The Callum Sinclair Thread

[e25 5]

Oh yes, definitely, the mantra evolves in line with your list.

But I also think that BA in the first round should be adhered to 95% of the time.

Collingwood's move for Jolly, to tip them over the edge, is the exception.

[H_T 3,049]

Oh yes, definitely, the mantra evolves in line with your list.

But I also think that BA in the first round should be adhered to 95% of the time.

Collingwood's move for Jolly, to tip them over the edge, is the exception.

The Saints should have taken note last year's draft. In hindsight.

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

I've been reading this thread and wondering whether people want us to draft Callum Sinclair or the person with the skills and talents attributed to him by posters on the Internet. I'm not sure if the two intersect perfectly.

I saw him when Casey played Port Melbourne at Casey Fields during the season and didn't see enough in him to suggest he would become a regular KPP at the highest level or to warrant selection in the second round of the draft.

It will be interesting to see how the respective club's recruiting people view him.

[rpfc 28,734]

I've been reading this thread and wondering whether people want us to draft Callum Sinclair or the person with the skills and talents attributed to him by posters on the Internet. I'm not sure if the two intersect perfectly.

I saw him when Casey played Port Melbourne at Casey Fields during the season and didn't see enough in him to suggest he would become a regular KPP at the highest level or to warrant selection in the second round of the draft.

It will be interesting to see how the respective club's recruiting people view him.

I will admit one thing - my argument in this thread is a pre-emptive strike for a future trade week when we offer (and I applaud) too much to get too little but it's just enough.

If you don't follow that statement, don't bother replying.

If you understand but disagree, persuade me over the merits of not being shafted even when it might mean being KOTD.

[e25 5]

Can't disagree with that.

[Guest hangon007]

If the footy department are hell bent on securing a forward/ruck prospect (ie. a need), I don't see a problem in securing this kid's services at pick 32. Besides we should pick up another good kid at pick 12 to compliment our wealth of talent already on the list.

Fwiw, on another thread ("Draft Picks"..I think), this kid was among my wish list picks. I have him at pick 32 "if" available.

If they were that "hell bent" on him, why did they not pre-trade with Gold Coast & already have him sitting on our list? Just a thought. Possibly a "smoke screen" but you would have thought GC would have taken a "free" third round pick & we would have got our man, assuming he is our man.

Edited November 1, 2010 by hangon007

[H_T 3,049]

If they were that "hell bent" on him, why did they not pre-trade with Gold Coast & already have him sitting on our list? Just a thought. Possibly a "smoke screen" but you would have thought GC would have taken a "free" third round pick & we would have got our man, assuming he is our man.

Pre-trade with Gold Coast ? It's up to Gold Coast who they pre-select isn't it ?

[e25 5]

It's up to other clubs to negotiate with GC if they want to be sure of acquiring those particular players.

Either we're not that dead set on getting him for whatever reason, or we think we're capable of pulling a swifty & getting him on the cheap.

Edited November 1, 2010 by E25

[Guest hangon007]

Pre-trade with Gold Coast ? It's up to Gold Coast who they pre-select isn't it ?

Clubs were allowed to pre-trade with the Gold Coast thanks to a "loop-hole" for the Gold Coast to on-trade those players, assuming the player had once nominated for the AFL draft in any previous draft. As Sinclair had been on Collingwoods list he would have qualified. Effectively, was just another tool by the AFL for GC to get more draft picks but existing clubs to get players of their choice without having to enter the draft. If we really wanted him that should have been the method unless of course they were putting up a "smoke screen" but I would have thought that fairly unlikely unless they were pre-pared to lose him.

Edited November 1, 2010 by hangon007

[old55 23,687]

Clubs were allowed to pre-trade with the Gold Coast thanks to a "loop-hole" for the Gold Coast to on-trade those players, assuming the player had once nominated for the AFL draft in any previous draft. As Sinclair had been on Collingwoods list he would have qualified. Effectively, was just another tool by the AFL for GC to get more draft picks but existing clubs to get players of their choice without having to enter the draft. If we really wanted him that should have been the method unless of course they were putting up a "smoke screen" but I would have thought that fairly unlikely unless they were pre-pared to lose him.

I think you're onto it there 007. It seems we're not that keen or else we would have struck a deal with GC. I reckon rookie at best.

Edited November 2, 2010 by old55

[H_T 3,049]

Clubs were allowed to pre-trade with the Gold Coast thanks to a "loop-hole" for the Gold Coast to on-trade those players, assuming the player had once nominated for the AFL draft in any previous draft. As Sinclair had been on Collingwoods list he would have qualified. Effectively, was just another tool by the AFL for GC to get more draft picks but existing clubs to get players of their choice without having to enter the draft. If we really wanted him that should have been the method unless of course they were putting up a "smoke screen" but I would have thought that fairly unlikely unless they were pre-pared to lose him.

Unless the player in question wasn't a target at the time for that particular method.

[old55 23,687]

Unless the player in question wasn't a target at the time for that particular method.

Hale was clearly plan A and if we got him I guess Sinclair or similar would not be required.

When the Hale deal fell through I'm hoping we had plan B and maybe that's where Sinclair might fit in, but maybe there wasn't time to organise a deal with GC.

[H_T 3,049]

Hale was clearly plan A and if we got him I guess Sinclair or similar would not be required.

When the Hale deal fell through I'm hoping we had plan B and maybe that's where Sinclair might fit in, but maybe there wasn't time to organise a deal with GC.

Indeed. That is my point re: GC.

[mordja 187]

Maybe i have fridge blindness but cant see him on list.

Still available?

[Nasher 33,617]

Not drafted.

[Red and Blue Flame 191]

cannot believe he didn't get picked up! hopefully we'll rookie draft him- or do we still have on senior spot for Pre-Season Draft?

Not the end of the world but thought he'd be worth a look around the 50's, possibly even 33.

[Demon 16 214]

Would happily offer he and/or Jonathan Giles a rookie spot given we have quite a few to play with.

I suspect we may rookie Paul Johson if we dont go for either of these guys.

[Adzman 2,154]

Sinclair was unlucky not to get picked up considering over 100 picks were used during the ND.

Considering we picked 4 talls, do you think the football department would look to add further talls to the mix via the PSD/Rookie drafts? From all reports Sinclair is ready to go having played VFL against men already, but does he fit a need for the dees who now boast a bevy of young talls on the list?

Would love to get him, but I now think we have to look at adding some mids to the rookie list just in case we get hit with injuries.

[Redleg 41,409]

Sinclair was unlucky not to get picked up considering over 100 picks were used during the ND.

Considering we picked 4 talls, do you think the football department would look to add further talls to the mix via the PSD/Rookie drafts? From all reports Sinclair is ready to go having played VFL against men already, but does he fit a need for the dees who now boast a bevy of young talls on the list?

Would love to get him, but I now think we have to look at adding some mids to the rookie list just in case we get hit with injuries.

We will take a mature ruckman if there is one available who fits the bill for a couple of years.

[e25 5]

If we re-rookie Paul Johnson I'll rip up my membership.

Or something else equally stupid & impossible.

Won't happen.

[daisycutter 29,711]

If we re-rookie Paul Johnson I'll rip up my membership.

Or something else equally stupid & impossible.

Won't happen.

archived and noted

[GOLF 13]

We don't have a PSD selection, but we do have 6 rookie selections. If we defer one of these to after the NAB Cup (new rule this year) and we use one to re-rookie Tom McNamarra, then we will have four others to use in the rookie draft.

One of these could well be, as other posters have mentioned, a mature bodied ruckman as insurance against Jamar being injured. Doesn't have to be a young world beater as Spencer, Gawn and/or Fitzpatrick will hopefully be developed enough to take this role in two years time. So can anyone see a good retread amongst the rookies who would last 2 years?

Three other rookie picks on smokies, wild cards, mature VFL players and rough diamonds overlooked in the main draft and the PSD. Normally the rookie list is a great place to put young beanpoles to see if they develop. But with Spencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick on the senior list, plus our four draft picks, plus the aforementioned insurance rookie this strategy may not be needed this year. Benefits of rookies are: they are cheap, they can be nominated for senior selection if we have long term infuries, and if they are duds we can let them go at the end of the year. Added benefit this year is that if one of them turns out really good, we can nominate them for senior selection even if we don't have any long term injuries, since we only have one veteran in 2011.

[dee-luded 2,959]

We don't have a PSD selection, but we do have 6 rookie selections. If we defer one of these to after the NAB Cup (new rule this year) and we use one to re-rookie Tom McNamarra, then we will have four others to use in the rookie draft.

One of these could well be, as other posters have mentioned, a mature bodied ruckman as insurance against Jamar being injured. Doesn't have to be a young world beater as Spencer, Gawn and/or Fitzpatrick will hopefully be developed enough to take this role in two years time. So can anyone see a good retread amongst the rookies who would last 2 years?

Three other rookie picks on smokies, wild cards, mature VFL players and rough diamonds overlooked in the main draft and the PSD. Normally the rookie list is a great place to put young beanpoles to see if they develop. But with Spencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick on the senior list, plus our four draft picks, plus the aforementioned insurance rookie this strategy may not be needed this year. Benefits of rookies are: they are cheap, they can be nominated for senior selection if we have long term infuries, and if they are duds we can let them go at the end of the year. Added benefit this year is that if one of them turns out really good, we can nominate them for senior selection even if we don't have any long term injuries, since we only have one veteran in 2011.

There might be more after the next list lodgement. List Lodgement 3 - Wed 24th Nov. Lets see What Where or Who turns up.

[Mono 455]

cannot believe he didn't get picked up! hopefully we'll rookie draft him- or do we still have on senior spot for Pre-Season Draft?

..........

West Sydney have first 8 picks in rookie draft. Can't see Sinclair still being around when it's our turn.

[H_T 3,049]

BUMP.

There was a fair bit of chat here in 2010 about Sinclair as possible rookie pick or even used as a draft pick.

I thought he did ok for West Coast on Saturday, even though it was against inferior opposition.