Jump to content

Featured Replies

ALREADY DELISTED

Bennell, Dunkley, C. Wagner, J. Wagner

LIKELY TO GET DELISTED

O. McDonald 

LIKELY TO BE TRADED

Hannan, Preuss

POTENTIAL TO BE TRADED

T. McDonald, Jetta, Neal-Bullen

 
1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Just to go with this, I think it was Jon Ralph who tweeted that Essendon were trumping Carlton by offering their Pick 7 in any swap deals that might come up so Carlton can't do it with their #8 pick.  How petty can you get?

And I totally agree with everything you said above.  

Just for the laughs I hope Essendon do split their picks and then Carlton find another trading partner anyway. Still rooting for Saad to walk through to the PSD and be picked up by North.

Wrong thread

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

 

So a nice tradable draft haul in 2020 now:

  • 2020: 26 (729), 31 (606), 33 (563), 43 (378), 50 (273), 68 (59), 69 (49)
  • 2021: 1st, 3rd, 4th

Something has to give for Ben Brown

Dogs

  • 2020 14 (1161), 41 (412), 54 (220) = 1793.  If JUH gets bid at pick 1 they need 2400. So they're ~600 short.
14 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

So a nice tradable draft haul in 2020 now:

  • 2020: 26 (729), 31 (606), 33 (563), 43 (378), 50 (273), 68 (59), 69 (49)
  • 2021: 1st, 3rd, 4th

Something has to give for Ben Brown

Dogs

  • 2020 14 (1161), 41 (412), 54 (220) = 1793.  If JUH gets bid at pick 1 they need 2400. So they're ~600 short.

Thanks P.  So is it a matter of the Dogs trading 14 for something that with their current picks can get them to 2400?

I.e. if they trade 14 to us, we give them 26 (729), 31 (606), 43 (378), 68 (59) which along with picks 41 (412) and 54 (220) gets them to 2,404?


4 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Thanks P.  So is it a matter of the Dogs trading 14 for something that with their current picks can get them to 2400?

I.e. if they trade 14 to us, we give them 26 (729), 31 (606), 43 (378), 68 (59) which along with picks 41 (412) and 54 (220) gets them to 2,404?

Yes that would work, but it would be generous of us.  However they need to have as many list vacancies as they have picks going into the draft so that may be tough for them to have 6 vacancies.

The other option open to them is to go into points deficit in 2021 if they use all their 2020 picks.  Freo did this 2019 to 2020 - the deficit comes off the first pick so Freo's 2020 1st rounder has been pushed back a couple of slots by that.

On 11/6/2020 at 6:26 PM, MadAsHell said:

ALREADY DELISTED Bennell, Dunkley, C. Wagner, J. Wagner   LIKELY TO GET DELISTED. O.McDonald   TRADED  Hannan, Preuss  POTENTIAL TO BE TRADED T.McDonald 

Updated on the above.  
Given 45 (44+cat b Bradtke) on list for 2020 then we remove 7 (assume Tmcd stays).  
Add Ben Brown, thats 39 (38+Bradtke) on list.

AFL says 42+cat b. So can add 4 from the draft or DFA pool. 
 

With trades done and dusted and the first Club lists due on Friday (and another the following Friday) I'd expect some announcements for our OOC players this week.

State of the Nation, mfc view:

  • Current List is 40.  (36 Senior players, 3 'A' Rookies and 1 'B' Rookie)
  • Our OOC players:  3 Seniors:  Bedford, Jordon, OMc.  4 Rookies:  M. Brown 'A', Lockhart 'A', Chandler 'A' and Bradtke 'B'
  • Allowed List in 2021 is 44:  (Max of 38 Senior players, and up to 6 rookies (total of A+B).
  • Spots available is 4:  2 Senior spots and 2 rookie spot
  • Potentially 5 draft picks (18, 19, 28, 50, 89). 
  • Clubs need to take only one player at this years draft.
  • The advantage of rookies is the first $80K of their sal is not included in the sal cap.  so up to a $480k sal cap buffer.
  • afaik if we want to keep Lockhart we need to promote him to the seniors as rules don't allow 3 years as a rookie.  We can use pick 89 for this.
  • Mahoney said we would keep a list spot open eg DFA, PSSP, mid season drafts.  This would probably be a rookie spot. 

If I had to guess on our OOC players:

  •  Bedford and maybe OMac rookied. 
  • Lockhart promoted using pick 89. 
  • M Brown and Chandler delisted. 
  • Bradtke retained. 

This would give us an additional 1 senior spot (total of 3) and 1 additional rookie spot (total of 3).  That should cover our draftees, DFA's and a spare list spot.  And, draft picks 18, 19, 28 and 50 swapped in some way to give us 3 picks for draftees, taking 3 senior spots available.

Footnote:  Hope my logic and arithmetic is right:cool:

 

 
8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

With trades done and dusted and the first Club lists due on Friday (and another the following Friday) I'd expect some announcements for our OOC players this week.

State of the Nation, mfc view:

  • Current List is 40.  (36 Senior players, 3 'A' Rookies and 1 'B' Rookie)
  • Our OOC players:  3 Seniors:  Bedford, Jordon, OMc.  4 Rookies:  M. Brown 'A', Lockhart 'A', Chandler 'A' and Bradtke 'B'
  • Allowed List in 2021 is 44:  (Max of 38 Senior players, and up to 6 rookies (total of A+B).
  • Spots available is 4:  2 Senior spots and 2 rookie spot
  • Potentially 5 draft picks (18, 19, 28, 50, 89). 
  • Clubs need to take only one player at this years draft.
  • The advantage of rookies is the first $80K of their sal is not included in the sal cap.  so up to a $480k sal cap buffer.
  • afaik if we want to keep Lockhart we need to promote him to the seniors as rules don't allow 3 years as a rookie.  We can use pick 89 for this.
  • Mahoney said we would keep a list spot open eg DFA, PSSP, mid season drafts.  This would probably be a rookie spot. 

If I had to guess on our OOC players:

  •  Bedford and maybe OMac rookied. 
  • Lockhart promoted using pick 89. 
  • M Brown and Chandler delisted. 
  • Bradtke retained. 

This would give us an additional 1 senior spot (total of 3) and 1 additional rookie spot (total of 3).  That should cover our draftees, DFA's and a spare list spot.  And, draft picks 18, 19, 28 and 50 swapped in some way to give us 3 picks for draftees, taking 3 senior spots available.

Footnote:  Hope my logic and arithmetic is right:cool:

 

you're definitely allowed to be a rookie for 3 years i thought. isn't it after 3 you have to make a decision up or out?

imo

Chandler, MBrown, Lockhart all rerookied

OMac delisted

Nietschke, Bedford, Jordon all retained as Snr listed players

Bradtke retained as B

that fills 35snr players and 3A 1B rookies allowing us to pick up 3 players with currently 18, 19, 28, 50 however i expect one more trade up the first round order and then we have 1A spot to look at a delisted FA.

if i had to make a call on one rookie to be delisted alongside OMac it would definitely be Chandler as i dont see him getting senior opportunities next year due to numerous options as a small forward. we would then delist nietschke and re-rookie him and take all 4 picks in the draft passing at 89

Edited by Turner

2 minutes ago, Turner said:

you're definitely allowed to be a rookie for 3 years i thought. isn't it after 3 you have to make a decision up or out?

"Under the little-known AFL rule, if a player is offered a third year on the rookie list he can reject it and automatically become a free agent and move to his club of choice".  roos-to-use-little-known-rule-to-poach-bulldogs-defender


1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

"Under the little-known AFL rule, if a player is offered a third year on the rookie list he can reject it and automatically become a free agent and move to his club of choice".  roos-to-use-little-known-rule-to-poach-bulldogs-defender

yeh i get that but you're not going to reject another year if its the only chance u have of playing afl footy? 

lockhart will get promoted next year coz we're going to see a fair few drop off the senior list for sure

KK spot will be the one we hold for Mid season draft, I think someone mentioned that he can be removed off our list for this, similar to what Richmond did with Grigg to get Marlon Pickett

I think Nietschke will be held onto as a rookie

OMAC Delist

Chandler Delist, cant see them keeping both Bedford and Chandler

 

 

Delisted:  J Wagner, C Wagner (r), Dunkley (r) 

Retired: Bennell (r)

Traded Out: Hannan, Preuss 

Traded In: Ben Brown  -> 45-5 = 40

I would also delist O McDonald and Chandler (r) -> 40-2 = 38

Nietschke to move to rookie list alongside Lockhart and Mitch Brown with Bradtke - Cat B  

Allow 6 more additions - 18, 19, 28 & 50  + DFA + rookie pick 10 (44 on list as 39 primary list + 4 rookie A + 1 rookie Cat B)

I'll email the club asking for a membership refund if they waste list spots on Mitch Brown and Oscar McDonald. I'd keep the young guys for a proper look at them under VFL conditions. Whether they go on the rookie list or even off the list entirely then back on as supplemental players once we retire KK might depend on draft picks and whether we find delisted players worth an immediate shot.


On 11/17/2020 at 2:36 PM, spirit of norm smith said:

Delisted:  J Wagner, C Wagner (r), Dunkley (r) 

Retired: Bennell (r)

Traded Out: Hannan, Preuss 

Traded In: Ben Brown  -> 45-5 = 40

I would also delist O McDonald and Chandler (r) -> 40-2 = 38

Nietschke to move to rookie list alongside Lockhart and Mitch Brown with Bradtke - Cat B  

Allow 6 more additions - 18, 19, 28 & 50  + DFA + rookie pick 10 (44 on list as 39 primary list + 4 rookie A + 1 rookie Cat B)

Bingo

15 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Aaron Nietschke has been delisted with a guarantee of being placed on the rookie list.

Unless someone else gets in first, which I know is unlikely given his injuries.


The Age confirms we’ll be keeping Mitch Brown. Utterly stupid decision. A 5th string key forward who doesn’t compete in the air or pressure on the ground. Another wasted list spot. 
 

How are we ever going to improve if we don’t turn over the list? We’ve got to start taking some chances on youth and untested players. Even if the odds they succeed are low at least we’ve tried some options. 

Don't mind Brown sticking around as cover for another year.

2 Brownlow Votes last season! 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

The Age confirms we’ll be keeping Mitch Brown. Utterly stupid decision. A 5th string key forward who doesn’t compete in the air or pressure on the ground. Another wasted list spot. 
 

How are we ever going to improve if we don’t turn over the list? We’ve got to start taking some chances on youth and untested players. Even if the odds they succeed are low at least we’ve tried some options. 

he's fourth string, definitely ahead of TMac if u go on last seasons form, also doubling up as ruck support its necessary to have ample talls as its impossible to have the same flexibility as u can with mids/forwards covering for each other when theres a stack of injuries without completely restructuring ur setup which obviously has repercussions 

 

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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

      • Haha
      • Love
    • 528 replies