on him him the better that gets.
On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app
And Crocker looked quite good in the pre-season games but faded badly in the regular season.
BrendanAFCfan
Rookie
- Aug 20, 2020
- 44
- 35
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
God Port idiots thinking we won't get Borlace, bloody stupid ferals, they have no idea as usual.
BrendanAFCfan
Rookie
- Aug 20, 2020
- 44
- 35
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Honest player, but that's it.
FWIW, if anyone bids on Borlase after 57, we can pick him up with a 5th rounder, ie pick 80, since all the picks 57 or after are only worth 190 points or less, so after the discount we only need to get a zero points pick, so 75 and after. I'd say with the trade we did the other day, we think no one will bid and or port cant bid before 57.
I think we’ll try and trade 40 with a 2021 third. There will be some teams who have spent points on matching (Bulldogs, Sydney) that may want back in.
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
- May 16, 2015
- 13,047
- 17,453
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
We trade a 2020 2nd rounder for a 2021 3rd rounder. Sounds poor business to me.
If we are going to use 40 on Borlase anyway, the 2021 third becomes a free hit.
And 40 is a third rounder.......
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Last edited:
Johnny Rutten
Anarchy for the AFC, it's coming sometime...
I doubt we are going to turn around and delist a contracted player that late in the game. This scenario is extremely unlikely. Not to mention, that it is not a good look. Call it bad list management.
I have a feeling, on draft night, if we have used 1,9,22,23, we may then try and trade pick 40 (for a future R3 pick) and use our current pick 80 on Borlase instead. Pick 80 will come down to around pick 55 on the night.
The other scenario is that we turn our first 5 picks into 4 (via some bundling up), and pick 80 (approx. 55 on the night) is used on Borlase.
If Borlase makes it through the draft, he goes onto our Cat B rookie list, no need to delist anyone. Same with Newchurch. We still have 2 Cat B rookie spots available, just no Cat A’s.
Technically the issue is Hately, we will have 6 “live” picks in the draft, but will need to pass our last one to get Hately. So we technically could match a bid after 40, as you say we’d need to be able to delist a player after 40. I think this is highly unlikely though.
I think some here need to settle down on Borlase though. IMO I think the club are keen to wait and see who slides to 40. Is Baldwin available, Durdin perhaps, Pedlar, Dumesny or Callow? Or someone else?
In this kind of draft, there’s a fair chance someone we rate quite highly slips through to 40 and if this player is better than Borlase, as a result we may very likely decide to gamble that Borlase might make it to the rookie.
40 is still potentially quite a good pick, in years gone past that’s been about where our 2nd pick has landed.
If we get to 40 and would rather take Borlase, likely we sell 40 to the highest bidder and match later.
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
End of second round compensation pick for Atkins.
- Oct 3, 2003
- 26,916
- 30,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
- Thread starter
- #10,764
Good post.
I think they're keeping options to do a couple of things. Turn 9, 22, 23 and 40 into three picks; and see if someone is there at 38 or so that we really rate.
We're not going to pass on someone we rate higher than Borlase just so we can add an NGA.
Not really, it's now confirmed that there are only 2 ways to retire a contracted player and we've had the second best thrust upon us due to list rules. I recall you and I asking the question as to how we retired Gibbs without keeping him on the list whereas we knew Tippett remained on Sydney's list.
First choice - have enough room in in cap to pay out final year and player is moved from the list completely.
Fall back - player moves to rookie list as you need to pay them in season(s) following retirement.
It's not smart business, its not a choice that we made, it's just what happens when your cap is maxed and you can't pay the player out in the current year's TPP.
How would it be any different if we'd been able to fit him into the TPP this year and paid him out? Are you suggesting that we only create the mid season draft spots if we've placed someone on our inactive list. So if the list spot was just empty after final lodgements you can't fill it in the extra drafts? That sounds a bit weird but is the logical conclusion to draw by your post that Gibbs remaining on the list is somehow canny.
One of the phantom drafts named Henry Smith for our rookie draft selection, does anyone know anything about him?
On SM-T590 using BigFooty.com mobile app
On SM-T590 using BigFooty.com mobile app
- May 16, 2015
- 13,047
- 17,453
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
He was rated earlier in the year. Would rather him on the rookie list to Strachan if available.
I thought it is a 3 year rolling thing. But we're maxed to the max anyway. It doesn't ease until end 2021. It's one of the few negative positions that we've been open about. Roo has said it and going short on max list size is a dead giveaway.
Sounds good from what I read about him, could be worth taking as we do have a good track record with rookie picks.
On SM-T590 using BigFooty.com mobile app
I still think Billy looked ok and did a few good things that showed he has enough talent. His raw stats aren't too dissimilar to Tex plus he can ruck and at least make a HO to Advantage a bit more difficult for opponent when doing so. Choice between him and Tex, I choose him as there's still improvement there, but I really choose neither as I'm going with Himmelberg and Fog as the only forwards who bring little defensive pressure.
- Jun 15, 2005
- 69,233
- 60,483
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- AUFC, Everton, Sturt
Fog actually does provide it, just not enough on a repetitive basis.
Surely not re-signing Brad has freed up considerable cash, $600K that hasn't gone anywhere else?
On Pixel 3 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Bean pole ruckman, classic rookie project type I think whilst he puts on the required 20kgs to be a competitive AFL ruckman.
In normal years, is probably certainty to get selected in the rookie list. This year, he may miss out just due to sheer lack of rookie spots with clubs rushing to list all their borderline senior list players as "rookies".
I doubt we'll draft him, especially since we don't have a rookie draft selection.
To avoid the argument, I included Fog as providing no defensive pressure. I agree that he does, but didn't want that to confuse the structural change I'm advocating. Only 2 key forwards that can't defend. If one or both can, then it's a bonus.
Similar threads
