Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

What will people say if our 1st pick next year is pick 18? Did we pay over?

We could finish top 4, and with compensation picks etc it might well end up pushing towards the end of the 1st round anyway.

Besides, we have commodities on our list that we can trade for a 1st rounder next year if we felt very strongly after getting someone specific in the so called 'super draft' (e.g.- Salem, Brayshaw, who knows maybe even Weids if he has a good season). I'm not saying we should trade any of our better players, but if we desperately wanted to get back into next year's 1st round, we could make it happen.

Everybody is so quick to think their club has gotten screwed in a deal, but sometimes it's a win win and believe me there isn't 1 Crows fan or administrator who wouldn't give us those picks back to still have Lever. He is an exceptional player with massive scope for further development, and he immediately makes us a better side. Considering we were 0.05% off finals last year, adding someone of Lever's calibre to the team is a huge boost! 

 
1 minute ago, Jaded said:

What will people say if our 1st pick next year is pick 18? Did we pay over?

 

Now Jaded, you're not seriously expecting the many to understand the fluidity of the currency ? Whilst somewhat speculative in nature the idea of evaluating any forward picks based upon expected /hoped outcomes whilst risky  is if nothing else expressing a confidence if not a fairly agreed upon expectation of where we OUGHT to finish.

Then again for some it seems it's all about collecting the best deck of cards, for others....it's winning games.

Money/picks....has no real value other than what yo DO with it.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

A reminder that we now have picks 27, 35 and 45 heading into this draft.

Given certain club's needs to obtain multiple draft picks for points for father/son or academy zone players, it's not out of the question that we won't once again make a play to get back into the first round.

So again, [censored] relax.

I think the AFL had changed this slightly haven't they? Pretty sure clubs can now only take as many picks to the draft as they spots on their list. So packaging up 3 picks in the 30s to give to Brisbane for pick 12 (for example) may not work if Brisbane then has too many picks vs spots on the list.


1 hour ago, Bring Back Barassi said:

Luke Ball said he would not play for any club other than Collingwood, and if anyone picked him he would sit out the season. From memory i think he got picked at 30, Saints got nothing

They changed the rules after that and it's draft tampering.

So happy that we got him.

But we paid way over. We should have got a 2nd rounder back if we were paying 2 firsts.

The Treloar deal was the benchmark.

Why we had to also give up a late pick is beyond me. If anything we should have got an extra late back as the minimum.

We caved.

It seems when every we make a trade all the geniuses on this site speculate we have paid over the last 3 were Melksham Hibberd and Lever. Hopefully the later will produce a season as good if not better than the other 2.

 
1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Welcome to the club Jake!

It's a good trade and the value is very similar to 10 + 27 which everyone seemed happy with.

10 + 12(?) + 66(?) for Lever + 35 + 53(?)

And yes you owe the site a donation - say $100 

On 05/04/2017 at 2:33 AM, Dappa Dan said:

What about first rounder this year and next. That would be enough to get it done you'd think, even with us considered likely to be later in the first round this year and next. What do demonlanders think of that though?

Good idea.


Just now, Wrecker45 said:

Good idea.

I hate when I'm right.

Two things.

We could drag it out, but getting a deal done early means that we can do other deals too.

We have consistently shown players and player managers that we are a club that can get a deal done. That makes us a more attractive club for players. It's probably post of the reason why Lever chose us.

Welcome to the club Jake 

On first glance looked like overs giving up first-round pick next year but a few things when viewing the deal in its entirety.

1. The defence just improved dramatically with

   a) biggest deficiency - namely lack of intercept marker to rebound is now covered

   b) Hibberd no longer has to float across as third man up and can now provide greater attacking penetration with his ball use

    c) The domino effect with Lever and Hibberd reduces the accountability on Hunt and allows him to run and carry more

   d ) Bernie Vince can now solely be used at what he now does best when match ups require it -Tag

2. The deal getting done early is clearly showing we are not done yet and have other moves in the pipeline 

3. With the anticipated 2nd rounder coming for Watts we will have 3 x 2nd rounders.

4. I susect we will give up 2 of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st round.

5. I also suspect Kent and/or JKH and a change of picks somewhere will be part of the Balic deal

1 hour ago, w00dy said:

I think they will now and try to package up 35 with Watts to get back in the first round.  

Spot on, pick 29 and 35 to Bne for 19. Or 28, 29 and 45 to Gold Coast for 20 and 22

Interestingly enough, using the AFL draft points calculator, we've actually paid LESS than our initial offer of 10+27 (2100 points). Cannot for the life of me understand the tantrums on here. We've just landed the best young defender in the competition for the equivalent of a first rounder and a second rounder. 

IMG_3234.PNG


3 minutes ago, Members' Wing said:

Interestingly enough, using the AFL draft points calculator, we've actually paid LESS than our initial offer of 10+27 (2100 points). Cannot for the life of me understand the tantrums on here. We've just landed the best young defender in the competition for the equivalent of a first rounder and a second rounder. 

 

Interesting. Good get.

Doesn't change the fact that a 2018 pick is worth more than a 2017 equivalent. But still well done on the sums.

16 minutes ago, BAMF said:

So happy that we got him.

But we paid way over. We should have got a 2nd rounder back if we were paying 2 firsts.

The Treloar deal was the benchmark.

Why we had to also give up a late pick is beyond me. If anything we should have got an extra late back as the minimum.

We caved.

We got a second rounder back. Pick 35 was the Cows second rounder this year.

Hi Jake

Great that you decided to join us at the MFC welcome aboard. We all hope that you will raise the premiership cup in red and blue soon.

Good luck for a stellar 2018 season

1 minute ago, Bonkers said:

We got a second rounder back. Pick 35 was the Cows second rounder this year.

Technically, yes. But it's almost the last pick of the second round. In a weak draft.

It's still good though. Pick 35 with our recruiters is worth about pick 19 with the Pies recruiters.

5 minutes ago, Members' Wing said:

Interestingly enough, using the AFL draft points calculator, we've actually paid LESS than our initial offer of 10+27 (2100 points). Cannot for the life of me understand the tantrums on here. We've just landed the best young defender in the competition for the equivalent of a first rounder and a second rounder. 

 

Bang on. Seems like everyone is full of negativity at the mo. We just landed a big fish. yes we paid 2 x 1st rounders but we got a second rounder back and to me it looks about right. 


30 minutes ago, Jaded said:

What will people say if our 1st pick next year is pick 18?

For me, it would be something like "You f*#&@!* beauty!" :lol::lol:

Something doesn't make sense to me about this trade.  The rules are pretty clear that if you trade a future 1st Round pick, you can't trade any of your other future picks, yet somehow we're trading our future 1st & 4th Round Picks.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-06/future-trading-given-goahead-but-with-restrictions

I'm not to concerned about the cost we've paid for Lever.  Lets say worst case scenario, both teams finish in the same position as last year.  It means we've paid Pick 10x2 (1395+1395) and a Pick 64 (101) which totals 2891.  Adelaide have paid Pick 35 (522) a Pick 53 (233) which totals 755 leaving a shortfall of 2136 (Lever's worth) which falls inbetween Pick 3 & 4, which is probably close to what he'd be worth in a straight swap.  All balances out for me.

People  think “first round pick” means “top ten pick”. Pick 10 and Pick Teen is what Melbourne gave up if the Dees improve in 2018. Bottom half of 1st round is not much better than the top half of 2nd round. Even if 2018 is a superdraft. ("Next year's draft" is always a superdraft.)  Chuck in the pick flips and we have done well picking up a highly rated 21 year old with exposed form. 

 
52 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Not sure about you DOX but I could care less about next years draft (looks like Footy Dept are in same boat), I care about us making a deep run into finals next year. This helps us do that.

Cards I know Lever makes us better and hopefully will help in pushing for finals next season ( although the way it finished this yr I’m not holding my breath) but I am concerned we have overpaid and given the cows what they wanted. 

Time will tell. 

1 minute ago, MadAsHell said:

Something doesn't make sense to me about this trade.  The rules are pretty clear that if you trade a future 1st Round pick, you can't trade any of your other future picks, yet somehow we're trading our future 1st & 4th Round Picks.

There's a lot of confusion about that rule. Geelong broke it, but requested permission from the AFL, which they gave. I feel like it's something that would have cancelled the trade had that rule still been in effect. So we should be ok.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 0 replies
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Clap
    • 210 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Clap
    • 47 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

      • Haha
    • 330 replies