AFL Trade Period

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

I saw a snippet of a footy chat show where they said Demons are so far in front of other contenders.  The latter need to do something significant in the trade period to even go close to catching up.  But so far the contenders hadn't yet done much of significance to threaten next year.

On a different note, Essendon is very quite.  Hatching something?  

Edited October 7, 2021 by Premiers

[spirit of norm smith 12,834]

2 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Ridiculous waste of a priority pick concession.  AFL should be livid and asking GCS for a please explain why they should be given any further assistance into the future. Been made to look like chumps.

Agree. Salary cap mismanagement and they offload their AFL concession “to make them stronger “.  Wtf!!?!?

[DeeSpencer 23,058]

11 minutes ago, Premiers said:

I saw a snippet of a footy chat show where they said Demons are so far in front of other contenders.  The latter need to do something significant to even go close to catching up.  But so far the contenders hadn't yet done much of significance to threaten next year.

On a different note, Essendon is very quite.  Hatching something?  

Brisbane don’t need to, they just need to get healthy.

Dogs need a ruck and a key back. Should get both.

Port both need nothing and a lot and can’t get it!

Last year all we did was Brown - did nothing for half the year, the pick swap - nothing until the last 7 weeks, and came out as the best team in the comp for the first half of the season.

The big thing we did was change assistant coaches and a lot of clubs are doing that. 

[Clintosaurus 6,409]

39 minutes ago, Demonland said:

So envious of all the Blues Trade Week Premierships. 

Essendon are the undisputed Trade Week Premiers.

[DeeSpencer 23,058]

2 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Agree. Salary cap mismanagement and they offload their AFL concession “to make them stronger “.  Wtf!!?!?

Because salary makes them stronger.

They now have the chance to keep all their young stars. 

They’ve also had 2 extra first and 2 extra second rounders through the academy. It’s those selections that mean they can move picks back for future years.

I hate it, but for once they are using picks to do more than just draft players, they are trying to retain the list they have of young stars and overpaid but ok senior guys.

[adonski 9,102]

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Brisbane don’t need to, they just need to get healthy.

Dogs need a ruck and a key back. Should get both.

Port both need nothing and a lot and can’t get it!

Last year all we did was Brown - did nothing for half the year, the pick swap - nothing until the last 7 weeks, and came out as the best team in the comp for the first half of the season.

The big thing we did was change assistant coaches and a lot of clubs are doing that. 

Why are Dogs getting both? They have no trade currency.

They may pickup another fringe type ruck like they did with Stef Martin, but ironically enough the last two years of gifted talls (Jamarra & now Darcy) have really restricted what they can do short term.

Those two will be guns long terms but for the sake of 2022/23 are irrelevant to them.

Edited October 7, 2021 by adonski

[whatwhat say what 18,775]

hewett, cerra, and young for pick 6, a future 3rd, and sps is a big win for the bluebaggers imo

the way footscray treat players that others play as key defenders is really strange over the last decade or so - jones, roughhead, and now young are all or are likely to be long-term key position defenders for their new clubs

[Jibroni 4,018]

On a side note its a disgrace Gold Coast can trade away a priority pick as a result of overpaying average footballers.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Jibroni

[spirit of norm smith 12,834]

16 minutes ago, adonski said:

Why are Dogs getting both? They have no trade currency.

They may pickup another fringe type ruck like they did with Stef Martin, but ironically enough the last two years of gifted talls (Jamarra & now Darcy) have really restricted what they can do short term.

Those two will be guns long terms but for the sake of 2022/23 are irrelevant to them.

Dogs gifted two key position 10-year players that are probably best tall forwards in their draft years.  That’s a bonus for a team already stocked with a good midfield.  Probably youngsters will reach their peak by 2025. 

[Colm 1,473]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Wonder will we look to pick up pick 27 from Collingwood now. 

[BDA 19,978]

8 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Dogs gifted two key position 10-year players that are probably best tall forwards in their draft years.  That’s a bonus for a team already stocked with a good midfield.  Probably youngsters will reach their peak by 2025. 

they should trade one of them for a key defender in a year or two. perhaps have a go at Weitering?

Edited October 7, 2021 by BDA

[ChaserJ 3,956]

I’d like us to have a crack at p23 from the Dogs. 37 & 57 over to them would give them a 70 point gain on DVI and chuck in a future 3rd to give them something tangible to make it worth their while. 23 too good a pick to be swallowed up in bid matching.

[Tough Kent 2,049]

8 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

I’d like us to have a crack at p23 from the Dogs. 37 & 57 over to them would give them a 70 point gain on DVI and chuck in a future 3rd to give them something tangible to make it worth their while. 23 too good a pick to be swallowed up in bid matching.

Has someone got Tim Lamb's number for J???

[Fat Tony 4,350]

9 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

I’d like us to have a crack at p23 from the Dogs. 37 & 57 over to them would give them a 70 point gain on DVI and chuck in a future 3rd to give them something tangible to make it worth their while. 23 too good a pick to be swallowed up in bid matching.

Isn't our future third embargoed as we have traded our future first?

[The Swimming Dee 1,827]

47 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

hewett, cerra, and young for pick 6, a future 3rd, and sps is a big win for the bluebaggers imo

the way footscray treat players that others play as key defenders is really strange over the last decade or so - jones, roughhead, and now young are all or are likely to be long-term key position defenders for their new clubs

You can add Marcus Adams to that list

[ChaserJ 3,956]

Just now, Fat Tony said:

Isn't our future third embargoed as we have traded our future first?

Third is ok, 2nd can’t be traded out without either a first or second coming back in. Dispensation can be granted by AFL though.

[whatwhat say what 18,775]

17 minutes ago, The Swimming Dee said:

You can add Marcus Adams to that list

joel hamling left straight after being a key defender in a premiership side too

so that's five who've left - jones, hamling, adams, roughead, and now young

meanwhile they brought in alex keath as a kp defender from the crows at not inconsiderable expense

Edited October 7, 2021 by whatwhat say what

[Maldonboy38 5,808]

Things at Carlton just seem so different. I don't know if it is new board, new coach, SOS departing or a bundle of things all working together. 

I am not a fan of what GC has done with the priority pick, but good on them for using a loophole to their advantage. We would have been gloating if we achieved it (not that we have needed to over the last few years).

Essendon still strutting through trade week like silent, smug gods, not realising that no-one wants to trade with them. 

As for the Dees, I still get the sense that some very quiet but brilliant game of Rummiking is being planned behind the scenes and we will end up with Mac Andrew (is this name right?) or some other specific target. 

[durango 1,976]

One of the problems the AFL has now created with their NGA is that clubs will now hide players from view of the other clubs before the draft or will not put enough effort in the development of young hopefuls like Mac Andrew from Sudan, I believe the rule should not be applicable to players like Mac Andrew and disadvantaged groups.

I believe the AFL next year will make it the top 40, this is a backward step for all the latecomers to Academies.

[Garbo 1,324]

4 minutes ago, durango said:

One of the problems the AFL has now created with their NGA is that clubs will now hide players from view of the other clubs before the draft or will not put enough effort in the development of young hopefuls like Mac Andrew from Sudan, I believe the rule should not be applicable to players like Mac Andrew and disadvantaged groups.

I believe the AFL next year will make it the top 40, this is a backward step for all the latecomers to Academies.

I don’t think the afl care as long as it gets more minorities into the afl system. 

[drdrake 3,035]

8 minutes ago, durango said:

One of the problems the AFL has now created with their NGA is that clubs will now hide players from view of the other clubs before the draft or will not put enough effort in the development of young hopefuls like Mac Andrew from Sudan, I believe the rule should not be applicable to players like Mac Andrew and disadvantaged groups.

I believe the AFL next year will make it the top 40, this is a backward step for all the latecomers to Academies.

I think you are over stating the amount of effort MFC put into Andrew or any club has put into their NGA.  It started off 3-4 years ago with all clubs going hard but the soon realised that reward V Effort and Cost it was just not worth it.  Most clubs now hold try outs sign up players and maybe host a handful of sessions if that.

Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/GCS are different they get priority access to any player in the academies, they actually spend a lot of time developing kids.  Have a look at the back ground of players these clubs have picked up from their academies not to many with would meet the criteria for the other clubs.

 

[Elwood 3184 1,263]

16 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

With a week to go in this trade period, it’s clear that there’s scope for plenty more deals even though so much is moving at snail’s pace. 

Who would have thought that Melbourne could have found a well-credentialed depth player who cost it nothing and then took a place in the first round of the national draft?

On top of that, you would think that there’s still the possibility of more movement whether it be on the player front or in terms of draft picks.

The extent of that action is partly tied up with its out of contract players. As of a couple of days ago, they were believed to be Oskar Baker, Toby Bedford, Majak Daw ® (UFA), Kade Chandler ®, Kye Declase ®, Michael Hibberd, Marty Hore, Deakyn Smith ®, Daniel Turner ® and Aaron vandenBerg.  The word is that Baker, Bedford, Daw and Hibberd will/have been offered contact extensions while vandenBerg is testing the market and now, Chandler is in discussions with the Crows. I would expect at least one if not both of our mid season draft picks to have their terms extended - they hardly had the opportunity to show their wares in the truncated VFL season (in fact, they each played only 4 matches with Casey) and they deserve more. 

However, the extent to which Melbourne can trade players in will depend partly on whether it leaves some players out. The ultimate size of the list is finite. Still, the club’s recruiters and list managers have shown themselves to be resourceful so we have another week of following their moves (in between viewing replays of our finals achievements).

DEMONS RE-SIGN A FURTHER SEVEN PLAYERS

And bang! Seven players all signed up in one day including Kade Chandler. 

[Binmans PA 25,892]

3 hours ago, durango said:

I think that every Carlton supporter would trade their Trade Week Premierships for the real one any day of the week.

There is an old saying that 'Premierships are not won in March' maybe it should be updated to 'Premierships are not won at the Trade Table but it can help'

Carlton can still say they've won the most flags. Hope they never win another one again.

[Binmans PA 25,892]

2 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

I’d like us to have a crack at p23 from the Dogs. 37 & 57 over to them would give them a 70 point gain on DVI and chuck in a future 3rd to give them something tangible to make it worth their while. 23 too good a pick to be swallowed up in bid matching.

Great thinking. Then flip picks 17 & 23 for a top 10 pick? ;)

[Demon Disciple 10,898]

7 minutes ago, A F said:

Great thinking. Then flip picks 17 & 23 for a top 10 pick? ;)

The evenness of the draft from pick 5 to about pick 20 would have me prefer we keep the 2 picks (unless JT has someone he really wants).