List Mgmt. Christmas comes early (Nov 28 - 19 sleeps) - Draftee discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Wow.

Only way that happens is if he is out of contract and we have a very low psd pick.

You need to pay a premium for any ruck with potential. They are a rare commodity.
**** that

How can you draft them at pick 69, play them for only 13 games in five years, trade in an expensive replacement and then expect to get pick 38 in return??
 
Add Broadbent to that list.

From potential 1st rounder to rookie. Maybe.

Hopefully we have said we will draft him so dont go have too big a season. Shin splints are not fun at all.
We've interviewed Broadbent, I take that as we know he's talented perhaps just hampered by that injury.

Scully was kicking bags earlier in the year, but was playing against guys he had 10cm on. So when he got properly tested against taller better defenders, literally went missing.

Lemmey, has an issue that has impacted him and he's fallen off a cliff. I think someone will take the risk later.
 
Finished watching the Dragons vs Gippsland prelim game, last night.

Geez, some of the players for next year look very good! Further cemented in my mind next year looks like a bumper crop and we should be trying to get more picks into.

Will Brown (Sandy) a mid sized fwd/mid looked very sharp and talented. Expect him to go pointy end next year.
Ryley Sanders (Sandy), 184cm midfielder good agility and kicking. Looked a bit Lachie Neale like.
Archie Roberts (Sandy), midfielder will good skills and poise. Expect him to be a first rounder for next year.
Archie Reid (Gippsland), if Harley Reid is pick 1 this guy is pick 2. 201cm key forward who doesn't look to have a weakness, was taking marks out on the lead, contested, made two inside 50 tackles for holding the ball, snapping goals like a small forward. Seriously seriously impressive.
Zane Duursma (Gippsland), was quiet in this game but did a few nice things. But I've seen his talent before and he's very good.

Otherwise, for this years crop;
Humphrey was very quiet, lacked any real impact.
Konstanty another highly ranked who was very quiet.
Burgiel worked hard, but lacked impact.
Schuback who I previously didn't rate, as thought he was too outside. Proved me wrong and played really well.


Charlie Clarke was best on ground for mine, kicked 3 and set up countless others. He's got speed, smarts around goal and very good skills.
Ashcroft, did his usual 30+
Hotton looked very good in the contest, both by hand and foot and is quite good over head.
Mackenzie, had a few turnovers but otherwise was zipping out of contests and nailing passes.
Sheezel was every dangerous.
Hempel, had a few good moments. Still think he's got heaps of growth left in his game, long penetrating kick from defence.
 
So Jackson has asked for a trade back to WA but hasn't nominated a club.
I'm really starting to get the feeling that we might end up with him. Given the inherent risks with Wardlaw or Sheezle the club may think pick 2/Jackson is the way to go. It sounds like $$$ isn't that muck of an issue either. (I'm torn on the $$ side and no player is bigger than the club team - It has to have some balance)


If we end up with something like this, it looks pretty bloody good.

2. Luke Jackson
20. Elijah Hewitt/ Mitch Szybkowski
26. Issac Keeler/Lachlan Cowan
27* Olli Hotton/Henry Hustwaite
38. Kobe Ryan/Darcy Jones
 
PSD Jackson please, or downgrade 2 to 14 for Jackson. Use the leverage.

2 --> Jackson + 14
14. Hewett/Sybkowski/Phillipou
20. Keeler/Ginbey/MacKenzie
26. Gilbey/D'aloia/Ryan
38. Broadbent/Hagan
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So going back some 10 months ago, the AFL majority thought the Demons had won the trade of future first. Sorry - the mega deal with Saints, Dees, Crows and Dogs has now settled

1663049145923.png

With all clubs out of the premiership race. the conclusions can be drawn

Demons - a net loss of pick 50
1663048835591.png

Crows - a net loss of pick 49
1663048882388.png

Saints - a net gain of pick 67
1663048941161.png

Doggies - a net gain of pick 37
1663048980261.png

So Dogs got the big premium of pick 17 in points a 49% premium of nearly 500 points. A bit higher than I would have expected for pick 17 but I suspect Adelaide thought they would be higher.

So next time the football donkey reporters state who won out of trades, I have learnt to wait for the fullness for time before taking victory laps.

Well done Dogs, you did well.

I hope that the Lions do not expect the same.
 
So going back some 10 months ago, the AFL majority thought the Demons had won the trade of future first. Sorry - the mega deal with Saints, Dees, Crows and Dogs has now settled

View attachment 1507013

With all clubs out of the premiership race. the conclusions can be drawn

Demons - a net loss of pick 50
View attachment 1507006

Crows - a net loss of pick 49
View attachment 1507007

Saints - a net gain of pick 67
View attachment 1507009

Doggies - a net gain of pick 37
View attachment 1507011

So Dogs got the big premium of pick 17 in points a 49% premium of nearly 500 points. A bit higher than I would have expected for pick 17 but I suspect Adelaide thought they would be higher.

So next time the football donkey reporters state who won out of trades, I have learnt to wait for the fullness for time before taking victory laps.

Well done Dogs, you did well.

I hope that the Lions do not expect the same.

Well to wait for the fullness of time you need to wait to see what those draft picks are used on. If pick 17 is a gun and picks 23, 44, and 45 are duds, then the Doggies ****ed it up.
 
Well to wait for the fullness of time you need to wait to see what those draft picks are used on. If pick 17 is a gun and picks 23, 44, and 45 are duds, then the Doggies *ed it up.
So you want to revisit this deal in 2034 when ALL their careers are all done and dusted?

Nah - the point I was talking about is that of valuing future picks to current year picks. No need to go deeper into what those picks turned into as you do not know what the selling club would have done with those picks.
 
So going back some 10 months ago, the AFL majority thought the Demons had won the trade of future first. Sorry - the mega deal with Saints, Dees, Crows and Dogs has now settled

View attachment 1507013

With all clubs out of the premiership race. the conclusions can be drawn

Demons - a net loss of pick 50
View attachment 1507006

Crows - a net loss of pick 49
View attachment 1507007

Saints - a net gain of pick 67
View attachment 1507009

Doggies - a net gain of pick 37
View attachment 1507011

So Dogs got the big premium of pick 17 in points a 49% premium of nearly 500 points. A bit higher than I would have expected for pick 17 but I suspect Adelaide thought they would be higher.

So next time the football donkey reporters state who won out of trades, I have learnt to wait for the fullness for time before taking victory laps.

Well done Dogs, you did well.

I hope that the Lions do not expect the same.
Nicely worked out AsterixTheGaul , yet the fact that AFL Draft pick values are wrong screws up the perceived maths. (Later draft picks should be worth much less) Winder/Jamieson/O'neill/Foley ≠ Nick Daicos
I actually reckon Adelaide did best coming from the view that quality >quantity and often who you want 5-10 picks higher may still be there.

Adelaide-#14 #33 vs #23 #37 #44 I would throw a 3rd rounder any day to upgrade 10 spots into the first round.
WB- Get a couple of free 3rd rounders which is good business but you'd hope a guy you rate doesn't go during that slide from 17-23 (Sheldrick, Van Rooyen, Johnson from last year which were all good value there)
Saints- I guess they wanted more picks, cant argue with that.
Melbourne-#14 & #33 I'd much rather have than #17 #37 because you probably get the same player at 49 as you would at 45
 
* that

How can you draft them at pick 69, play them for only 13 games in five years, trade in an expensive replacement and then expect to get pick 38 in return??

Because he's looked pretty competent in those 13 games? Where he was taken is irrelevant now

I don't think anyone in the league would disagree that he's worth ~ pick 40, especially with such a dearth of ruckmen going around
 
Well that's stuffed up my plans for early retirement... next year's first it is!

Nup. Next years draft crop is much better than this years by reports.

Straight pick 2/3 is more than fair
 
Because he's looked pretty competent in those 13 games? Where he was taken is irrelevant now
I don't think anyone in the league would disagree that he's worth ~ pick 40, especially with such a dearth of ruckmen going around
If CCJ is worth pick 20 then Meek is worth a top 5 pick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top