Dees choose youth (except for Ball)

[titan_uranus 25,020]

According to The Age, we'll be using all our ND picks on kids, unless we choose to take Ball at 11 or 18.

Tim Harrington: ''We'll consider Luke Ball at 11 or 18. I think he'll be gone after that. But apart from him, we'll be youth,'' he said. ''We'll be focusing on new players outside the AFL system.''

This sounds like we won't be taking Thorp or Tenace.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/bl...8824626784.html

[45HG 1,549]

Thorp is 20 (deja vu)

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Thorp is 20 (deja vu)

Read his quote again: ''We'll be focusing on new players outside the AFL system."

[45HG 1,549]

I'm having a ripper day!

[rpfc 28,540]

I'm having a ripper day!

That's how I read it too (same as TU), but it is just an article so who knows what we will do with 34 and 50.

Go grab some lunch and you'll feel better...

[45HG 1,549]

Food is for the weak and I require redemption, perhaps I'll argue my way out (why not?)

As we're all aware of, Harrington is not going to show all our cards and even though our focus will be on players outside the AFL system, should those players have demanded our focus not be available when it's our turn to select, perhaps we would consider shifting our focus...

I doubt we're crossing players off as I believe the club is fairly keen on selecting the best available.

[rpfc 28,540]

I doubt we're crossing players off as I believe the club is fairly keen on selecting the best available.

He makes a lot of sense...

Well argued.

You have redemption.

Edited November 23, 2009 by rpfc

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Food is for the weak and I require redemption, perhaps I'll argue my way out (why not?)

Then that makes me very, very, very weak.

As we're all aware of, Harrington is not going to show all our cards and even though our focus will be on players outside the AFL system, should those players have demanded our focus not be available when it's our turn to select, perhaps we would consider shifting our focus...

I doubt we're crossing players off as I believe the club is fairly keen on selecting the best available.

This is all good. But could it not be possible that the FD has decided that, if the best available player at 34 or 50 happened to be Thorp, or Tenace, or some other delisted AFL player, we might just leave them be and draft the next best youngster?

Your argument sounds better though.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Then that makes me very, very, very weak.

This is all good. But could it not be possible that the FD has decided that, if the best available player at 34 or 50 happened to be Thorp, or Tenace, or some other delisted AFL player, we might just leave them be and draft the next best youngster?

Your argument sounds better though.

Can we Rookie either of them or are we all Rookied out?

[Toot182 7]

Can we Rookie either of them or are we all Rookied out?

Would probably depend on if someone picks up Meesen as it appears no one is going to touch Juice.

[old55 23,625]

We're obliged to rookie Meesen and Newton if they haven't been picked up.

We have pick 6 in the RD following 5 GC Rookie picks.

That means they both have to go in the ND, PSD or in one of the 5 GC RD picks otherwise we have to take one of them at RD6 and if the other one is still there at RD21 (or earlier if not everyone uses RD picks).

For example if Hawthorn wants Meesen they'll need to take him in the ND or PSD because otherwise we're obliged to pick him or Newton with RD6 before they get a Rookie draft pick. They might be willing to take the chance that we'll take Newton first but I wouldn't bet on it.

[praha 11,240]

Well, we kind of already knew that. If he is available at 11, and all of the players we hoped to select up until 18 have been picked, we'll take Ball. If there are still some quality kids left at 11, we'll wait till 18. If Ball is available then, he is ours.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We're obliged to rookie Meesen and Newton if they haven't been picked up.

We have pick 6 in the RD following 5 GC Rookie picks.

That means they both have to go in the ND, PSD or in one of the 5 GC RD picks otherwise we have to take one of them at RD6 and if the other one is still there at RD21 (or earlier if not everyone uses RD picks).

For example if Hawthorn wants Meesen they'll need to take him in the ND or PSD because otherwise we're obliged to pick him or Newton with RD6 before they get a Rookie draft pick. They might be willing to take the chance that we'll take Newton first but I wouldn't bet on it.

I understand that, the question is how many Rookies, including Meesen and Newton do we have, and how many are we allowed. In other words when we take them back do we have one or two more spots or are we all full up?

Would we be able to take Thorp or Tenace in the Rookie draft after we re rookie both of them?

[1858 285]

I understand that, the question is how many Rookies, including Meesen and Newton do we have, and how many are we allowed. In other words when we take them back do we have one or two more spots or are we all full up?

Would we be able to take Thorp or Tenace in the Rookie draft after we re rookie both of them?

We currently have a maximum of 6 rookie list spots. Excluding Meesen and Newton, 4 are taken. We'll be full if we end up adding them both.

Essentially Valenti and Zomer made way for Newton and Meesen.

The current 4 rookies are: Spencer, Hughes, McKenzie and Healy.

Edited November 23, 2009 by 1858

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We currently have a maximum of 6 rookie list spots. Excluding Meesen and Newton, 4 are taken. We'll be full if we end up adding them both.

Essentially Valenti and Zomer made way for Newton and Meesen.

The current 4 rookies are: Spencer, Hughes, McKenzie and Healy.

Thanks for that info I was under the impression that they had changed the rules and you could now have an extra 2 Rookies the additional ones were for mature players. Guess I got it wrong.

[1858 285]

Thanks for that info I was under the impression that they had changed the rules and you could now have an extra 2 Rookies the additional ones were for mature players. Guess I got it wrong.

They have changed the rule with respect to how many mature age rookies you can have (2, up from 1) but my understanding was that the actual amount of rookie spots was unchanged. Happy to be corrected though.