Jump to content

Featured Replies

The Cedric Cox noted above pursuit suggests we are using a list spot for a DFA leaving 2 spots available after Lockhart's promotion. 

This strengths my hunch we will take 2 new draftees and we will convert our 4 picks (18, 19, 28 and 50) into the best two we can get.  Otherwise 28 and 50 are wasted. 

 
15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Cedric Cox noted above pursuit suggests we are using a list spot for a DFA leaving 2 spots available after Lockhart's promotion. 

This strengths my hunch we will take 2 new draftees and we will convert our 4 picks (18, 19, 28 and 50) into the best two we can get.  Otherwise 28 and 50 are wasted. 

Alternatively, we might be going after Cedric Cox for him to trial as a possible Pre-Season Supplemental Selection in the same way that Harley Bennell tried out last year.

26 minutes ago, Demon Head said:

Alternatively, we might be going after Cedric Cox for him to trial as a possible Pre-Season Supplemental Selection in the same way that Harley Bennell tried out last year.

I interpreted the 2 year guaranteed offer as coming straight onto the list rather than a 'lets see how you go' offer.  May have misinterpreted the guarantee. 

I guess a player could be guaranteed 2 years on the rookie list but there would be a bit of a difference in pay.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

 
2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Cedric Cox noted above pursuit suggests we are using a list spot for a DFA leaving 2 spots available after Lockhart's promotion. 

This strengths my hunch we will take 2 new draftees and we will convert our 4 picks (18, 19, 28 and 50) into the best two we can get.  Otherwise 28 and 50 are wasted. 

Don’t think so. Any Cox or other DFA pursuit would’ve been before we locked in the last 5 guys including promoting Lockhart. Cox is probably rare as a delisted free agent worth a gamble on 2 years. Most other names available look like supplemental list types. 
 

If we had secured Cox we could’ve just kept Lockhart on the rookie list. 


11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Don’t think so. Any Cox or other DFA pursuit would’ve been before we locked in the last 5 guys including promoting Lockhart. Cox is probably rare as a delisted free agent worth a gamble on 2 years. Most other names available look like supplemental list types.

If we had secured Cox we could’ve just kept Lockhart on the rookie list. 

Why?  The DFA selection period hasn't opened yet.  It opens on Thursday. 

We will only know of DFA's successfully pursued later in the week (or when their is another DFA selection period).

Lockhart deserves his promotion.  There are other ways to create list spots if that is your reason for not promoting him.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Why?  The DFA selection period hasn't opened yet.  It opens on Thursday. 

We will only know of DFA's successfully pursued later in the week (or when their is another DFA selection period).

Lockhart deserves his promotion.  There are other ways to create list spots if that is your reason for not promoting him.

Clubs and managers would’ve been surveying the delistings and uncontracted players for weeks now, with the ability to trade a token pick for anyone we really wanted in the trade period. Anyone actually in demand will get picked up soon, but the most likely situation is doing what we did with Brown and Corey Wagner, having them pull out of the drafts and signing them after.

Yes we could create list spots other ways but Lockhart was the most obvious. The promotion on a one year deal is just a token gesture.

35 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Clubs and managers would’ve been surveying the delistings and uncontracted players for weeks now, with the ability to trade a token pick for anyone we really wanted in the trade period. Anyone actually in demand will get picked up soon, but the most likely situation is doing what we did with Brown and Corey Wagner, having them pull out of the drafts and signing them after.

Yes we could create list spots other ways but Lockhart was the most obvious. The promotion on a one year deal is just a token gesture.

Of course clubs have been surveying delisted players for weeks.  That is different than what you posted earlier saying a DFA would be locked in before contracting 5 players. 

 
23 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Might be a dumb question, but given the list minimum is 36 (37 inc. rookies) and we only have to use 1 pick this year, could there also be a chance we try to bundle up 18,19 and 28 into a top 10 pick and only take 1 draftee (aside from Lockhart)?

Doesn't seem super likely, but it's another option yeah?

Curious: Is it more likely to get us the player that fills our needs? I assume the wing or speedy HBF is what we're looking for...

10 hours ago, Lampers said:

My guess is Melbourne will be keeping spot on the list open for after draft day, be them main list or rookie, given the unusually high amount of quality available from DFA given the list shrinkages, plus the precedent of prior years where Melbourne have added players just before the season and mid year.

I think this means we will see some more delistings, perhaps Bedford or Chandler or maybe KK as I doubt any would be snapped up by another club so Melbourne could just redraft them ultimately.

I also guess that Melbourne will be trying to take advantage on draft day during live trading if they can’t package two picks into one earlier pick to move up the order prior to the draft.

I wouldn’t be surprised if another club is willing to trade for Melbourne’s picks live during the draft when they know it will for sure get them a “slider”, and in exchange give up something potentially better in the 2021 draft.

The risk for Melbourne is other clubs knowing Melbourne may not really want to use some of their 2020 picks and so trying to low ball for them.

As confusing as the live trading and future pick trading and rule restrictions are for the average Joe, it really does open up possibilities and make the Mahoneys and Taylors or the world work for their money.

I reckon the next step is allowing just drafted players to be part of a trading window immediately after the draft concludes. The drafted player should have no say in proceedings. AFLPA surely can’t have a problem with that as 24 hours earlier the player had no choice in where they were drafted to so it’s just an extension and it will create even more opportunity for list managers to improve their list.

these guys signed a contract extension yesterday and KK still has 1yr to go on his existing deal but has agreed with the club to step away from games and training due to his concussion we believe


On 11/23/2020 at 6:19 PM, Dannyz said:

The club has tried unsuccessfully to convince Cedric Cox that we like his talents and could guarantee him 2 years. Complicated situation with family in remote Halls Creek. 

Officially delisted by the lions today and sadly for him it sounds like he hasn't got any interest from the WA clubs. 

Now that KK has retired and is off our books, Jay Lockhart gets uplifted to the Primary List and Aaron Nietschke can be automatically rookied, this is the scenario -

• 34 players on the Primary List (max 38) 

• 3 on the Rookie A List (maximum 6) 

• 1 on the Rookie B List (max 2)

We have some additional options in the drafts depending on how the picks fall. 

  • Author
On 11/25/2020 at 7:03 PM, Freddy Fuschia said:

 

Now that KK has retired and is off our books, Jay Lockhart gets uplifted to the Primary List and Aaron Nietschke can be automatically rookied, this is the scenario -

• 34 players on the Primary List (max 38) 

• 3 on the Rookie A List (maximum 6) 

• 1 on the Rookie B List (max 2)

We have some additional options in the drafts depending on how the picks fall. 

I didn’t notice until I saw this article that James Jordan has been put on the rookie list. This appears to have implications as to the club’s list size and the number of players it can select at the draft. With Jordan now on the rookie list, the scenario is -

• 33 players on the Primary List (max 38) 

• 4 on the Rookie A List (maximum 6) 

• 1 on the Rookie B List (max 2)

AFL list changes 2020: Every club’s ins and outs after first list lodgement

These are the changes ~

MELBOURNE

INS:

Ben Brown (Trade)

Jay Lockhart (Promoted rookie)

OUTS:

Harley Bennell (Not retained)

Kyle Dunkley (Not retained)

Mitchell Hannan (Trade)

James Jordan (*Delisted, moving to rookie list)

Kade Kolodjashnij (Retired)

Oscar McDonald (Delisted)

Aaron Nietschke (*Delisted, moving to rookie list )

Braydon Preuss (Trade)

Corey Wagner (Not retained)

Joshua Wagner (Delisted)

 

6 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I didn’t read anywhere about James Jordan moving to the rookie list. Anyone seen this? 

Yes widely reported and initial thought is that we will take our 4 draft picks to the big dance and use them.


39 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I didn’t read anywhere about James Jordan moving to the rookie list. Anyone seen this? 

It’s reported in the article which WJ linked. The ins and outs etc are as quoted from the article. So potentially we have 5 picks in the draft and will possibly hold one back for later drafts.

3 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Can someone please tell me what picks we have in the 2021 draft? 

18.19.28.50

Surprised to see Jordon moved to the rookie list, I think it now means that we have the space to use our 4 picks at the draft this year and can sign a delisted free agent.

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I didn’t notice until I saw this article that James Jordan has been put on the rookie list. This appears to have implications as to the club’s list size and the number of players it can select at the draft. With Jordan now on the rookie list, the scenario is -

• 33 players on the Primary List (max 38) 

• 4 on the Rookie A List (maximum 6) 

• 1 on the Rookie B List (max 2)

AFL list changes 2020: Every club’s ins and outs after first list lodgement

These are the changes ~

MELBOURNE

INS:

Ben Brown (Trade)

Jay Lockhart (Promoted rookie)

OUTS:

Harley Bennell (Not retained)

Kyle Dunkley (Not retained)

Mitchell Hannan (Trade)

James Jordan (*Delisted, moving to rookie list)

Kade Kolodjashnij (Retired)

Oscar McDonald (Delisted)

Aaron Nietschke (*Delisted, moving to rookie list )

Braydon Preuss (Trade)

Corey Wagner (Not retained)

Joshua Wagner (Delisted)

 

Not sure about the difference of delisted and Not retained. Guess it's ones from the list of 2020 and others from the Rookie lis/s.

Gives us a chance for 4 draftees if we want and I additional pre-season player or 3 and 2 or 1 as we desire. Probably depends upon anyone in the 50 area we deem as potential for 2021 for development.

Wise options From our Club.


On 11/24/2020 at 3:00 PM, Grr-owl said:

Curious: Is it more likely to get us the player that fills our needs? I assume the wing or speedy HBF is what we're looking for...

HFF HBF also winger plus Outside running mid all in the mix. Outside chance for developing young ruck if one with any ability I guess. 

12 minutes ago, 58er said:

Not sure about the difference of delisted and Not retained. Guess it's ones from the list of 2020 and others from the Rookie lis/s.

Gives us a chance for 4 draftees if we want and I additional pre-season player or 3 and 2 or 1 as we desire. Probably depends upon anyone in the 50 area we deem as potential for 2021 for development.

Wise options From our Club.

'Not Retained' refers to Rookies, 'Delisted' refers to senior list players.

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

'Not Retained' refers to Rookies, 'Delisted' refers to senior list players.

Thanks LH I guessed it when I looked at the list from that post as it worked out.

will be interesting which way will we go and who we pick to improve out list in talent and more direct needs. 

 

A reminder that while the maximums on lists are:

  • 38 for seniors  (currently 33, assuming reports that Jordon has been delisted/rookied are correct)
  • 6 for A rookies (currently 4, assuming reports that Jordon has been delisted/rookied are correct)
  • 2 for B rookies (currently 1)

The overall total cannot exceed 44.

The minimum for seniors list is 36 so we must add at least 3 from the draft/DFA's

 

Edit:  I will update the 'Contracts' thread when the Jordon move is confirmed by the club.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

It’s worth bearing in mind, that although picks will be pushed back in the draft sequence by NGA selections, later picks will come in as the later draft picks are eaten up.

e.g. While the dogs will select JUH early, it will eat up their pick 26, brining our picks 28 & 50 forward. It will also likely eat up their 33, 41 & 42.

50 will come in more as Port’s 35 & 47 are eaten up for Lachie Jones.

Sydney’s 34, 37, 43 & 48 should all evaporate.

Freo’s 32 will disappear.

GC getting ridiculous concessions stings.

Having said that, we also have to factor the picks clubs receive back as “change” from the points used to match bids, so 50 will likely push back out a bit, but 28 might be in a bit of a sweet spot.

This is something I tried to unsuccessfully articulate last year, but it’s a bit easier now with real world examples; in essence, trading into later picks in this draft may not be such a bad thing. The COVID implications make it even better if you back your talent ID dept to have done the work earlier & better than the opposition.


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.

      • Vomit
      • Like
    • 96 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? 

      • Haha
    • 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
      • Like
    • 368 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/

      • Sad
    • 47 replies