2025 Draft Thread

[Mojorisin]

Draft points, even the updated system, is not the exchange rates that clubs operate in when trading picks for the actual live players though. It still values picks beyond around pick 20s far to greatly, especially in a weaker draft where you'd have rather taken a pick 40 (or whatever) in a different draft to a pick 33 in this draft.

For instance, Essendon live traded their pick 31 to swap around their pick 11 to 10. While Essendon obviously overpaid to specifically target Caddy, presumably Geelong had rejected a trade that was the equivalent of Essendon already paying more than 33 to move up from 14 to 8. That's a fair bit closer.

Personally and in neutral setting I arguably wouldn't accept say pick 22 + 14 for pick 8, let alone pick 33.

Nothing is as simple as what I laid out in the real thing but pick 33 has 6 picks immediately before it that could be swallowed up by bids. I'd imagine any swap of picks also includes multiple future picks.

Edit to add Melbourne have been shopping around pick 8 in hopes of getting a future first. I would hope we dont include one at any capacity.

 

[dergert]

Isn't farrow treacle slow?

 

[Mojorisin]

Isn't farrow treacle slow?

No. He has decent speed and good agility, he lacks endurance which is why he has spent more time at half-back then he has in the midfield.

 

[weltschmerz]

Isn't farrow treacle slow?

Nah, he’s certainly not slow. The slow half-back we’ve been linked to is Josh Lindsay.

 

[bulldogs201616]

Nah, he’s certainly not slow. The slow half-back we’ve been linked to is Josh Lindsay.

And he isn't even slow that's the funny thing.

 

[iambrilliant]

Draft points, even the updated system, is not the exchange rates that clubs operate in when trading picks for the actual live players though. It still values picks beyond around pick 20s far to greatly, especially in a weaker draft where you'd have rather taken a pick 40 (or whatever) in a different draft to a pick 33 in this draft.

For instance, Essendon live traded their pick 31 to swap around their pick 11 to 10. While Essendon obviously overpaid to specifically target Caddy, presumably Geelong had rejected a trade that was the equivalent of Essendon already paying more than 33 to move up from 14 to 8. That's a fair bit closer.

Personally and in neutral setting I arguably wouldn't accept say pick 22 + 14 for pick 8, let alone pick 33.

Rumour is the dees are keen on Pickett and Nairn . 8 is too early to grab either of them so why not grab the 14 grab Pickett and then Nairn at 33

 

[Mojorisin]

Rumour is the dees are keen on Pickett and Nairn . 8 is too early to grab either of them so why not grab the 14 grab Pickett and then Nairn at 33

threenewpadlocks is right they will want extra aswell but the logic is definitely there. From a dogs perspective though I dont want to give up what it potentially costs us next year.

 

[iambrilliant]

threenewpadlocks is right they will want extra aswell but the logic is definitely there. From a dogs perspective though I dont want to give up what it potentially costs us next year.

Have you heard of us linked to any other players from your source mate ?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Rumour is the dees are keen on Pickett and Nairn . 8 is too early to grab either of them so why not grab the 14 grab Pickett and then Nairn at 33

Because they could do a very similar trade but for better picks at other clubs.

Just as an example GWS's current holding of pick 12 and 35 is a marginally but absolutely better offer than our 14 and 33, with the difference between 12 and 14 naturally greater than the difference between 33 and 35. The way that I and Melbourne should value picks is that to bump up a pick in the 12-14 range up to pick 8, you need to be offering a pick in the early-mid 20's, not the late 20s or early mid 30s, for it to be a balanced value trade (irrespective of whatever the draft value points says, it's not a reflection of actual reality of the value of this draft in real life with the list spots, actual players avaliable etc.). So GWS are offering marginally more than us, but still making a valuable trade. Rinse and repeat with other clubs until Melbourne are able to make the trade for pick 12 and pick 23, not pick 12 and 33 (or equivalent).

Geelong successfully held out initial bids for their pick 10 that until they were able to get 11+31. Geelong gambled and won that Essendon would pay overs - they could have accepted a fair trade otherwise - but the point remains that either way that they didn't have to accept unders, like we're asking Melbourne too here.

Look at what we paid for pick 6 for Sanders as another example - multiple picks in the late teens and 20s to trade up.

IMO eyeballing the DVI points system - even the new one for this year - it still drops off picks worth too much in the top 20, but also not fast enough for the next 20 picks. It gives far too much value to picks beyond pick 25, but doesn't actually value picks from pick 5-10 enough relative to the top 5. Ergo when you punch in the calculator a pick in the 30s (draft values it too much) as part of a deal for between pick 5-10ish (probably more valuable than DVI), it's going to come up with some weird calculations when compared to actual reality.

Of course we can and should make the offer, but Melbourne would almost certainly be able to get a better trade elsewhere (more complicated than the example I gave above once you put future picks etc. but you get the logic).

 

[Dav1d]

Yeah Lindsay isn’t slow
He just looks slow because of his stocky build

 

[iambrilliant]

Because they could do a very similar trade but for better picks at other clubs.

Just as an example GWS's current holding of pick 12 and 35 is a marginally but absolutely better offer than our 14 and 33, with the difference between 12 and 14 naturally greater than the difference between 33 and 35. The way that I and Melbourne should value picks is that to bump up a pick in the 12-14 range up to pick 8, you need to be offering a pick in the early-mid 20's, not the late 20s or early mid 30s, for it to be a balanced value trade (irrespective of whatever the draft value points says, it's not a reflection of actual reality of the value of this draft in real life with the list spots, actual players avaliable etc.). So GWS are offering marginally more than us, but still making a valuable trade. Rinse and repeat with other clubs until Melbourne are able to make the trade for pick 12 and pick 23, not pick 12 and 33 (or equivalent).

Geelong successfully held out initial bids for their pick 10 that until they were able to get 11+31. Geelong gambled and won that Essendon would pay overs - they could have accepted a fair trade otherwise - but the point remains that either way that they didn't have to accept unders, like we're asking Melbourne too here.

Look at what we paid for pick 6 for Sanders as another example - multiple picks in the late teens and 20s to trade up.

IMO eyeballing the DVI points system - even the new one for this year - it still drops off picks worth too much in the top 20, but also not fast enough for the next 20 picks. It gives far too much value to picks beyond pick 25, but doesn't actually value picks from pick 5-10 enough relative to the top 5. Ergo when you punch in the calculator a pick in the 30s (draft values it too much) as part of a deal for between pick 5-10ish (probably more valuable than DVI), it's going to come up with some weird calculations when compared to actual reality.

Of course we can and should make the offer, but Melbourne would almost certainly be able to get a better trade elsewhere (more complicated than the example I gave above once you put future picks etc. but you get the logic).

This makes sense mate . Thanks for clearing it up

 

[Mojorisin]

Because they could do a very similar trade but for better picks at other clubs.

Just as an example GWS's current holding of pick 12 and 35 is a marginally but absolutely better offer than our 14 and 33, with the difference between 12 and 14 naturally greater than the difference between 33 and 35. The way that I and Melbourne should value picks is that to bump up a pick in the 12-14 range up to pick 8, you need to be offering a pick in the early-mid 20's, not the late 20s or early mid 30s, for it to be a balanced value trade (irrespective of whatever the draft value points says, it's not a reflection of actual reality of the value of this draft in real life with the list spots, actual players avaliable etc.). So GWS are offering marginally more than us, but still making a valuable trade. Rinse and repeat with other clubs until Melbourne are able to make the trade for pick 12 and pick 23, not pick 12 and 33 (or equivalent).

Geelong successfully held out initial bids for their pick 10 that until they were able to get 11+31. Geelong gambled and won that Essendon would pay overs - they could have accepted a fair trade otherwise - but the point remains that either way that they didn't have to accept unders, like we're asking Melbourne too here.

Look at what we paid for pick 6 for Sanders as another example - multiple picks in the late teens and 20s to trade up.

IMO eyeballing the DVI points system - even the new one for this year - it still drops off picks worth too much in the top 20, but also not fast enough for the next 20 picks. It gives far too much value to picks beyond pick 25, but doesn't actually value picks from pick 5-10 enough relative to the top 5. Ergo when you punch in the calculator a pick in the 30s (draft values it too much) as part of a deal for between pick 5-10ish (probably more valuable than DVI), it's going to come up with some weird calculations when compared to actual reality.

Of course we can and should make the offer, but Melbourne would almost certainly be able to get a better trade elsewhere (more complicated than the example I gave above once you put future picks etc. but you get the logic).

I know Melbourne have been shopping the pick around and I know they want a future first involved with it. I also know they were the ones to approach the dogs about a trade for that pick since we were interested in it when it was owned by the suns. I don’t know however what picks that trade involved, if our future first was involved or if they were going to ontrade some of what we gave them as part of a deal for a F1.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I know Melbourne have been shopping the pick around and I know they want a future first involved with it. I also know they were the ones to approach the dogs about a trade for that pick since we were interested in it when it was owned by the suns. I don’t know however what picks that trade involved, if our future first was involved or if they were going to ontrade some of what we gave them as part of a deal for a F1.

True, but I'm still making the point that they want to dump the pick so badly that they'd accept it without a F1 and might accept a trade that is 'unders', there's still options for them that are slightly less unders than the unders we would offer. If we won't budge on offering anything more than Pick 14+33, GWS would do a trade for pick 12+35 for pick 8 in a heartbeat. Both are unders for pick 8, GWS offer is still marginally better than ours.

 

[glenashley]

Farrow saying our jumper is elite and Bontempelli is his favourite player, it hurts because I really wanted him and expect that’s why we were okay trading down a couple of picks.

IIRC he doesn't follow any AFL team specifically which is interesting.

 

[Dav1d]

Oliver Greeves or Josh Lindsay, both available at our pick. Who do you pick between the two and why? No you can’t trade the pick out

I think it’s fairly close for me between the two with only Greeves not been an immediate need because we took a player like him in Hynes last year
So for that reason I’d take Lindsay out of the two but I’d like to hear others thoughts

 

[iambrilliant]

Oliver Greeves or Josh Lindsay, both available at our pick. Who do you pick between the two and why? No you can’t trade the pick out

I think it’s fairly close for me between the two with only Greeves not been an immediate need because we took a player like him in Hynes last year
So for that reason I’d take Lindsay out of the two but I’d like to hear others thoughts

From rookie me central - Oliver Greeves
IMPROVEMENTS:

• Defensive transition
• Speed

Possibly the 2 biggest weaknesses from our afl side. So he would fit right in

 

[Bonti 5416]

Would love to know Lindsays combine actual results. Anyone know them or can point me in the right direction?

 

[Bald Headed Flog]

Oliver Greeves or Josh Lindsay, both available at our pick. Who do you pick between the two and why? No you can’t trade the pick out

I think it’s fairly close for me between the two with only Greeves not been an immediate need because we took a player like him in Hynes last year
So for that reason I’d take Lindsay out of the two but I’d like to hear others thoughts

I’d pass

 

[Ash1337]

From rookie me central - Oliver Greeves
IMPROVEMENTS:

• Defensive transition
• Speed

Possibly the 2 biggest weaknesses from our afl side. So he would fit right in

It's not that he's doesn't have speed. He tends to cruise instead of gut run. Something that can be taught out of him.

 

[dergert]

Really want Gabrielle Stumpf at our first

 

[Bonti 5416]

Interesting that Chris Cavanagh linked us to all of Josh Lindsay, Jacob Farrow, Oskar Taylor, Noah Hibbins-Hargeaves and Lachlan Carmichael in his most recent mock today.

Had us actually taking Josh Lindsay and Marcus Krasnadamskis.

From that list only Farrow was off the board at our first. Curious as how people would order them….

For me Farrow, NHH, Lindsay, Taylor, Carmichael.

I like the idea of us taking MK knowing that ruckmen take 4–5 years at a minimum. Love that he is a competitive, athletic freak who only switched back to AFL this year after representing Aus in bball in the past

 

[stefoid]

On extremely limited evidence, Im worried that Lindsay is a good decision maker and precise kick of the footy... unless pressured.

 

[Bonti 5416]

On extremely limited evidence, Im worried that Lindsay is a good decision maker and precise kick of the footy... unless pressured.

Josh Lindsay
State: Victoria Country
State League Club: Geelong Falcons
Community Club: Newtown & Chilwell
Date of Birth: 07/04/2007
Height: 183cm

A left-footed defender with a lethal boot, Lindsay has been a strong performer across recent years. Won the medal as Team Heppell’s best player in the Marsh AFL National Futures match last year and then added the medal as the Australia U18 team’s best player in its win over VFL side Coburg this year. He continued his excellent form into the National Championships with Victoria Country, using his speed and crisp decision making to set up the play from the back half. Courageous in the air and a standout leader, he averaged 21.8 disposals at 76 percent efficiency and was among his team’s best players against both Western Australia and South Australia. Capped his year by winning All Australian honours and being named in the Coates Talent League Team of the Year.

Thats Shifters write up. I feel like you don't get those sort of accolades unless you earn them. Granted, Projecting next level is an entirely different thing but he has performed extremely well.
Would love to know his testing results to help with the projection piece.

I feel like he would fit in pretty well as a Bailey Dale support then eventually replacement

 

[Dav1d]

Interesting that Chris Cavanagh linked us to all of Josh Lindsay, Jacob Farrow, Oskar Taylor, Noah Hibbins-Hargeaves and Lachlan Carmichael in his most recent mock today.

Had us actually taking Josh Lindsay and Marcus Krasnadamskis.

From that list only Farrow was off the board at our first. Curious as how people would order them….

For me Farrow, NHH, Lindsay, Taylor, Carmichael.

I like the idea of us taking MK knowing that ruckmen take 4–5 years at a minimum. Love that he is a competitive, athletic freak who only switched back to AFL this year after representing Aus in bball in the past

Farrow, Taylor, Lindsay, Carmichael and NHH

Yeah I’m not learning that name anytime soon for that ruck so I hope he comes with a nickname lol

 

[Mojorisin]

Interesting that Chris Cavanagh linked us to all of Josh Lindsay, Jacob Farrow, Oskar Taylor, Noah Hibbins-Hargeaves and Lachlan Carmichael in his most recent mock today.

Had us actually taking Josh Lindsay and Marcus Krasnadamskis.

From that list only Farrow was off the board at our first. Curious as how people would order them….

For me Farrow, NHH, Lindsay, Taylor, Carmichael.

I like the idea of us taking MK knowing that ruckmen take 4–5 years at a minimum. Love that he is a competitive, athletic freak who only switched back to AFL this year after representing Aus in bball in the past

Farrow, Taylor, Lindsay NHH, Carmichael.