Rumour GFC 2017 Player Trading, Drafting, FA, Rumours, and Wish lists - PT2

[Pure_Ownage]

Pretty much ... id say my criticisms would revolve around the loss of draft positions in 17 but mainly 18. Im not sure who is out of contract next year but I have little doubt someone will be going to load up a bit in next years draft ..even if its just a pick in the 30's or 40's. One pick before 50 in a draft acclaimed as 2001 revisited .. I doubt we would be happy with that.

Overall I have doubts on us being able to the difference at the draft table .the difference being what makes us a finals winner. I doubt Ablett is either. After all he was at his peak in 2010 playing a side that won the flag in 2011 and we still we routed by 41 points in a PF. I doubt he is the player he was then...and we are most certainly not the side we were. For me to go further the group and the side must play better together and Ablett can be the icing to that.

I know Wells said we were restricted on Sc.. I do wonder if we chose to be restricted so it sets us up to have a run at a FA next year? Maybe its an option , doubt we get Lynch or Sloane but without cap room we would have no chance.

Good post as usual Turbs. Couple of things: we have probably given up a 30s pick next year but the 2 x r3 and 2 xr4 we have next yr those 4 picks have combined points of a mid 20s pick anyway so we have done well there. Next year's draft will be largely about FS whether we kept our 2nd rnd or not so thats ok and we are not having 'open' picks in it unless we trade players for picks next year.

We also have more room to create cap next year because most of our fringe are OOC whereas this year they weren't which made them hard to move. For eg any or all of stanley black ghs thurlow (i doubt we will ever trade blicavs) menzel murdoch gregson ruggles will all be OOC you could move on most of them create 1-1.5mil cap easily and replace with kids and FAs.

I dont buy cap space as making watts etc impossible otherwise why meet with them. I think its more a case of we had some room but we werent prepared to pay what $ essendon etc were paying so we dropped out, while i would have liked a kpf those two were risky. Theres always an opportunity cost as next year's FA pool is much better than this year's (bar martin and fyfe) and the more players you sign now the less you can attack next year. Guys like sloane smith lynch mcgovern gaff dahlhaus gawn reid mcdonald lycett liberatore wallis roughead etc are all quality FAs next year.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

According to this article, he signed a contract extension earlier this year.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...e/news-story/f7a8ce16186cea2e28f27e02123e26c5

Only hayball and ruggles left unsigned i am fairly sure.

 

[Seeds]

I think what happened with House is he came back from injury and wasn't getting a kick as we weren't getting the ball into the forward line a lot, so they put him into defence to get him involved in the play, and he played so well he dominated probably much more than they expected. Be interesting to see if they leave him back or move him forward next year. The reality as I see it is currently none of House Black Buzza Sav Stanley are in our best 22 so either we put someone in the best 22 who isn't for the sake of structure or we run with a different forward structure. The good news is guys like Ablett and Danger are very effective as forwards and Richmond just won a flag with one key forward. So we can make it work.

so if house played so well in defence why is no one talking up him as a replacement for lonergan instead of gardner? i havnt seen the vfl so I have no idea.

 

[ChookNorris]

Boyd aint going anywhere. I'll give you another 4M reasons over 4 years why if you like.

This is a myth, it was 6 over 7. And it was frontloaded, he’s on closer to 600k now.

 

[year of the cat]

Good post as usual Turbs. Couple of things: we have probably given up a 30s pick next year but the 2 x r3 and 2 xr4 we have next yr those 4 picks have combined points of a mid 20s pick anyway so we have done well there. Next year's draft will be largely about FS whether we kept our 2nd rnd or not so thats ok and we are not having 'open' picks in it unless we trade players for picks next year.

We also have more room to create cap next year because most of our fringe are OOC whereas this year they weren't which made them hard to move. For eg any or all of stanley black ghs thurlow (i doubt we will ever trade blicavs) menzel murdoch gregson ruggles will all be OOC you could move on most of them create 1-1.5mil cap easily and replace with kids and FAs.

I dont buy cap space as making watts etc impossible otherwise why meet with them. I think its more a case of we had some room but we werent prepared to pay what $ essendon etc were paying so we dropped out, while i would have liked a kpf those two were risky. Theres always an opportunity cost as next year's FA pool is much better than this year's (bar martin and fyfe) and the more players you sign now the less you can attack next year. Guys like sloane smith lynch mcgovern gaff dahlhaus gawn reid mcdonald lycett liberatore wallis roughead etc are all quality FAs next year.

We seem to be banking a long way out that our FS will be worth taking. Other than perhaps Brownless, I'm not sure the others have shown enough to warrant that confidence.

I'm in Turbo's camp of being a bit miffed that we'd trade away a future 2nd in a supposedly great draft.

 

[BORIS332]

Yeah, I'd have Miers probably with our 2nd or 3rd pick, but he's not the typical Wells type - he's not overly fast or athletic or big, just has a good footy brain and good near goals. I'd be happy to get him. He will get picked up anywhere in 15-40 range.

I don't think Miers has the attributes for AFL. Also think Higgins will be a bust.

 

[BORIS332]

We seem to be banking a long way out that our FS will be worth taking. Other than perhaps Brownless, I'm not sure the others have shown enough to warrant that confidence.

I'm in Turbo's camp of being a bit miffed that we'd trade away a future 2nd in a supposedly great draft.

The 2018 draft is a long way away. Who's to say we won't trade back into the second round.

 

[Turbocat]

so if house played so well in defence why is no one talking up him as a replacement for lonergan instead of gardner? i havnt seen the vfl so I have no idea.

I think he has been mentioned a bit on here.. and few with "inhouse" (sorry for the pun) feedback on here ..seemed to think he had almost past Gardner. Thats doesnt worry me a jot to be honest. Gardner into year3 as long as he gets a game/games ... I still feel they made a choice not to play Hamling when he could have been given a shot... so year 3 Gardner to me is on track. House being older would probably feel he should be closer to being played.. surely one doesn't recruit these VFL type just to play VFL as a listed player.
I didn't see House form down back , there was commentary that he played that role in wa ..but I could see how he would be handy. He is a good mark at VFL level.. he is not Taylor but could he play a Harley role? Considering we have not recruited forwards... perhaps they switch him back and place their hopes on him

 

[Turbocat]

We seem to be banking a long way out that our FS will be worth taking. Other than perhaps Brownless, I'm not sure the others have shown enough to warrant that confidence.

I'm in Turbo's camp of being a bit miffed that we'd trade away a future 2nd in a supposedly great draft.

To be honest id have preferred ( they may not have had a choice mind you) to trade out a player/s , even if it hurt a bit and gained a couple of 2018 R2's.. Plenty on here hated us not going the trade in so id imagine they would hate that... and thats if it could be done.

Thats the difference between our system and UA with push trades.. Id have certainly pushed a couple of players towards Gold Coast to get more 2018 equity. Even clubs who would consider themselves on the up with room.. as bottom clubs may not want to let 2018's go ... and then academy players and FSon complicate it further.

So yes a bit miffed (good word) but I can also understand that they would have been under enormous pressure to get Ablett done. Clayton at the end yesterday looked like he had run a Marathon. Its rather simple to lay stuff alway at the feet at the likes of Wells. As he said yesterday.. so many deals have to go to the committee to be approved. How that works with in draft trading I have no idea. Our system.. id say it would be very difficult. Trying to achieve what they aim to when players can just stifle must be very restraining. Anyone who thinks its easy try one on this draft trade games on here... and see how you go getting the deals you want..and then imagine..adding a players consent o that..

On the FS. Someone on here said the club hopes expects Brownless to be an early pick next year.. if that happens where he is in the 20-30 range then we probably make up for it a bit.

 

[Turbocat]

The 2018 draft is a long way away. Who's to say we won't trade back into the second round.

Id expect us to have that as a possibility.. probably depends on the FS's.

 

[Turbocat]

Cheers!

What about Garner in your opinion?

Early days for phantoms but there is a lot of names form 20-40 that are shuffling..probably indicates not a lot between them. At 22 and 24... id expect us to be able to draft someone we have on our list in the 15-22 range at worst. Very important to not only nail the talent but to draft resilient and robust kids ... I do not think drafting unloved bargains due to injury is something we can risk.. so that rules out the Bonar type imo.

 

[DanA]

There are two rules that favour Geelong.

1. F/S attract a discount of 20% or 197 points....whichever is greater.
2. A points deficit of 1723 points is allowed (assuming no 2019 picks traded)

Eg:
Oscar Browless:
Hawthorn bid pick 20
Pick 20 = 912 points
Discount = 197 points
Points needed = 715 points needed
Geelong matches with pick 52 (246 points)
Points Deficit = 469 points

So we gain pick 20 in the 2018 draft a and pay pick 52 and a future 3rd.

If just one of the four draftees is worth a pick around the 20's, we're okay. And we make out like bandits if two or more of our father-son options are worthy of 2nd round picks.

 

[Strange Cat]

There are two rules that favour Geelong.

1. F/S attract a discount of 20% or 197 points....whichever is greater.
2. A points deficit of 1723 points is allowed (assuming no 2019 picks traded)

Eg:
Oscar Browless:
Hawthorn bid pick 20
Pick 20 = 912 points
Discount = 197 points
Points needed = 715 points needed
Geelong matches with pick 52 (246 points)
Points Deficit = 469 points

If just one of the four draftees is worth a pick around the 20's, we're okay. And we make out like bandits if two or more of our father-son options are worthy of 2nd round picks.

Cue the meltdowns and BF sooking for years again over the F/S rule if they turn out well

Can already see the posts and the threads

 

[nananana catman]

One of Ablett and Dangerfield up forward most of the time is an opposition coaches worst nightmare.

If Cockatoo has a good season and even Guthrie finds form... there could be times where it is 2 of them

 

[DanA]

Cue the meltdowns and BF sooking for years again over the F/S rule if they turn out well

Can already see the posts and the threads

It's going to be a mega melt.

I genuinely think it will be as follows:
Brownless -> pick 10
Hocking -> pick 25
Mensch -> Pick 30

GCS getting Scott.

Geelong trades it's 1st in a "super draft" for a 2019 1st + 2019 2nd.

Matches Brownless with pick 52 (870 deficit)
Matches Hocking with pick 54 (339 deficit)
Matches Mensch with pick 56 (237 deficit)
Carrying over a 1146 point deficit into 2019

It'll be the greatest melt of all time if that happens.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Early days for phantoms but there is a lot of names form 20-40 that are shuffling..probably indicates not a lot between them. At 22 and 24... id expect us to be able to draft someone we have on our list in the 15-22 range at worst. Very important to not only nail the talent but to draft resilient and robust kids ... I do not think drafting unloved bargains due to injury is something we can risk.. so that rules out the Bonar type imo.

I agree with your assessment!

Raynor
LDU
Cerra
Dow
Stephenson
Brayshaw
Fogarty
Brander
Higgins
Hayes

Probably the top ten in some order at this point IMO.

Ballenden
Naish

Will be drafted by Brisbane and Richmond respectively.

That's 12.

After that it seems to get a bit murkier but there will be quality from 13-30 IMO.

Twomey has in his top 25-

Coffield
Naughton
Clark
O'Brien
Constable
Allen
Balta
Garner
Petruccelle

Leading us to our pick at 22.

Twomey's 25 is not a mock draft and more of a form guide and I don't agree with all his assessments but those guys listed will be most likely 21 of the first 35 picked IMO

Worpel and Ling will go higher than expected IMO.

Which leads us to our pick at 24.

We are going to get a decent combination of players if we don't take a huge risk on, as you said, "unloved bargains".

I'd do Wooler at 35 though!

 

[Grimoz]

 

[Strange Cat]

Worpel and Ling will go higher than expected IMO.

Is Ling related to our Ling?

 

[cats_09]

It's going to be a mega melt.

I genuinely think it will be as follows:
Brownless -> pick 10
Hocking -> pick 25
Mensch -> Pick 30

GCS getting Scott.

Geelong trades it's 1st in a "super draft" for a 2019 1st + 2019 2nd.

Matches Brownless with pick 52 (870 deficit)
Matches Hocking with pick 54 (339 deficit)
Matches Mensch with pick 56 (237 deficit)
Carrying over a 1146 point deficit into 2019

It'll be the greatest melt of all time if that happens.

I don't believe that to be correct and instead you have to use your available picks to match the draft points and then after that you go into deficit - not that you can go into deficit for each potential selection.

The AFL used this the Heeney example to described the process for how it works under the points matching system:

Last year, Melbourne bid pick two for Isaac Heeney, which under the new system is worth 2517 points. After the 20 per cent discount, the Swans would have needed 2013 points to match the bid and move up to pick No.2.

To do that they would have used the 985 points assigned to pick 18, and the remaining 1028 points subtracted from their remaining picks.

In essence, they would have traded picks 18, 37, 38 and 57 for Heeney (at pick two) and pick 64, where their original pick 57 slid back to.

Picks 18, 37 and 38 would remain live but would be pushed to the end of the draft. The draft order would be updated.

And this from last year, from an article during trade week regarding the Pies:

The Pies' remaining selections in the first five rounds (No.47, No.65, No.83) are worth just 406 points under the father-son and academy live bidding system.

They are likely to bring in a later selection (potentially No.63) from the Western Bulldogs in a trade for Travis Cloke, which would add 112 more points to their bounty to use on the father-son picks.

Brown seems most likely to have his name called some time in the second or third round, which means if it came before the Pies' pick 47 they would get the 20 per cent discount afforded to the nominating clubs.

Collingwood would be able to match the bid with that pick and, if more points were required to match the bid, its next pick would get pushed down the order.

But if a bid came in about the same range for Daicos, a small forward/midfielder tipped to be taken anywhere in the pick 30-50 bracket, then the Pies could be forced to go into a points deficit for next year's draft.

So if Brownless has his name called at pick 20, we would we would use our first 3rd round pick to match, with the remaining points coming from our remaining picks.

If we have other f&s bids to match later and we run out of points to match, that if when we go into deficit for 2019 - and at the round in which the player was bidded on

 

[Pack Specialist]

Is Ling related to our Ling?

I don't think so.

 

[Deep]

And who knows how much $$$ Trengrove is on... He wouldn't be cheap either.

450-500

 

[DanA]

I don't believe that to be correct and instead you have to use your available picks to match the draft points and then after that you go into deficit - not that you can go into deficit for each potential selection.

The AFL used this the Heeney example to described the process for how it works under the points matching system:

Last year, Melbourne bid pick two for Isaac Heeney, which under the new system is worth 2517 points. After the 20 per cent discount, the Swans would have needed 2013 points to match the bid and move up to pick No.2.

To do that they would have used the 985 points assigned to pick 18, and the remaining 1028 points subtracted from their remaining picks.

In essence, they would have traded picks 18, 37, 38 and 57 for Heeney (at pick two) and pick 64, where their original pick 57 slid back to.

Picks 18, 37 and 38 would remain live but would be pushed to the end of the draft. The draft order would be updated.

And this from last year, from an article during trade week regarding the Pies:

The Pies' remaining selections in the first five rounds (No.47, No.65, No.83) are worth just 406 points under the father-son and academy live bidding system.

They are likely to bring in a later selection (potentially No.63) from the Western Bulldogs in a trade for Travis Cloke, which would add 112 more points to their bounty to use on the father-son picks.

Brown seems most likely to have his name called some time in the second or third round, which means if it came before the Pies' pick 47 they would get the 20 per cent discount afforded to the nominating clubs.

Collingwood would be able to match the bid with that pick and, if more points were required to match the bid, its next pick would get pushed down the order.

But if a bid came in about the same range for Daicos, a small forward/midfielder tipped to be taken anywhere in the pick 30-50 bracket, then the Pies could be forced to go into a points deficit for next year's draft.

So if Brownless has his name called at pick 20, we would we would use our first 3rd round pick to match, with the remaining points coming from our remaining picks.

If we have other f&s bids to match later and we run out of points to match, that if when we go into deficit for 2019 - and at the round in which the player was bidded on

Okay, but that sounds like the net effect is still the same. Exactly the same points deficit in 2018 leading to lost pick or picks in 2019.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Few ooc players that haven't been offered a new contract by their clubs. Wouldn't mind any of these 3 at least for depth if they don't re-sign.

Ben Lennon
Trent McKenzie
Josh Green (exactly what we need imo)

 

[CatTricks]

Any chance of us bring able to pick up all of Balta, Worpel, Miers and Sambono in the draft?

 

[DanA]

Few ooc players that haven't been offered a new contract by their clubs. Wouldn't mind any of these 3 at least for depth if they don't re-sign.

Ben Lennon
Trent McKenzie
Josh Green (exactly what we need imo)

Out: Cowan, Motlop, Lonergan, Mackie, Lang
In: Ablett

If we upgrade Z.Guthrie and use our first four picks that means we have no spots available as things stand. But I wouldn't be against adding Trent McKenzie and Josh Green and cutting Hayball and Ruggles.