Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

768 Excellent

About Bonkers

  • Rank
    Master Demon

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,499 profile views
  1. How in this day and age with professional sports science teams, physios & doctors on top of all of the other consultants outside of club level get the diagnosis about his calves wrong for over 4 years? Is this legitimately what has happened or is this spin to mask other issues he's had?
  2. SEN Article for those interested. https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/10/28/edmund-new-victorian-club-enters-the-frame-for-bennell/
  3. Well we aren't going to get pick 5 in return or course. But they need to pay something better than what's rumoured to have been offered so far. 6 and a pick under 12 this year would be more ideal.
  4. No what I'm saying is don't help a direct competitor obtain access to a player for a draft pick that doesn't have equal value to the one they're getting access to by helping them out.
  5. Our first round pick is now with North so we don't have one. The pick from GWS as a first round is likely to slip back to the mid 20's if they finish in the top 4 as the amount of NGA & F/S picks are high. You want a first round pick so you can take away clubs second and round picks? Really? Then why has the club given away its first round next year for pick number 8? That would be contradictory to the strategy to obtain a first rounder this year. You have a valid point about clubs not bidding etc. But if we were to obtain a first rounder from a club like GWS next year it doesn't really have first round value next year, why would you want to trade for it? Our pick that we traded for 8 on the other hand could have gone anywhere in the first round as our finish position next year is not as certain as GWS. GWS want a player like Young for example and they want Green who is in their academy. Why would we give them that opportunity just for a diluted pick in return? It has to be Win / Win to give them a leg up. Those proposing to only accept their first rounder next year are happy with giving GWS an advantage over the rest of the comp and us receiving chump change in exchange. It doesn't make sense to me. The club would be right in holding out for more in exchange. Giving up the rights to the 3rd best junior in the country for pick 6 and an even more speculative 20's pick next year plus giving GWS a crack at 2 top 5 picks doesn't appeal to me.
  6. Seeing as there is nothing else to look forward to again at this time of year as a Demon fan than who we will pick in the draft. I looked through Knightmare or Chris Doerre from ESPNs August 2019 draft rankings. He had Green at 2, Rowell 3, Ash 4, Gould 5, Kemp 6, Young 7, Devon Roberton 8, Flanders 9, Serong 10. Of note he has Stephens ranked at 19. Weightman is not even in his top 20. Where as Cal Thoomey has Weightman at 12, Dylan Stephens at 10. I'll be interested to see the November Phantom Drafts. But at this stage it looks like we couldn't really go past Kemp, Ash or Young at our current picks.
  7. If we took Weightman at 8 it seems like we'd be reaching a bit for a type/need rather than best available. I'm hoping that JT and the club just choose the best player available and target needs through trades and free agency next season.
  8. Next years first rounder won't have the value to help with a trade as most teams are unlikely to want a first round pick which will effectively be a 2nd round pick after academy and F/S selections. Essentially we would be trading for a swap of 3 to 6 and a second round pick. It's not really worth it when you consider if we were to do the trade it helps GWS more than it helps us. They get 2 top 5 players in a draft and we dilute our draft hand and get effectively a 2nd round pick next year. Who wins that deal? It's not us.
  9. I wouldn't do that. We probably don't even need pick 40 this year. GWS 2020 first selection is diluted so it won't help us much either. The value needs to be closer to what GWS will receive out of the deal from a net perspective. In effect if we help them out GWS are going to draft 2 top 5 rated players from this draft, they better be willing to offer up something better than that IMV.
  10. I'd much rather any of those scenarios mentioned than a devalued pick that we can't use for a year. We have the hand at the moment to bully GWS into giving us something we want. It would be stupidity to relent and give in to what they want.
  11. GWS first round pick could be pick 30 odd after father son and academy selections next year if GWS finish roughly the same position. If they're getting the benefit of 2 highly rated players from a generous deal from us the least we should get is the same for helping them out.
  12. Seems to be that way. Probably needs to work on his tank to get to more contests. At his size he's not going to be able to win as much of his own ball in tight so probably needs to work a bit harder on the outside to get a bit more involved and impact the game.
  13. 6, 40(Tomlinson), 59,60,80 & 94. They're probably looking at getting pick 30 for Patton from Hawthorn.
  14. I was reading earlier on the AFL website that if Jacobs nominates GWS as a free agent their Tomlinson compo will slide back to the 3rd round from the 2nd round. Alternatively they'd have to agree to a trade with Adelaide. Will this impact what they are capable of allocating to makeup the difference to pick up Green?
  • Create New...