The question of who you might delist is on one hand awkward and frought with inconvenient pitfalls and on teh other made easier when you consider who it is likely we are to bring on board. Possibly in other drafts where youto some degree are taking whats available ( no pun intended..lol ) this year it woulld seem we can all but lock in picks 1 and 2. On this basis the footy dept will know pretty much who they are taking now. There are standouts. if thee are the kind and calibre of players the FD are after then you realy only have to think who they will work with best. If as we all think ( well most) that is will be Scully and trengove ( in and under hard at it midfielders ) then who do they compliment...or vice versa who compliments them ? How many of what sort of any position or ilk do youkeep on your books accounting for the different ages/experience and the progression of teir respective developments.

Valenti certainly did his cause no harm yesterday and has more often than not shown himself handy...but is there room ? thats the 64 dollar question isnt it. If we were looking to get KPP's with picks then probably Valenti's position would be more assured.. but thats not the case. He might be good insurance..do we have the space ?

The question of who you might delist is on one hand awkward and frought with inconvenient pitfalls and on teh other made easier when you consider who it is likely we are to bring on board. Possibly in other drafts where youto some degree are taking whats available ( no pun intended..lol ) this year it woulld seem we can all but lock in picks 1 and 2. On this basis the footy dept will know pretty much who they are taking now. There are standouts. if thee are the kind and calibre of players the FD are after then you realy only have to think who they will work with best. If as we all think ( well most) that is will be Scully and trengove ( in and under hard at it midfielders ) then who do they compliment...or vice versa who compliments them ? How many of what sort of any position or ilk do youkeep on your books accounting for the different ages/experience and the progression of teir respective developments.

Valenti certainly did his cause no harm yesterday and has more often than not shown himself handy...but is there room ? thats the 64 dollar question isnt it. If we were looking to get KPP's with picks then probably Valenti's position would be more assured.. but thats not the case. He might be good insurance..do we have the space ?

My ideal would be to see the club do some 'pointless' pick upgrades (Exaample: player + pick 50 for pick 43 or player + pick 34 for pick 29), possibly for one or two of the following - Newton, PJ, Batram, Bell, Miller, and Dunn.

I'm not saying all of them should go, I am just saying that pick upgrades allow a club to move on a contracted player with little fuss if a replacement player is within its grasp (ie. on its RL).

If St Kilda want Batram (which was a rumour going around a couple of weeks ago) I would say that Batram and pick 33 for Pick 34 would be good because it would mean Valenti on the list in his place, and we don't suffer with a loss of a pick.

Basically, it would be Valenti and 33 for Batram and 34

It's hard to choose cause our list management is a mess.

Bruce will replace Robbo on the veteran's list.

McDonald's spot doesn't matter cause only a rookie can take his spot because no one else is eligable for the veteran's list.

Whelan and Wheatley have retired. So that free's up 3 spots pick 1,2 and 18.

We still have to make way for pick 34 and the elevation of Spencer. On form I would delist Newton and Miller.

I doubt we would choose pick 50 due to the lack of depth in the draft and unless their is a reasonable AFL player wanting to go home then I don't think we will pick up anyone from the PSD either if we did I would delist P.J.

Hopefully we delist players on a form basis instead of delisting players that are out of contract at the wrong time.

So I'm predicting that we will have 4 picks in the draft and and 4 new rookies. Valenti and Zomer won't get elevated.

Just realised that Hughes turn 23 at years end so he will be delisted and not elevated so my prediction is that we will have 4 picks in the draft, Spencer elevated and 5 new rookies.

McDonald retires and you have another spot on the list. It just impacts the rookie list. I think thats what you're saying.

You delist players on contract expiry not on form.

We will need more than 4 picks in the draft.

If we can't delist contracted players how on earth are we going to get more than 4 picks?

If we can't delist contracted players how on earth are we going to get more than 4 picks?

Its simple....delist uncontracted players...Miller, Buckley, Bartram, Cheney, McNamara are all in the gun potentially. If you have Robbo, Wheats and Wheels retiring/delisted then there's three off.

The other thought (but I dont give it much credence) is finding a home for a player at another club like rpfc exampled. Could we get rid of one unwanted player that way? Maybe but I severely doubt it.

Its simple....delist uncontracted players...Miller, Buckley, Bartram, Cheney, McNamara are all in the gun potentially. If you have Robbo, Wheats and Wheels retiring/delisted then there's three off.

The other thought (but I dont give it much credence) is finding a home for a player at another club like rpfc exampled. Could we get rid of one unwanted player that way? Maybe but I severely doubt it.

Fair enough. I thought you liked Buckley?

Fair enough. I thought you liked Buckley?

I said he is in the gun. I didnt say he had been shot out one end!

For mine, Miller, Bartram, Cheney and McNamara are off the list. They try and rookie McNamara. If they can engineer a trade for any of them...all the better.

I said he is in the gun. I didnt say he had been shot out one end!

For mine, Miller, Bartram, Cheney and McNamara are off the list. They try and rookie McNamara. If they can engineer a trade for any of them...all the better.

fair enough

I said he is in the gun. I didnt say he had been shot out one end!

For mine, Miller, Bartram, Cheney and McNamara are off the list. They try and rookie McNamara. If they can engineer a trade for any of them...all the better.

With Wheats, Whelan, Robbo, and Junior moving on that's...

Picks 1, 2, 18, 34, 50, 66, 82 and PSD1. If you elevate Spencer then take off 82.

I think it would unwise to take anyone at 50. I think it would malfeasence to take anyone at 66.

This is a weak draft and our list management should reflect that fact. It is a fact and you need to change your opinion or look a little foolish in around 2 months time.

With Wheats, Whelan, Robbo, and Junior moving on that's...

Picks 1, 2, 18, 34, 50, 66, 82 and PSD1. If you elevate Spencer then take off 82.

I think it would unwise to take anyone at 50. I think it would malfeasence to take anyone at 66.

This is a weak draft and our list management should reflect that fact. It is a fact and you need to change your opinion or look a little foolish in around 2 months time.

Has it been confirmed about Junior moving on?

From what I have observed (or not observed) , I am not sure Junior will be gone at year end. So I have cut the 4 players above on the basis that Junior staying takes up a spot on the list. On my scenario they would use pick 66 for Spencer and either draft with Pick 50, keep Cheney or elevate Valenti. I reckon they might use oick 50. If they keep Junior, I dont think that augurs well for a player like Valenti.

I am assuming they will use the PSD pick one way or the other.

I seriously doubt Melbourne will use pick 50.

The depth of this draft due to the new conessions is unbelievably thin, I reckon half of us would have been a chance to get rookied.

I seriously doubt Melbourne will use pick 50.

The depth of this draft due to the new conessions is unbelievably thin, I reckon half of us would have been a chance to get rookied.

A common perception, but thats not to say we couldn't be lucky and find a Simon Black at pick 50.

Its happened before.

A common perception, but thats not to say we couldn't be lucky and find a Simon Black at pick 50.

Its happened before.

He was pick 25 so it hasn't.

And pick 50 in this years draft is equal to pick 70-75 in a normal draft.

I would prefer pick 60 next year than pick 50 this year.

He was pick 25 so it hasn't.

And pick 50 in this years draft is equal to pick 70-75 in a normal draft.

I would prefer pick 60 next year than pick 50 this year.

Not specifically Simon Black and not specifically pick 50... well, yeah pick 50... but I was just saying that because there is a common perception that the 2009 Draft is weak doesn't mean we can't get a good player at pick 50. Simon Black was just the first name that came into my head.

Nothing venture nothing gained.

Edited August 18, 200916 yr by Enforcer25

I seriously doubt Melbourne will use pick 50.

The depth of this draft due to the new conessions is unbelievably thin, I reckon half of us would have been a chance to get rookied.

So you are not going to elevate any rookies then?

I would prefer pick 60 next year than pick 50 this year.

Splitting hairs without information.

While I haven't seen anything official, Bert Newton's show 20 to 1 on tonight has Robo described as "Former AFL Star".

Edited August 18, 200916 yr by Flying Cloud

It always has. I even brought it up to the missus tonight, saying how it's funny that last time it was brought up here on Demonland there was a massive kerfuffel.

Splitting hairs without information.

Do I have to have it in my signature?

The draft in 2009 is made up of kids born in an 8 month range, every other year it is the full 12 months.

Pick 60 next year would have a better chance than pick 50 this year of finding a talent.

We done?

It's a bigger range than 12 months isn't it?

The bottom age has been brought up by 4 months though hasn't it? Essentially leaving out at least 1/4 of the potential candidates.

It's a bigger range than 12 months isn't it?

The bottom age has been brought up by 4 months though hasn't it? Essentially leaving out at least 1/4 of the potential candidates.

45HG16 - I think you're great.

But, mate, there is a draft every year.

How could it possibly be more than 12 months?

And it's a approx. a third.

But there's not a maximum age for which you can register for the draft.

I do see my blunder!

Do I have to have it in my signature?

The draft in 2009 is made up of kids born in an 8 month range, every other year it is the full 12 months.

Pick 60 next year would have a better chance than pick 50 this year of finding a talent.

We done?

I was wondering why it seemed to be taken as gospel that this year's draft is shallow. I must've had my head under a rock, thanks for that.

I take back what I said about pick 50 in whatever thread that was in.

Do I have to have it in my signature?

The draft in 2009 is made up of kids born in an 8 month range, every other year it is the full 12 months.

Pick 60 next year would have a better chance than pick 50 this year of finding a talent.

We done?

Both choices you compare are 4th round picks. Its the speculative end of the draft with no certainty what your trawling until you have to use the pick. At that stage of the draft you sticks your hand in the lucky dip barrel and you take a punt.

As you pointed out you dont have to nominate a draft pick to elevate a rookie. On that basis pick 34 should be our last pick used.

Personally im not too keen on looking past 34. WhatI might be inclined to do is see whos left etc..or invite some smokies.. to the club... geta good look at them..and offer a couple to be rookied.

We know we will get two guns with our first two picks.. We have a bit of talent/potential still to come through. we wil undoubtedly add a couple of possibles with 18 and 34.. two more rookies should prove ok as far as our list goes this year. And if nothing else...its cheaper..

If St Kilda want Batram (which was a rumour going around a couple of weeks ago) I would say that Batram and pick 33 for Pick 34 would be good because it would mean Valenti on the list in his place, and we don't suffer with a loss of a pick.

I don't follow your rationale. You are suggesting trading an uncontracted player and going backwards on a pick, when we could simply delist him and keep the better pick. Why would anyone do that?

I would certainly be happy with trading a couple of unwanted contracted players and a pick for an improvement in picking order or for a player and lesser pick.