Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 minute ago, deanox said:

I cant see how this can work.

We currently have more picks than list spots. Why can't they?

If the dogs have 3 spots and 3 picks on draft night but then pick an academy player with pick 1, then they'll lose all 3 picks (points cost will be all of them) and will have their other 2 picks at the end of the draft.

 

They have to be equal going into the draft - there's water to flow under the bridge.

 
Just now, deanox said:

I cant see how this can work.

We currently have more picks than list spots. Why can't they?

If the dogs have 3 spots and 3 picks on draft night but then pick an academy player with pick 1, then they'll lose all 3 picks (points cost will be all of them) and will have their other 2 picks at the end of the draft.

I don't recall the details but a club (I think Sydney) did some dodgy deals a few years back and the AFL closed the loophole.

I'll do some checking to confirm (or otherwise) what I wrote.

12 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Reef McInnes

Old mate Prendergast was talking this kid up and I can only say "Great Barry, a Reef".

 
9 minutes ago, deanox said:

I cant see how this can work.

We currently have more picks than list spots. Why can't they?

If the dogs have 3 spots and 3 picks on draft night but then pick an academy player with pick 1, then they'll lose all 3 picks (points cost will be all of them) and will have their other 2 picks at the end of the draft.

Found it!

no-more-hidden-picks-afl-alters-the-draft-bidding-system

"The AFL has ruled that the number of selections a club holds going into the national draft must match the number of vacant spots on their primary list".

Applies to Academy and NGA clubs.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

Gold Coast can automatically list any player in their Academy without using any picks. Part of their ridiculously generous draft concessions. So they won't be trading out early picks for points.


14 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Others know more about the draft than me, but I think it's likely:

Jamarra Ugle-Hagan - Bulldogs
Braeden Campbell - Sydney
Reef McInnes - Collingwood

Then possibly around the mark:
Alex Davies - GC
Lachlan Jones - Port

Might be old info though. @dazzledavey36is usually pretty onto it.
 

Wonderful quirk of the AFL concessions to GC...Alex Davies could easily have been selected inside the top 10 in this draft.  He'll walk to GC for nothing, as GC's academy and zone players don't have to be matched via bid processes this year.  They are getting a couple of really good prospects for nothing this year. And they have pick 5, which they would be happy to offload for Treloar.

In our worst years we never got leg ups like that.

On 11/8/2020 at 11:43 AM, Biffen said:

Moonshadow lingers in the showers at public swimming facilities and never actually swims.

 

Ah, the real George Pell.

27 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

Wonderful quirk of the AFL concessions to GC...Alex Davies could easily have been selected inside the top 10 in this draft.  He'll walk to GC for nothing, as GC's academy and zone players don't have to be matched via bid processes this year.  They are getting a couple of really good prospects for nothing this year. And they have pick 5, which they would be happy to offload for Treloar.

In our worst years we never got leg ups like that.

That’s a ridiculous situation.

 
9 minutes ago, dieter said:

Ah, the real George Pell.

2019 called: you're late for dinner.

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Found it!

no-more-hidden-picks-afl-alters-the-draft-bidding-system

"The AFL has ruled that the number of selections a club holds going into the national draft must match the number of vacant spots on their primary list".

Applies to Academy and NGA clubs.

Cheers mate. 

I thought I'd do a quick analysis.

Lets assume a club finishes 8th and therefore gets picks 11, 29, 47, 65 and 83. Let's say they need 5 players this draft, and the club has an academy selection rated at no. 1. 

When the bid comes at 1, they'll pay 3000 minus 20% or 2400 points.

That means they'll lose 11 (1329 points), 29 (653 points), 47 (316), and 65 (90). 2388 points in total. Pick 83 is worth 0 points. 

So they'll get pick 1, then all other picks will get pushed to the final rounds, and they'll have a 12 point deficit next season.

While it is a boon to get pick 1, it doesn't actually seem that unfair, because basically you get that pick and then only the bottom. And if they game it to have less then 4 list spots, they are forced into significant deficit (which comes off their first pick) next year (only 2 list spots would push their deficit by 412 points, meaning next years pick 11 goes to pick 20).

 

 


1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

BigFooty IS his source.

I just posted what I'd read on Bigfooty. I don't mind if you follow me around but there's no need to be snarky. Cheers mate. 

6 minutes ago, deanox said:

While it is a boon to get pick 1, it doesn't actually seem that unfair, because basically you get that pick and then only the bottom. And if they game it to have less then 4 list spots, they are forced into significant deficit (which comes off their first pick) next year (only 2 list spots would push their deficit by 412 points, meaning next years pick 11 goes to pick 20).

 

No club is going to go in to a draft with less than 4 list spots tho. You need 3 minimum and it's pretty easy to find the 4th worst player on your list and re-rookie them.

Forget 65 it has no real value, so 11, 29 and 47 for pick 1. It's an absolute dream. We gave that up for pick 8 last year!

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Rumours circulating on Bigfooty that we're targeting Bulldogs pick 14.

Is that what’s called a “pick trade “ Ethan?

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Rumours circulating on Bigfooty that we're targeting Bulldogs pick 14.

But nobody on here reads that or listens to trade radio. They just hear things??

Edited by Pennant St Dee

14 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

No club is going to go in to a draft with less than 4 list spots tho. You need 3 minimum and it's pretty easy to find the 4th worst player on your list and re-rookie them.

Forget 65 it has no real value, so 11, 29 and 47 for pick 1. It's an absolute dream. We gave that up for pick 8 last year!

I think we are saying similar things.  It is definitely a good outcome for you. But the balance isn't horrible in that if you get pick 1, you get nothing else that year except re-rookieing or 65+ speculative picks. So while its a great outcome, it also forces eggs in basket.

Previously if you could stock up you could theoretically get pick 1 for a couple of 2nd rounders then still take picks in the 30s and 40s.

 

I would be inclined to support it if points only counted for that round and the next. So pick 1 could only take points from 1st and 2nd and otherwise carried over to next years 1st and 2nd round.  You get the discount for development, but it does hit you in the pointy end.


8 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

so has the Melbourne FC academy got anyone that we are interested in?

 

Our Academy is akin to Police Academy 6.

40 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

2019 called: you're late for dinner.

A. I didn't know I was invited. B. Should I bring my bathers?

33 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I just posted what I'd read on Bigfooty. I don't mind if you follow me around but there's no need to be snarky. Cheers mate. 

Lol... References my post every single time then accuses me of 'following'...

#rentfree

20 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

But nobody on here reads that or listens to trade radio. They just hear things??

If you're at the level of reading BigFooty and getting info from there then you should probably be spending more time focusing on your exams...


6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Lol... References my post every single time then accuses me of 'following'...

#rentfree

 

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

If you're at the level of reading BigFooty and getting info from there then you should probably be spending more time focusing on your exams...

Get over yourself champ.  
This is a rumour thread FFS !!!!

Apologies for getting sucked in by the usual trolls for a minute there 'Landers.

In football goss, apparently one of the reasons Dunkley is leaving the Doggies is that a bit of a 'brat pack' is happening there and he's hating it. Seems a long way from what Bevo had going on with the team a few years ago. Wonder if that's why there's been media/rumours about him being under the pump more than any of us fans would have expected?

 

 
5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Apologies for getting sucked in by the usual trolls for a minute there 'Landers.

In football goss, apparently one of the reasons Dunkley is leaving the Doggies is that a bit of a 'brat pack' is happening there and he's hating it. Seems a long way from what Bevo had going on with the team a few years ago. Wonder if that's why there's been media/rumours about him being under the pump more than any of us fans would have expected?

 

In fairness I think they had one a few years ago with Stringer, Dahlhaus and a few others.  This is why they were happy to move them one 

1 minute ago, Demons11 said:

In fairness I think they had one a few years ago with Stringer, Dahlhaus and a few others.  This is why they were happy to move them one 

For sure, this was described to me as 'Brat Pack 2.0", so I'm assuming it's happening again with new names.


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

  • 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.

    • 17 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?

    • 232 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/

      • Like
    • 47 replies