List Mgmt. 2020 Draft (December 9) discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Our currently owned picks:

24 - Blake Coleman
43 - Harry Sharp
48 - Henry Smith

Our currently owned 2021 picks:

1st (MEL), 1st (BRI), 3rd (WCE), 3rd (BRI), 4th (MEL), 4th (COL), 5th (BRI)
 
Last edited:
In fairness they let them wallow for quite a few years before they actually did anything. They got a big leg up last year but they just could not hang onto players year after year. Those concessions finish this year so we should be back onto a similar playing field next year.
Don’t the Suns still have a priority pick after the 1st round available hopefully they turn it around and improve but others have been let to wallow for a lot longer and had hardly got anything
 
I’m genuinely interested in, do we leave Sharp and Smith at home to finish their schooling?

Both are in good systems, and I don’t believe there’s a need to get them to the club during the school year.

We can bring them up after Christmas for the beginning of preseason, then they can head home when school starts.

Reading Harry Sharp's reviews - leaving him at home under a kicking coach and fitness/bulk up program for 2021 sounds best. We'll have a great wingman option for 2022.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Drafting someone still in school only begs the question for a longer draft contract. Look at it this way: the grade 11 players we signed will spend the next year finishing their school off, while the year after that they would have to be introduced to our reserves team. Effectively, the 2 year contract with them won't see them play any senior football with us.
 
Drafting someone still in school only begs the question for a longer draft contract. Look at it this way: the grade 11 players we signed will spend the next year finishing their school off, while the year after that they would have to be introduced to our reserves team. Effectively, the 2 year contract with them won't see them play any senior football with us.
Adelaide drafted Danger when he hadn’t finished he’s school years
 
I'm not sure what we were even supposed to do to improve our draft with the hand we entered it holding. Ideally we would have had a pick before the Coleman bid but that's hardly in our control and one team seemingly went out of their way, perhaps maliciously or because they genuinely thought we wouldn't match at that point, to bid on him. After that we did what we could to improve our later picks and took two development prospects. Not particularly exciting but that's to be expected as a finals calibre team. Don't think too many finals teams are aiming to instantly improve their 22 for the following year using the draft.
Yeah, it's a tough one. We all want to analyse it, but how do you analyse something done by professionals as an amateur? I usually try to look at the overall picture of ins and outs, and then judge the draftees not by who we selected, but where. It's also tough to know because, particularly recently, communication out of the club has been pretty bad. Beyond getting Conole on the podcast, you don't tend to get much on it.

I would suggest that there are potentially a few options we may or may not have had:
- It was pretty well advertised that the Pies were interested in Coleman. Did we have the relationships around the league to know that they were calling around trying to get back in for another pick roughly where Coleman was valued? Could we have got in before them?
- We clearly had a backup plan with the Freo trade, and we leveraged that for more points. If we were expecting a trade there, is there are chance we could've traded that pick out completely, into 2021? Maybe a late 2nd rounder next year instead (points depending)?
- Even if we couldn't do any of that - as you said, we may not have been able to do anything with the draft hand we went in with... but we were the ones responsible for going in with that hand. Based on where a bid came (which they should've had a decent idea about beforehand), why did we have a pick in that spot? If we had pick 29 (roughly), then why didn't we do different moves in the trade period to have 21 (roughly) instead? Even at the expense of another pick, it'd have worked out better. Basically, we left ourselves with a pick in the worst possible range, and even though we mitigated that reasonably, we clearly had the wrong read on the market in order to have that pick there.

Of course, this is all speculative, and I'm not suggesting that I would've done better. I've no idea what was and wasn't known, what avenues the club attempted. But at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say that it wasn't the best result.

Still, we're near the top, and even with a fairly average off-season (hopefully except for Daniher), we're still in a prime spot for season 2021.
 
Drafting someone still in school only begs the question for a longer draft contract. Look at it this way: the grade 11 players we signed will spend the next year finishing their school off, while the year after that they would have to be introduced to our reserves team. Effectively, the 2 year contract with them won't see them play any senior football with us.

The players took the risk though. They could've finished school and then nominated for the draft
 
Drafting someone still in school only begs the question for a longer draft contract. Look at it this way: the grade 11 players we signed will spend the next year finishing their school off, while the year after that they would have to be introduced to our reserves team. Effectively, the 2 year contract with them won't see them play any senior football with us.
I don’t believe either will be a potential flight risk, and more likely they re-sign on minimum contracts as development players.
 
I'm not against it. I actually believe all draftees should be signed to a 3 year contract. In situations like this, it only makes more sense.

First round 4 year contracts, 2nd round 3 year and 2 years for all draftees beyond that imo.
 
Yeah, it's a tough one. We all want to analyse it, but how do you analyse something done by professionals as an amateur? I usually try to look at the overall picture of ins and outs, and then judge the draftees not by who we selected, but where. It's also tough to know because, particularly recently, communication out of the club has been pretty bad. Beyond getting Conole on the podcast, you don't tend to get much on it.

I would suggest that there are potentially a few options we may or may not have had:
- It was pretty well advertised that the Pies were interested in Coleman. Did we have the relationships around the league to know that they were calling around trying to get back in for another pick roughly where Coleman was valued? Could we have got in before them?
- We clearly had a backup plan with the Freo trade, and we leveraged that for more points. If we were expecting a trade there, is there are chance we could've traded that pick out completely, into 2021? Maybe a late 2nd rounder next year instead (points depending)?
- Even if we couldn't do any of that - as you said, we may not have been able to do anything with the draft hand we went in with... but we were the ones responsible for going in with that hand. Based on where a bid came (which they should've had a decent idea about beforehand), why did we have a pick in that spot? If we had pick 29 (roughly), then why didn't we do different moves in the trade period to have 21 (roughly) instead? Even at the expense of another pick, it'd have worked out better. Basically, we left ourselves with a pick in the worst possible range, and even though we mitigated that reasonably, we clearly had the wrong read on the market in order to have that pick there.

Of course, this is all speculative, and I'm not suggesting that I would've done better. I've no idea what was and wasn't known, what avenues the club attempted. But at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say that it wasn't the best result.

Still, we're near the top, and even with a fairly average off-season (hopefully except for Daniher), we're still in a prime spot for season 2021.

I don’t know how much you can predict Collingwood trading back in, bidding and trading back out. They gave up a future first for that privilege (makes sense for them re Daicos) and I don’t think we could have matched their trade offer and nor should we. There is still a chance if we kept our original picks they may have bid on Coleman, knowing we might have still matched. That’s only the second live trade to involve a first rounder so actually getting up earlier is hard to pull off.

Re trading out for a future second or something I wouldn’t want to accept pick 30 in this years draft for a future 2 if I’m most clubs. Additionally, we had to match the bid this year as any deficit would apply to our first next year as Coleman counted as a first round pick. We probably would have been fine points wise (I didn’t bother trying to work it ou) but definitely wouldn’t have got picks in the 40s in.

At th end of the day we clearly preferred to acquire a potentially premium asset for next year rather than a couple of players in the 20s this year. I have no clue as to whether that is the right approach or not but on the surface that seems a reasonable strategy for a club in our position.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

First round 4 year contracts, 2nd round 3 year and 2 years for all draftees beyond that imo.

Provided you get the pay scale correct I’m broadly in favour of that. Then get rid of restricted free agency and lower eligibility to 6 years and you are away.
 
Yeah, it's a tough one. We all want to analyse it, but how do you analyse something done by professionals as an amateur? I usually try to look at the overall picture of ins and outs, and then judge the draftees not by who we selected, but where. It's also tough to know because, particularly recently, communication out of the club has been pretty bad. Beyond getting Conole on the podcast, you don't tend to get much on it.

I would suggest that there are potentially a few options we may or may not have had:
- It was pretty well advertised that the Pies were interested in Coleman. Did we have the relationships around the league to know that they were calling around trying to get back in for another pick roughly where Coleman was valued? Could we have got in before them?
- We clearly had a backup plan with the Freo trade, and we leveraged that for more points. If we were expecting a trade there, is there are chance we could've traded that pick out completely, into 2021? Maybe a late 2nd rounder next year instead (points depending)?
- Even if we couldn't do any of that - as you said, we may not have been able to do anything with the draft hand we went in with... but we were the ones responsible for going in with that hand. Based on where a bid came (which they should've had a decent idea about beforehand), why did we have a pick in that spot? If we had pick 29 (roughly), then why didn't we do different moves in the trade period to have 21 (roughly) instead? Even at the expense of another pick, it'd have worked out better. Basically, we left ourselves with a pick in the worst possible range, and even though we mitigated that reasonably, we clearly had the wrong read on the market in order to have that pick there.

Of course, this is all speculative, and I'm not suggesting that I would've done better. I've no idea what was and wasn't known, what avenues the club attempted. But at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say that it wasn't the best result.

Still, we're near the top, and even with a fairly average off-season (hopefully except for Daniher), we're still in a prime spot for season 2021.

- Probably impossible to gauge without inside knowledge. I'm sure with the media scuttlebutt we expected a Pies bid and may well have tried to get up the order but it's notoriously difficult to trade up and even more so when you've moved most of your holdings to the next draft, we really didn't have anything of value we'd be willing to give up to get ahead of a bid
- Maybe. Again, we'd need some inside info
- I tend to think we were accepting of what may come. From our earlier pick trades it was clear we would rather invest in next year's draft which makes a lot of sense as we're already one of the youngest squads in the league and far and away the youngest of the finals teams. Got plenty of talent, much developed but AFL untested on the list already and to boot this draft was heavily compromised due to the numerous academy picks.

You're right it's all speculative but as amateurs it is fun to discuss. I still think after this off season we've come out on top. We didn't lose any best 22 players, we gained a forward that can be top 3 in the league by position and a talented, pacy and versatile player we've been after for years. Our depth shouldn't really be tested because the players we did lose, that weren't 22, we've got a fair amount of similar types already on the list.
 
I don’t know how much you can predict Collingwood trading back in, bidding and trading back out. They gave up a future first for that privilege (makes sense for them re Daicos) and I don’t think we could have matched their trade offer and nor should we. There is still a chance if we kept our original picks they may have bid on Coleman, knowing we might have still matched. That’s only the second live trade to involve a first rounder so actually getting up earlier is hard to pull off.

Re trading out for a future second or something I wouldn’t want to accept pick 30 in this years draft for a future 2 if I’m most clubs. Additionally, we had to match the bid this year as any deficit would apply to our first next year as Coleman counted as a first round pick. We probably would have been fine points wise (I didn’t bother trying to work it ou) but definitely wouldn’t have got picks in the 40s in.

At th end of the day we clearly preferred to acquire a potentially premium asset for next year rather than a couple of players in the 20s this year. I have no clue as to whether that is the right approach or not but on the surface that seems a reasonable strategy for a club in our position.
Pies would've been making some calls so there's a chance we could've got word from around the league, but you're absolutely right that we couldn't have beat them in a bidding war. Ideally, I'd have preferred us to do whatever we could've got get hold of their pick. GWS did amazingly well out of that trade.

Maybe we could've done similar to Sydney last year and moved out and in? No one really did that this year though, which means the AFL likely told clubs not to do that though, under extreme threat.

End of the day, I think the pick we had was just a poor spot for it. There were plenty of live pick swaps on the night, so I'd assume there was something could've been done, but ah well. I don't think we came out ahead, but as I said before, if there's a draft to come out of in a fairly average position, this was the one. We may have considered this draft a pawn sacrifice.
- Probably impossible to gauge without inside knowledge. I'm sure with the media scuttlebutt we expected a Pies bid and may well have tried to get up the order but it's notoriously difficult to trade up and even more so when you've moved most of your holdings to the next draft, we really didn't have anything of value we'd be willing to give up to get ahead of a bid
- Maybe. Again, we'd need some inside info
- I tend to think we were accepting of what may come. From our earlier pick trades it was clear we would rather invest in next year's draft which makes a lot of sense as we're already one of the youngest squads in the league and far and away the youngest of the finals teams. Got plenty of talent, much developed but AFL untested on the list already and to boot this draft was heavily compromised due to the numerous academy picks.

You're right it's all speculative but as amateurs it is fun to discuss. I still think after this off season we've come out on top. We didn't lose any best 22 players, we gained a forward that can be top 3 in the league by position and a talented, pacy and versatile player we've been after for years. Our depth shouldn't really be tested because the players we did lose, that weren't 22, we've got a fair amount of similar types already on the list.
Yep. Mostly agree.

End of the day, it all comes down to Daniher. If he thrives, we do well. And of course, like the Tom Boyd trade - if you get a premiership out of it, your plans were successful, no matter what was done.

I still don't think we've come out ahead, but completely agree that we haven't compromised our (hopefully) immediate success. Witho would've been good for depth, but you can't keep everyone, and while he'll likely do decently at WC, it's unlikely to be one of those ones you look back in hindsight and wonder about.
 
Pies would've been making some calls so there's a chance we could've got word from around the league, but you're absolutely right that we couldn't have beat them in a bidding war. Ideally, I'd have preferred us to do whatever we could've got get hold of their pick. GWS did amazingly well out of that trade.

Maybe we could've done similar to Sydney last year and moved out and in? No one really did that this year though, which means the AFL likely told clubs not to do that though, under extreme threat.

End of the day, I think the pick we had was just a poor spot for it. There were plenty of live pick swaps on the night, so I'd assume there was something could've been done, but ah well. I don't think we came out ahead, but as I said before, if there's a draft to come out of in a fairly average position, this was the one. We may have considered this draft a pawn sacrifice.

Yep. Mostly agree.

End of the day, it all comes down to Daniher. If he thrives, we do well. And of course, like the Tom Boyd trade - if you get a premiership out of it, your plans were successful, no matter what was done.

I still don't think we've come out ahead, but completely agree that we haven't compromised our (hopefully) immediate success. Witho would've been good for depth, but you can't keep everyone, and while he'll likely do decently at WC, it's unlikely to be one of those ones you look back in hindsight and wonder about.

Would've like if we could kept Witho too but I guess when we're able to re-sign Clugg, Starce and Bailey using those contract dollars it's a net win.
 
In fairness they let them wallow for quite a few years before they actually did anything. They got a big leg up last year but they just could not hang onto players year after year. Those concessions finish this year so we should be back onto a similar playing field next year.
They let us wallow longer yet the over correction has been absurd.

You say the concessions finish next year but I’m sure that doesn’t include the monopoly they wrongly have on the NT or am I wrong. If I’m not, then that is another unfair advantage / concession they retain.

Again where was our help from 2010-2018 when we wallowed for 8 odd years with no hope?
 
Genuinely excited to add Michael Carter next to Prior Jaxon. Well set to cover Rich Daniel and Birchall Grant in the near future. They'll look well in sync next to Andrews Harris.
 
Pies would've been making some calls so there's a chance we could've got word from around the league, but you're absolutely right that we couldn't have beat them in a bidding war. Ideally, I'd have preferred us to do whatever we could've got get hold of their pick. GWS did amazingly well out of that trade.

Maybe we could've done similar to Sydney last year and moved out and in? No one really did that this year though, which means the AFL likely told clubs not to do that though, under extreme threat.

End of the day, I think the pick we had was just a poor spot for it. There were plenty of live pick swaps on the night, so I'd assume there was something could've been done, but ah well. I don't think we came out ahead, but as I said before, if there's a draft to come out of in a fairly average position, this was the one. We may have considered this draft a pawn sacrifice.

Yep. Mostly agree.

End of the day, it all comes down to Daniher. If he thrives, we do well. And of course, like the Tom Boyd trade - if you get a premiership out of it, your plans were successful, no matter what was done.

I still don't think we've come out ahead, but completely agree that we haven't compromised our (hopefully) immediate success. Witho would've been good for depth, but you can't keep everyone, and while he'll likely do decently at WC, it's unlikely to be one of those ones you look back in hindsight and wonder about.

Yeah unfortunately without a future 2 we couldn’t do a Sydney and trade back in.

Daniher will cost less than Boyd potentially both salary and obviously draft pick wise as we got him as a FA. If he plays 3 fit years I think we’ve had an exceptional period.
 
IMO he has the tools to be a gun half back, in the McLeod mould.
He doesn’t have the line breaking speed but his kicking could carve opposition teams. He reminds me more of Kade Simpson.
 
I do feel a bit uneasy about where we ended up. Started with picks 17+18 and ended with an academy kids, two speculative punts late in the draft and Melbourne’s first next year.

Just think we could have done more with our first rounders. Won’t actually know for a while though how this year went.
 
Absolutely staggered by some Whinging On this board about how poorly we have done this off season . Are you kidding me ? Daniher elevates us right up there in terms of offensive power and if cockatoo gets fit he could be anything . We have 2 young midfielders in smith and Robertson who we can add through the midfield this year and we are pretty much set with exciting small forwards with the addition of young Coleman . Our list isnt lacking anything Now IMO I. If this young sharp can work on his football iq over the years then we are gonna have a bloke tearing it up on a wing nobody will go with him . All this and we have our first rounder next year in the 14-18 range and Melbourne’s which could be anything from a top 5 picks to around 15 . Take 2 good picks to draft next year and top up on more talent and then trim off some of the passenger in Archie smith , Mathieson etc .
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2020 Draft (December 9) discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top