Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I think they will hold off until the 2021 Mid-Season Drafts (to be held monthly in 2021) and negotiate a retirement with KK if they need the list spot to draft someone.  Because there has been little exposed form for this year's draftees, this could easily happen.

The same might happen with Jones or Nev if the club needs other list spots mid year.

I think with KK there's a timeframe around medical retirements, so they might be waiting to hit the point where not all of his contract is counted before doing this. 

 

11 hours ago, Turner said:

we should be able to resign them pretty comfortably knowing we have some players who have earnt decent coin in recent years OOC next year in jones (former captain), jetta (AA40 man), ANB (best 22), vanders (swans interest), KK. thats a pretty experienced list of probable exits that should make it pretty easy especially as we would have foreshadowed petracca and olivers rise in stature. 

This is a good point, plus Gawn, Oliver, Salem and Weid would already be on very good contracts so any increase (in particular for Oliver) would be easily absorbed. The year after TMac and Lever's bigger deals also expire and while Lever will stay and if TMac can find form and re-commit, they won't command as big contracts, so signing Trac up should be easy (from a $ point of view). On the service the list management team have done pretty well.

 
8 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'm going to assume Nietschke hasn't officially been contracted and say that at this stage we've got 32 on the list signed up and 0 cat A rookies. The aim is to get to 38 and 4, plus until I know better Bradtke as a B.

10 total list spots. 6 main, 4 rookies. I'd say good bye to Mitch Brown and Oscar.

Then we've got 5 more out of contract: Bedford, Jordon, Chandler (r), Nietschke, Lockhart (r).

We can keep all 5 and have 5 draft picks. As it stands it would be 3 main list and 2 rookies. But we can move a main list player (Nietschke) down to the rookie list and go 4-1. 

So (if we don't package our current draft picks for a higher pick) we could use 18, 19 and 28 pick a backup ruckman as a DFA and rookie someone else?  Is that right?

  • Author
2 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

So (if we don't package our current draft picks for a higher pick) we could use 18, 19 and 28 pick a backup ruckman as a DFA and rookie someone else?  Is that right?

Quite right. 

We can get a small fwd or a wingman the same way.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

 
3 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

So (if we don't package our current draft picks for a higher pick) we could use 18, 19 and 28 pick a backup ruckman as a DFA and rookie someone else?  Is that right?

 

Edited by Ohio USA - David

3 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

So (if we don't package our current draft picks for a higher pick) we could use 18, 19 and 28 pick a backup ruckman as a DFA and rookie someone else?  Is that right?

As I mentioned previously Nietschke has been promised by the MFC and it has been made public before that he will have a contract for one year in 2021.


38 minutes ago, Ohio USA - David said:

As I mentioned previously Nietschke has been promised by the MFC and it has been made public before that he will have a contract for one year in 2021.

Are you talking about back when he got injured? Covid and list sizes might’ve changed that. And there was nothing mentioned back then about it being a Kia in list spot. He’s the perfect player to put back through the rookie list. 

Max list sizes for 2021 are 38 primary and 6 rookies . Lines up with our 2020 list size.

Not sure about salary CAP.

It will be interesting to see how we use our picks come draft night. Th i shear will see heaps of swaps.

We may be hoping a couple of players we like  slip.

11 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Are you talking about back when he got injured? Covid and list sizes might’ve changed that. And there was nothing mentioned back then about it being a Kia in list spot. He’s the perfect player to put back through the rookie list. 

Here is a comment from Mahoney where he states that the Club have or will offer him a new contract which I believe is for the 2021 season in light of his two ACL operations.

 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/320617/another-knee-reco-blow-for-luckless-young-demon

 
On 11/13/2020 at 4:55 PM, manny100 said:

Max list sizes for 2021 are 38 primary and 6 rookies . Lines up with our 2020 list size.

Not sure about salary CAP.

It will be interesting to see how we use our picks come draft night. Th i shear will see heaps of swaps.

We may be hoping a couple of players we like  slip.

Mahoney made specific mention of this on Trade Radio, that it's exactly what he/the club think will happen. 

On 11/1/2020 at 9:32 PM, spirit of norm smith said:

Jayden Hunt - get him signed up for 2 years 

James Jordan - get him signed up for 1 year

Bedford - wait and see, probably 1 year deal 

Nietscke - delist, then rookie list for 1 year deal

OMc- trade or delist

Hannan ? 

rookies 

Mitch Brown - definitely a 1 year deal

Lockhart- definitely a 1 year deal 

Chandler - I think he misses out 

Bradtke - cat B Extended for 1 year 

You cannot delist Neitscke as he has been promised a contract in 2021 already.. That's final.


neita and omac delisted one with a promise to be rookied. any guesses which one

  • Author
24 minutes ago, Turner said:

neita and omac delisted one with a promise to be rookied. any guesses which one

I can never take any joy when anyone who has worn the red and blue is delisted.

I will post a new chart in a few days to allow for any further changes.

Edit:  I have posted the update charted below.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

  • Author

 @DeeZone  LOL, I assume the tears are because I'm not updating the chart.

Just for you, here it its:

image.png.6de3de6371c2cf5a17e715004dc20933.png

 

Updated for Oscar's delisting.  Nietschke is shown as a 2021 Rookie, even tho it won't be official until draft night.

We now have 39 on the list.  With 4 senior list spots, and 1 Rookie spot to total the allowed 44.

As mentioned in another thread I expect Brown and Chandler to be delisted and Lockhart ? to be promoted.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

10 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 @DeeZone  LOL, I assume the tears are because I'm not updating the chart.

Just for you, here it its:

image.png.884ec087086cc51330aaa90a9ce0f29a.png

Updated for Oscar's delisting.  Nietschke is shown as a 2021 Rookie, even tho it won't be official until draft night.

We now have 39 on the list.  With 4 senior list spots, and 1 Rookie spot to total the allowed of 44.

As mentioned in another thread I expect Brown and Chandler to be delisted and Lockhart ? to be promoted.

is N.Nitschke related to A.Nietschke by any chance ;p

15 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 @DeeZone  LOL, I assume the tears are because I'm not updating the chart.

Just for you, here it its:

image.png.6de3de6371c2cf5a17e715004dc20933.png

 

Updated for Oscar's delisting.  Nietschke is shown as a 2021 Rookie, even tho it won't be official until draft night.

We now have 39 on the list.  With 4 senior list spots, and 1 Rookie spot to total the allowed 44.

As mentioned in another thread I expect Brown and Chandler to be delisted and Lockhart ? to be promoted.

Bedford and Jordan should get 1-year deal.  
Agree Lockhart should be promoted to primary list and get 1–yr deal. Mitch Brown should get another year. Starred in last round and very handy key position player. Even if he played at Casey, he’s better than most.  Chandler doesn’t fit anywhere.  I think he’s going to be delisted.  


Great news with LJ or “Jacko” extended until 2022.  I was looking at the 2021 contracts and thought it would be great to get him extended like Kozzzy and Riv. 
 

Now move to lock away Oliver, Gawn and Salem. Oliver should get 4-year deal, Gawn and Salem 3-year deals.  Salem may be highly chased but I think 3-years is fair enough. 

so as i see it given list size announcments:

- we have maximum 4 spots left on senior list (possibly 3 if you upgrade Lockhart)

- we have 1 spot left on rookie list ( 2 spots if Lockhart is upgraded)

- JM indicated keeping 1 spot open for mid season or DFA or SPP

- assuming no further pick swaps - we will fill all 4 senior list positions from 18, 19, 28 and 50 

- did i read that KK's spot will drop off at some stage in 2021?

15 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

mitch brown staying on for 2021

Where'd you hear that mate?


 
1 hour ago, BScotti said:

so as i see it given list size announcments:

- we have maximum 4 spots left on senior list (possibly 3 if you upgrade Lockhart)

- we have 1 spot left on rookie list ( 2 spots if Lockhart is upgraded)

- JM indicated keeping 1 spot open for mid season or DFA or SPP

- assuming no further pick swaps - we will fill all 4 senior list positions from 18, 19, 28 and 50 

- did i read that KK's spot will drop off at some stage in 2021?

i think as soon as after the draft when the first SPP period opens we can make him inactive effectively having a list of 45 players for all of next season including KK or the full 44 without him


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

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 216 replies
  • 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.

      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • 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.

      • Like
    • 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? 

      • Like
    • 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?

      • Like
    • 528 replies