Jump to content

Welcome to Demonland - Pick 17

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 
20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

God we are good 

We are God at this business!

Edited by Deeoldfart

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    If it all blows up in our faces, you'll all have a flag to dry your tears on

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 2
    • Haha 13
     
    1 hour ago, Mickey said:

     

    Ow, how about we entice Dawson to the dees instead, now that we have the capital to do the deal? Might end up better for us than Cerra. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5

    3 hours ago, Demon Forever said:

    My only concern is: Wasn't it Josh Mahoney who did the wheeling an dealing with Pick upgrades?

    I think it was TIm Lamb leading, going by the clubs vids of trade nights when they picked up Jacko, Kozzie, and Rivers

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    1 hour ago, Deefiant said:

    One of these years this will come back to bite us....

    Yeah try..................after another 57 of them!!!!!!!! which by then will see us net in the vicinity of say 10-15 Premierships!!😍

    Edited by picket fence

  • Quote
    •  
    1 hour ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

    I'm not the best at working out the pros and cons of pick swaps but we're effectively receiving pick 17 this year and giving up pick 18 next year yeah?

    That's it!

    And it means we get next years player in this year and can put 12 months of development into them. 

    What don't people understand about being in a Premiership window? 

    It is about the now, we make the team better NOW. 

    We would only "lose" at the draft if we drop to the bottom of the ladder in 2022.  Do any of the critics of this tactic think that will happen next year?

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1

    I was hesitant about the 49, but then realised that this will come right in with Collingwood and WB having the picks in the 40s before it (so really, what is the difference - we are picking around the 44 mark then anyway). Love returning to the first round and seeing what we can do. We know that we have a Woey and a AMW if we want them in the later order, and we might get 2-3 picks before their names are read out. 

    Plus, that top 15 is not a bad top 15. Hopefully one shakes out to us. 

  • Quote

    29 minutes ago, A F said:

     

    What do you mean no room to make up ground? I swear someone posts the equivalent of this every year. "I don't like this! What will we do next year?" 

    We'll do what we do every year. We'll trade our future first. And then some Demonlander will come on here again and worry how we're going to get it done again the next year.

    We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

    When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

    There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

    We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

    We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    We truly have adopted an anti-Jeelong list management philosophy 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
    2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

    When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

    There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

    We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

    We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

     

    I agree with what you are saying but geez there is such fear of getting reamed with picks.

    You get reamed if you pick the wrong player with any pick

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Whats the bet we may even try to package picks 37 and 49 into something like pick 25??? or even 17 and 37 into ??? or 37 and 49????? my head is spinning and I never was any good at Maths!!

    Edited by picket fence

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 4
    31 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

    When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

    There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

    We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

    We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

    The point is we get a first rounder this year, so continue to build our list. A year in our system for a young, hopefully elite draftee. It's a no brainer.

    As for giving Taylor the best possible picks, that's what we're doing. 17 is infinitely better than a pick in the mid 30s...

    Edited by A F

  • Quote
    • Like 6

    Obviously Tim has had a hand in the previous pick trading so losing Mahoney was not a death nell on our pick trading system.

  • Quote

    For the past umpteen years this time of the year has been the most  interesting  time of the football year.

    This year I could not care less, we are the premiers on the back of some very good recruiting.

    The FD has iced these details in the past I trust their ability this year and will be interested when it is concluded just for a change. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    1 hour ago, COVID Dan said:

    Wonder if this is a move to get points for our NGA Mac Andrews?

    Doubt that there’s any logic in chasing pick 17 to get a Mac Andrew in this draft.

    Let me reiterate that it’s no reflection on him as a player but my assessment is that he’s one of a number who would fit in the mid-20s in this draft. From where he’s come since the start of 2021 that would be flattering but he’s been heavily hyped to the point where some people who consider themselves to be good judges are even putting him in top five contention.

    If that’s based on information dropped by someone on an AFL club’s recruiting staff, then good luck to him. My own assessment is that he sits around pick 25.

    If someone bids at that range I would be happy to see us match the bid. If he comes to Melbourne it would be terrific for him to learn the ropes as an understudy to Max Gawn, Luke Jackson and Majak Daw. It would be a great environment for him to learn the trade. 

    From my observations, I wouldn’t use pick 17 to secure him because there are others who will fall within that range who can play midfield or in key positions and who are far more developed as footballers, some of who will be right to go in season 1.

  • Quote
    • Like 15
    • Thanks 1
    • Love 1

    After the Sam McClure puff peice about the 'nastiness" between Melbourne and the Dogs, which is all fine if it pumps up the rivalry, but how about the Dogs and Dees really go to battle by offering each others future first round pick to each other to take the rivalry up a notch. Maybe add in a $100,000 from each club to a charity of the winners choice.

    I know it can't be done this year but it would be fun to see. Say Carlton and Essendon. Swans and GWS. Freo and West Coast.

    Actually I don't think the AFL would approve.

  • Quote

    Good to see that we are decisive and swift in our actions in the trade period still post Josh Mahoney. We target what we want to do and execute efficiently without  haggling over a couple of draft spots. I dont care for the trading out of next years draft. Keep doing it and next year never comes :)

    Edited by Lil_red_fire_engine

  • Quote
    • Like 5

    With how this team has recruited, they could draft Paddy McCartin at 17 and I'd believe he'd come good...

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    53 minutes ago, Demonland said:

     

    So looking purely at the draft spots we lose out here. Although other factors are clearly at play I am sure i.e. strength of this years & next years draft, father son selections pushing spots back, academy points needed, potentially packaging some of these picks up and swapping them again with other clubs, a particular player in mind etc. Will hold faith for now as the team have runs on the board

    Edited by Demons1858

  • Quote

    It’ll be picks a plenty for the dogs and pies, so we might not move back with these second rounders very much at all.  Suggest that our NGA and FS prospects this year will hope to be picked up after the first round anyway - maybe after the second.  IF we can grab talent early and not need to cash out on NGAs and FS until late, we can win big with this.  We may even try to get the second rounders and move further forward again…..

  • Quote
    •  
    2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    Bizarre that people are questioning this and again not surprised that it's the same individuals as usual. 

    Same list management who's done this strategic for a number of years are also the same ones who have just built a premiership team by doing this.

    Some will never be satisfied. 

    Spot on

  • Quote

    🍗Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner is my take!!🍗🍗

    Edited by picket fence

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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...
    Go to topic listing

    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.

        • Haha
        • Like
      • 98 replies
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      • 371 replies
      Demonland

    • 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/

        • Haha
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All