If we were to do that, we'd have to have done it by 2pm yesterday when Fraser, Faulks & Krakouer were sorted.

No dice.

If we were to do that, we'd have to have done it by 2pm yesterday when Fraser, Faulks & Krakouer were sorted.

No dice.

Apparently, that's not the case. GC can nominate players previously in the AFL system or who have previously nominated themselves for the draft and trade them right up to tomorrow's 2pm deadline.

Don't know however, if Sinclair is eligible under this rule.

Yep, i think you're right.

After posting that, it seemed that the rule was reported as being different.

Meh. Who can keep track these days?

Yep, i think you're right.

After posting that, it seemed that the rule was reported as being different.

Meh. Who can keep track these days?

I want this kid. Moves well, has the size, seems to be growing into his body. Question now is how late in the draft can we get him?? I'd like to think we could get him with one of our 3rd rounders. Not much use having him on the rookie list, he's a player type we've identified as needing for our senior team. Take the risk.

Yeah, I'd think he would comfortably fill the role that we had Hale pencilled in for.

With this in mind, would it be unreasonable to take him with pick 32?

If someone like Luke Mitchell is still there, I'd wait for the 3rd round, but otherwise I think he'd be a good target.

If we did miss out on him, I'm still comfortable with a combination of Martin & Spencer to back up Jamar.

There's no question in my mind now that PJ & McNamara need to be delisted.

Yeah, I'd think he would comfortably fill the role that we had Hale pencilled in for.

With this in mind, would it be unreasonable to take him with pick 32?

If someone like Luke Mitchell is still there, I'd wait for the 3rd round, but otherwise I think he'd be a good target.

If we did miss out on him, I'm still comfortable with a combination of Martin & Spencer to back up Jamar.

There's no question in my mind now that PJ & McNamara need to be delisted.

He's the type of player I wouldn't mind reaching a bit for, but as usual, we're going off a few minutes of footage which is designed to be favourable and the guys in Barry's team will have been watching him play full games. So their judgement is to be backed. Also, there's a fair bit of industrial espionage when it comes to the draft, so hopefully we can get wind of any other clubs' interest in him and plan accordingly.

Also, there's a fair bit of industrial espionage when it comes to the draft, so hopefully we can get wind of any other clubs' interest in him and plan accordingly.

David Dunbar could be amongst it. I see visions of Get Smart and hiding in pot plants with Agent 86.

Gold Coast keeping things close to their chest. Their enquiries re: Hale may give some indication that they could be sniffing too. I agree re: a pick instead of rookie.

this guy is worth our second round pick..believe me. Him Watts and Jurrah running around the forward line will absolutley kill opposition in years to come.

this guy is worth our second round pick..believe me. Him Watts and Jurrah running around the forward line will absolutley kill opposition in years to come.

I confess to not even remember if I've seen him play.

Can you give us a rundown on what sort of player he is?

Obviously a bit more detailed than "ruck/forward".

Interesting. I like the idea of him as a later pick. It would certainly take some of the pressure off Watts and Jurrah to have him around.

Callum wont make it to the rookie draft.

With his height (201 cms) and with his agility and skills - he is the perfect candidate for the new interchange/sub rule.

Whatever club he ends up at, he will play as a leading forward and not in the ruck.

Callum wont make it to the rookie draft.

With his height (201 cms) and with his agility and skills - he is the perfect candidate for the new interchange/sub rule.

Whatever club he ends up at, he will play as a leading forward and not in the ruck.

Can he relieve Jamar in the ruck because that is what would make him valuable with these new rules. If so we may use 32 on him because I don't think he would last to 49

im telling you! he is worth a second round pick. Could certainly pinch hit in the ruck. Has bulked up since his lanky Caulfield Grammar days and if we picked him up could put on another 4-5 kgs (could do this at every other club too!). But he can pinch hit in the ruck but mostly can see him being another watts type mobile power forward in years to come.

I want this kid. Moves well, has the size, seems to be growing into his body. Question now is how late in the draft can we get him?? I'd like to think we could get him with one of our 3rd rounders. Not much use having him on the rookie list, he's a player type we've identified as needing for our senior team. Take the risk.

I want him too- an accurate assessment -similar to our football dept wanting Hale but at the right pick.3rd round is very accurate.

There will be a stack of kids picked in both drafts, and he is a dead certainty to get drafted. I would not mind taking him in the rookie draft if he is around.

I guess we will have to see what happens in the ND. Pick #32 might be a tad early.

49 or 52 would be more than fair though, considering his potential.

I doubt there'd be better prospects at that stage, but that's not to say they wouldn't be on par.

Does anyone really think that, in our current position, taking this bloke at 32 instead of 50 is going to be a serious issue.

We have so much talent at the club that we can take this 'massive' risk and select this kid a whole 20 picks before we would normally just to get him.

We need to get this position (back-up ruck/forward) sorted at some stage, and we are going to have to take risks at some stage.

We are getting closer to 'some stage'.

Yeah, I agree to an extent.

I don't know enough about this kid to really say.

I mean, how much of a sure thing is he?

If he's such a sure thing, do we need to take him at pick 12..?

I think at 32 (now 33 & sliding) we have a shot at getting another great player, as the draft is so even from about pick 10-30ish.

It all depends on who is left on the board & how highly we rate Sinclair.

The FD might have another gem in mind entirely, that's under the radar like Bail, Jurrah, etc.

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.

Yeah, I agree to an extent.

I don't know enough about this kid to really say.

I mean, how much of a sure thing is he?

If he's such a sure thing, do we need to take him at pick 12..?

I think at 32 (now 33 & sliding) we have a shot at getting another great player, as the draft is so even from about pick 10-30ish.

It all depends on who is left on the board & how highly we rate Sinclair.

The FD might have another gem in mind entirely, that's under the radar like Bail, Jurrah, etc.

I don't know about this kid.

What I am saying is that fans who say 'yeah, he is what we need but 35 is ten picks too high for him' make little sense.

We have got our talent everywhere but this gaping hole to help out Jamar.

We need to start taking risks and if that means taking players in the draft 'before their time' the so be it.

Yep, well, provided he is the plug likely to fill that gaping hole, I completely agree.

Yep, well, provided he is the plug likely to fill that gaping hole, I completely agree.

That is the risk - he might not be.

Or 'Art Vandelay' might not be - but taking him before he 'should' be taken is fine by me if he is considered a chance of filling our needs.

And trading away picks to get a good player in a 'bad' deal is fine by me.

Note: Anyone who thought that I didn't get the Art Vandelay reference needs to learn the subtleties of the subtle joke. He is meant to reference 'anyone.'

Reference duly noted. The kid can play.

Yeah, got it rfpc, but I understand the need for a disclaimer as some wouldn't.

I think the issue is how highly we rate the kid and exactly how much earlier do we take him?

I mean, if we have to burn pick 12 on him but his "worth" is about pick 40, I don't think it's a good option (obviously).

As you said earlier, about 10 picks early, in the scheme of things, means very little.

In 5 years' time you might have some genius point of that we could've taken Vandelay at the same pick who turned out to be a B+ grade flanker, but we'll have the B- grade ruck/forward that we need to eliminate weaknesses in our side.

This is all very close to the argument of Best Available vs Needs.

I subscribe to the mantra of best available in the first round, then play it by ear from then on (or rather, let that pick shape your drafting strategy).

This is all very close to the argument of Best Available vs Needs.

I subscribe to the mantra of best available in the first round, then play it by ear from then on (or rather, let that pick shape your drafting strategy).

That seems reasonable.

I think it is fair to say the 'mantra' is sometimes or almost always dependant upon the particular club(s) list at anyone particular time. Without elaborating too much. For example the age of KPP's or mids already on the list, or where deficiencies are, etc.