List Mgmt. 2015 Trade, Draft, Rookie Draft and FA Megathread

[dewah07]

2 problems: the discount is 20% and after pick 18 the discount is fixed at 197 points for all picks.

756 - 197 = 559 points needed

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

is the AFL site wrong?

 

[stavro#4]

Not a lot of damaging kicks in this draft. Below are some of the better options:

Parish....damaging run and carry game...probably gone

Tucker...damaging kick but not overly productive....a reach

Bonner....damaging kick but limited versatility to play mid....a reach

Francis....damaging by foot...might slide if we're interested

Ah Chee...damaging by foot but can't find a lot of the ball...a reach

Milera....see above

The club to my knowledge won't reach. They will take bpa and if it happens to be a tall forward we will just trade the one we like the least

 

[dewah07]

Toumpas is one of the worst AFL players going around, has no idea what to do off the ball and avoids contact. If Balic is anything like him...do not want.

the toump freaking killed us when he played us. played his best game ever, which wasn't the best outcome since me and my mates had the intention of letting him know about it at the game for being the worst player in the league and shouldn't even be playing vafa

 

[Periphery]

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf
View attachment 151073
is the AFL site wrong?

That's the rules before they updated them after talking to the clubs. Here's the most recent:
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

 

[dewah07]

That's the rules before they updated them after talking to the clubs. Here's the most recent:
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

cheers mate

 

[TheLastEmperor]

The club to my knowledge won't reach. They will take bpa and if it happens to be a tall forward we will just trade the one we like the least

Hmmm. Then Francis and Parish are probably the only two from that list we may get. Otherwise we settle for an average kicker or KPP. I'd actually be pretty disappointed if we picked someone like Weideman or McKay just cos we thought they were best avail..

 

[stavro#4]

Hmmm. Then Francis and Parish are probably the only two from that list we may get. Otherwise we settle for an average kicker or KPP. I'd actually be pretty disappointed if we picked someone like Weideman or McKay just cos we thought they were best avail..

So you hope we draft need base at our first pick even though there might be possibly higher rated players available? Reaching in the draft is dangerous in all sports and when you pick in the top 10 it's generally a poor decision. Bpa then trade the one you like the least if there is a log jam to fill a need IMO

 

[Barrels]

I'd rather reach for Collins than reach for a mid, unless that mid is an absolutely superb kick. Collins and Goddard is a fearsome defensive pairing going forward.

I've been keen on Tucker for a long time, but I'm now pretty firm in the belief that he's never going to make the transition to genuine mid at AFL level; that being said, he'll be a 200-game attacking weapon from half back.

 

[God Save Max King]

The club to my knowledge won't reach. They will take bpa and if it happens to be a tall forward we will just trade the one we like the least

That's the perfect way to do it in the rebuild. Pick the best available, just stock up on assets then trade the ones you don't want anymore. Sam Hinkie likes your post. We know that quality key forwards go for heaps in trades.

 

[Defacto]

Hmmm. Then Francis and Parish are probably the only two from that list we may get. Otherwise we settle for an average kicker or KPP. I'd actually be pretty disappointed if we picked someone like Weideman or McKay just cos we thought they were best avail..

i wouldnt be

mckay would definitely compliment our list and is something we dont have already. a fwd who can really hit the packs hard. he's an absolute brute who can run

 

[dewah07]

That's the perfect way to do it in the rebuild. Pick the best available, just stock up on assets then trade the ones you don't want anymore. Sam Hinkie likes your post. We know that quality key forwards go for heaps in trades.

unrelated but i just realised where your signature comes from, that videos too good

 

[TheLastEmperor]

So you hope we draft need base at our first pick even though there might be possibly higher rated players available? Reaching in the draft is dangerous in all sports and when you pick in the top 10 it's generally a poor decision. Bpa then trade the one you like the least if there is a log jam to fill a need IMO

To an extent, yes. I believe we selected Paddy last year on 'needs'. It wasn't the be all and end all but played a factor IMO.

Recruiters will like someone for a particular reason and justify their decision...doesn't mean 'needs' wasn't a consideration.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

I'd rather reach for Collins than reach for a mid, unless that mid is an absolutely superb kick. Collins and Goddard is a fearsome defensive pairing going forward.

I've been keen on Tucker for a long time, but I'm now pretty firm in the belief that he's never going to make the transition to genuine mid at AFL level; that being said, he'll be a 200-game attacking weapon from half back.

Collins at 6 would be a massive reach. But saying that I would be happier picking him than a KPF we rate similarly.

 

[stavro#4]

To an extent, yes. I believe we selected Paddy last year on 'needs'. It wasn't the be all and end all but played a factor IMO.

Recruiters will like someone for a particular reason and justify their decision...doesn't mean 'needs' wasn't a consideration.

My understanding was petracca and paddy were very very close. They then chose paddy due to the inflation of big men contracts. In situations like this that's ok. It's when there are better players available by a clear margin and you reach for a mid because you need one that I don't agree with

 

[Barrels]

i wouldnt be

mckay would definitely compliment our list and is something we dont have already. a fwd who can really hit the packs hard. he's an absolute brute who can run

I'm a huge fan of McKay - he was 'my boy' until the Hird Incident - but if you want a pack-smasher, he is NOT your boy.

 

[Periphery]

My understanding was petracca and paddy were very very close. They then chose paddy due to the inflation of big men contracts. In situations like this that's ok. It's when there are better players available by a clear margin and you reach for a mid because you need one that I don't agree with

There's also the rumors about Paddy performing way better in the interviews than Petracca. When assessing the best available talent it's important to factor in off field performance as well.

 

[TheJackal]

I think a concept which has been largely ignored thus far on here is the fact trading will occur prior to father son bidding, especially in our situation.

If Rice is genuinely thought to be a pick around our second (and both parties are keen), wouldn't we be better off trading that second round pick either up or down to get better value out of it? Meaning we either draft a better player in the teens and still get Rice with lower picks or we trade a player in and still get Rice with the downgraded pick.

 

[ronnysnodgrass]

Someone mentioned in another thread that GWS have ruck concerns now Mumford is up and down.

Given their wealth of Mid talent, would be it too ridiculous to hope that something like a Hickey + second round pick for Josh Kelly could happen?

I know people make valid points about wanting multiple rucks to provide backup for us, but it would be a huge boost to the team to add two gun midfield prospects into the side in one draft (first pick + Kelly)

Add to that the potential for L Weller the year after and Roberts your fathers brother....

 

[TheLastEmperor]

My understanding was petracca and paddy were very very close. They then chose paddy due to the inflation of big men contracts. In situations like this that's ok. It's when there are better players available by a clear margin and you reach for a mid because you need one that I don't agree with

I recall reading an article where they asked all 18 clubs who they would select with pick 1...16 said Petracca.

I'm happy with Paddy, don't get me wrong, just saying recruiters do consider 'needs' even if it's not overly discussed publicly.

 

[Barrels]

Can people stop trying to trade out Hickey?! It's just not going to happen unless there is a seismic shift in the market and our list demographics.

Jesus.

Longer goes down and we're rucking with an unproven international player or a completely unready kid. Makes no sense now whatsoever.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

Someone mentioned in another thread that GWS have ruck concerns now Mumford is up and down.

Given their wealth of Mid talent, would be it too ridiculous to hope that something like a Hickey + second round pick for Josh Kelly could happen?

I know people make valid points about wanting multiple rucks to provide backup for us, but it would be a huge boost to the team to add two gun midfield prospects into the side in one draft (first pick + Kelly)

Add to that the potential for L Weller the year after and Roberts your fathers brother....

It's a dangerous game targeting contracted players....GWS would want our FIRST and Hickey for Kelly....unless THEY approached us for a deal seeing as Hickey is contracted as well.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Can people stop trying to trade out Hickey?! It's just not going to happen unless there is a seismic shift in the market and our list demographics.

Jesus.

Longer goes down and we're rucking with an unproven international player or a completely unready kid. Makes no sense now whatsoever.

Agreed - you need quality rucks on your list and Hickey/Longer will have a healthy rivalry down the track. We only have those two on the list. Holmes and Pierce are handy back-ups. Holmes could play if both Hickey and Longer were injured but only for a couple of games........ Also we'll see what the impact will be if the sub rule goes. It would not surprise me to have the extra ruck on the bench, (yes they could still pick another mid/utility).

 

[TheLastEmperor]

Can people stop trying to trade out Hickey?! It's just not going to happen unless there is a seismic shift in the market and our list demographics.

Jesus.

Longer goes down and we're rucking with an unproven international player or a completely unready kid. Makes no sense now whatsoever.

It's a draft and trade thread Barrells, people are free to throw up trade suggestions. Just skim over them if you disagree or you are sick of seeing them.

 

[Defacto]

I'm a huge fan of McKay - he was 'my boy' until the Hird Incident - but if you want a pack-smasher, he is NOT your boy.

as you know i disagree with that

 

[Defacto]

Can people stop trying to trade out Hickey?! It's just not going to happen unless there is a seismic shift in the market and our list demographics.

Jesus.

Longer goes down and we're rucking with an unproven international player or a completely unready kid. Makes no sense now whatsoever.

same thing was said about mcevoy