Delistings

[Mick 1]

The variables are too many to say the draft will be shallow (overall, leaving individual clubs aside)

GC will be drafting for their needs, all clubs needs will be different in some way

GC have those juicy picks (to trade for hard bodies) that we're limiting ourselves by saying we dont have

GC can take up to 12 from the cordened off date range, will there be left-overs?

There are many reasons though why the draft is likely to be shallow compared to previous drafts. Another article today highlighting why and with our very own recruiting manager saying "potentially 33 per cent of the draft isn't going to be there with those under-17s out": http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...60/default.aspx

In terms of GC picks they don't have ANY picks this year so your second point is irrelevant for this draft. They only have access to 17 year olds outside of the actual draft. It's the impact of that as well as date changes that is having an impact and if you take away approx. 33% of players that would have been available in previous years it's pretty obvious that it's going to be a shallower pool of talent.

Prendergast also makes the point that "a lot of teams probably looked to load up on last year's draft and maybe they'll look the other way this year". That's why I don't think we will have a huge number of delistings this year (apart from the fact that I think most players bar 3 - 4 should be retained, notwithstanding trades)

[Geddy Lee 582]

Basic probability is a measure of the chance of statement being factual not that it is factual.

All I have suggested is making sweeping conclusions about the draft at this point based on an exclusivity period without seeing how the available draft squad develops is unwise.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...60/default.aspx

The changing landscape means Melbourne recruiting manager Barry Prendergast is planning for a weakened draft in November.

"It's not going to be as strong as last year by the sheer fact that potentially 33 per cent of the draft isn't going to be there with those under-17s out," Prendergast told afl.com.au.

[Trisul 664]

Fair call, the disucssion has been spanning 09 and 10. But you're right I was talking 09 and shouldnt have included that point (two points actually). Are those potential (botom age) 33% the 33% that get picked first round in a draft? Usally not. Maybe one or two of them. I guess I'm trying to say that while sure the draft may be shallow in raw numbers, I don't believe it will be shallow in available talent.

[Mick 1]

Fair call, the disucssion has been spanning 09 and 10. But you're right I was talking 09 and shouldnt have included that point (two points actually). Are those potential (botom age) 33% the 33% that get picked first round in a draft? Usally not. Maybe one or two of them. I guess I'm trying to say that while sure the draft may be shallow in raw numbers, I don't believe it will be shallow in available talent.

There are normally a few bottom age picks in the first round. If you have a look at this analysis of the last 4 drafts it's on average 5 players so close to 30%: http://www.afldraftinfo.com/2009/01/how-mu...9-national.html

It also shows the actual number of players from the U16 2008 Championships who have been ‘lost’ from the 2009 draft due to the rule changes: 114 (60 Div 1, 54 Div 2) total 2008 U16 championships prospects. It also lists the players and there are some very high quality players in the list.

So I think the impact really has to be that it is shallower in terms of quantity and quality and that seems to be the consensus amongst the real experts as well.

Anyway, we will have some early picks (hopefully 1 + 2) and hopefully we won't have to worry too much about overall depth. I really think we've bottomed out at the perfect time!

[beelzebub 23,382]

The short and quick of it al lis we are only interested really in ( assuming a last finish ) what picks 1,2 and 18 might garner...everything elsep past that is all but arbitrary really.

With a list incorporating the likely picks and an interesting trade ( or two ) we wil be as set up as we possibly canbe for a progressive build towards serious september action in 3-4 years

The relative shallowness of the draft wont really hurt us...its going to hurt a lot of other clubs though...damn shame huh

[old55 23,687]

Assuming that there's an even spread of talent across the year, the GC's abilty to pick 12 17yos will not pillage the 2009 draft pool.

The pick value is only dropping about 1 spot every 3 picks to a a maximum difference of 12 at a pick somewhere in the 3rd round.

So if we had 1, 2, 18, 34 and 50 - assuming the best 2 players are available e.g Scully and Butcher it'd be something like 1, 2, 24, 45, 62 in any other year

45 is somewhere between Bennell and Jetta and still offers good value, 62 is somewhere between Jetta and Bail and is worth considering.

Talk of pick 50 = pick 75 in any other year doesn't take into consideration that GC can only take 12.

Worst case for 18, 34 and 50 is 30, 46 and 62.

[rpfc 28,729]

Assuming that there's an even spread of talent across the year, the GC's abilty to pick 12 17yos will not pillage the 2009 draft pool.

The pick value is only dropping about 1 spot every 3 picks to a a maximum difference of 12 at a pick somewhere in the 3rd round.

So if we had 1, 2, 18, 34 and 50 - assuming the best 2 players are available e.g Scully and Butcher it'd be something like 1, 2, 24, 45, 62 in any other year

45 is somewhere between Bennell and Jetta and still offers good value, 62 is somewhere between Jetta and Bail and is worth considering.

Talk of pick 50 = pick 75 in any other year doesn't take into consideration that GC can only take 12.

Worst case for 18, 34 and 50 is 30, 46 and 62.

Those 12 come from the 2010 pool that the GC17 can pick this year.

The 2009 draft, as I and others have tried to explain a few times, is weakened because the draft eligibility has been pushed back 4 months.

Go to the MFC website and read the "In the nick of time" story, explains it pretty well.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,805]

"Buckley won't go."

Couldn't agree more, Clint. I reckon Buckley's a likely "Bluey" winner in the near future.

Either"Strawbs" or I, am a shocking judge.

[old55 23,687]

Those 12 come from the 2010 pool that the GC17 can pick this year.

The 2009 draft, as I and others have tried to explain a few times, is weakened because the draft eligibility has been pushed back 4 months.

Go to the MFC website and read the "In the nick of time" story, explains it pretty well.

You're right, I'm wrong.

1,2,18,34,50 is more like

1,2,27,51,75