1 hour ago, deanox said:

 

Yeah no biting, it's a good question.

You can only have as many picks as list spots.

We finished 6th for draft purposes so have available:

- Pick 6 (traded in from Freo)

- Pick 14 (first round)

- Pick 36 (second round, traded out to GC)

- Pick 42 (second round, JJ compensation)

- Pick 57 (third round, traded out last year)

- Pick 75 (4th round, traded out to WB last year)

- Pick 93 (5th round)

 

Bold are picks we still have.

 

Technically we have up to 4 primary list spots available now, because we are allowed to have 36-38 primary list players, with the number of rookies reducing for each list spot of 36 we use.

Only picks that can be used on a primary list spot can be taken into the draft for the purpose of points. I.e. you can't stockpile 8 X 2nd round picks for lots of points if you only have a potential for 3 lost spots.

 

Also pick 73 is worth 9 points, and any pick 74 onwards is worth 0 points. So after pick 42, we have no more points.

Two things; you can go into deficit, and ND93 won’t be that high. Only around 65 kids will taken.

2 hours ago, deanox said:

 

Yeah no biting, it's a good question.

You can only have as many picks as list spots.

We finished 6th for draft purposes so have available:

- Pick 6 (traded in from Freo)

- Pick 14 (first round)

- Pick 36 (second round, traded out to GC)

- Pick 42 (second round, JJ compensation)

- Pick 57 (third round, traded out last year)

- Pick 75 (4th round, traded out to WB last year)

- Pick 93 (5th round)

 

Bold are picks we still have.

 

Technically we have up to 4 primary list spots available now, because we are allowed to have 36-38 primary list players, with the number of rookies reducing for each list spot of 36 we use.

Only picks that can be used on a primary list spot can be taken into the draft for the purpose of points. I.e. you can't stockpile 8 X 2nd round picks for lots of points if you only have a potential for 3 lost spots.

 

Also pick 73 is worth 9 points, and any pick 74 onwards is worth 0 points. So after pick 42, we have no more points.

One factor to consider is how far pick 93 will come in once academy picks are absorbed and clubs pass later in the draft. Given its expected that roughly 50-60 picks will be taken this year we will likely have some points value added to that pick when it comes time to using it. 61 = 135 points. Not that it will make much of a material difference.

On 03/11/2023 at 16:08, Wizard of Koz said:

No one is asking to cast him aside. Just questioning the wisdom of a 4 year contract and the resulting clogging up a list spot in 24.

Could have fooled me!! Many D/Lers expect that and have posted that BBB and T Mac would just fade away or the Club would engineer their retirement.

Well that is not happening and your question re the four year contract agreed upon 3 years ago is a classic in hindsight comment. 

Who knows what might happen in 2024 we can always look at our crystal balls and hope for a great outcome. 

4 hours ago, deanox said:

I'll add that the f/s points discount is 20% or 197 points, whichever is greater.

Pick 56 is designated as 194 points.

That means if Kynan is drafted from pick 56 onwards we can match the bid for 0 points. As long as we have a list spot, he is ours if we want him.

If he is bid at pick 55 we would need to pay 10 points, at pick 49 we would pay 90 points, at 43 we'd pay 181 points.

 

If this cost got pushed into next year, 37 points is enough to shift pick 18 to 19. 181 points is enough to shift any pick back at least 1 and probably more picks (except for the top 3 picks).

 

So I suspect that unless we rejig our draft hand on the night, we may only match a bid for him if it comes in the mid 50s or later.

 

30 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Two things; you can go into deficit, and ND93 won’t be that high. Only around 65 kids will taken.

 

6 minutes ago, Nascent said:

One factor to consider is how far pick 93 will come in once academy picks are absorbed and clubs pass later in the draft. Given its expected that roughly 50-60 picks will be taken this year we will likely have some points value added to that pick when it comes time to using it. 61 = 135 points. Not that it will make much of a material difference.

@rpfc I flagged the deficit in a post 3 posts above the one you commented on.

 

And for both @rpfcand @Nascent:

If there is a bid on Brown at pick 50, then our pick 93 will still be a late pick, and almost certainly later than 73. Sure lots of teams may pass between 50 and 93, bringing our pick higher (let's say it comes in as low as 65), but at the time of the bid, those passes won't have happened yet so our 5th round pick will likely be worth 0 points.

On 03/11/2023 at 14:43, Bystander said:

I watched his last games for Casey. He lifted and definitely looked like someone trying hard to get in the ones. And why wouldn't he, demons were a big chance for a premiership and every player covets those !

I feel there was something not quite right by theFinals starting time and the marriage was over.  No real. proof but a hunch of time being up and the final straw breaking the camels back.

I don’t disagree with the non selection but can’t understand like a quarter of million other Dees fans why Schache wasn’t released to the game halfway through the third quarter in place of Tommy Mac. We will have to wait for Goody’s book surely for the real reason! 

25 minutes ago, deanox said:

 

 

@rpfc I flagged the deficit in a post 3 posts above the one you commented on.

 

And for both @rpfcand @Nascent:

If there is a bid on Brown at pick 50, then our pick 93 will still be a late pick, and almost certainly later than 73. Sure lots of teams may pass between 50 and 93, bringing our pick higher (let's say it comes in as low as 65), but at the time of the bid, those passes won't have happened yet so our 5th round pick will likely be worth 0 points.

I wouldn't say our pick would be greater than 73 at that point with great certainty. It could, but it could very well have come in further than that.

Gold Coast will have all 10 of their selections wiped and Bulldogs will have at least 4 to match a bid for Croft. Hawks likely to have 3 selections wiped for McCabe. That's 17 selections for 6 players bring 93 into 82 straight away. That's before other NGAs and f/s's are considered and teams possibly passing before pick 50 with some clubs only taking one pick in.

I'd further add that GC may very well have to trade out their early 2nd rounders/other picks for multiple later selections still with talk of Read being a top 5 candidate and Graham entering round 1 calculations. They wouldn't have the points to match on current holdings. A chance for us to rejig our hand here.

This could all be moot anyway if we decide to take Brown at 42 and leave a spot open for a rookie or SSP player.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us swap 42 with the Suns for pick 66, using this for Brown, and also gaining a future pick.

Equally, it wouldn't surprise me to see Brown go without a bid and for us take him for free in the Rookie draft.

4 hours ago, Nascent said:

I wouldn't say our pick would be greater than 73 at that point with great certainty. It could, but it could very well have come in further than that.

Gold Coast will have all 10 of their selections wiped and Bulldogs will have at least 4 to match a bid for Croft. Hawks likely to have 3 selections wiped for McCabe. That's 17 selections for 6 players bring 93 into 82 straight away. That's before other NGAs and f/s's are considered and teams possibly passing before pick 50 with some clubs only taking one pick in.

I'd further add that GC may very well have to trade out their early 2nd rounders/other picks for multiple later selections still with talk of Read being a top 5 candidate and Graham entering round 1 calculations. They wouldn't have the points to match on current holdings. A chance for us to rejig our hand here.

This could all be moot anyway if we decide to take Brown at 42 and leave a spot open for a rookie or SSP player.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us swap 42 with the Suns for pick 66, using this for Brown, and also gaining a future pick.

Equally, it wouldn't surprise me to see Brown go without a bid and for us take him for free in the Rookie draft.

Good point about it coming in. I havnt counted it all out, so it's possible our 5th round pick will come in enough to have points value this year

1 minute ago, deanox said:

Good point about it coming in. I havnt counted it all out, so it's possible our 5th round pick will come in enough to have points value this year

Equally you made a good point about clubs maybe not passing until into the 50s+. Something I didn't fully consider with the alleged limited draft pool.

Particularly with Gold Coast and Bulldogs owning so many picks in the mid part of the draft, clubs that only take two picks may not have another one to pass on until the 50s or 60s. 

9 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Equally you made a good point about clubs maybe not passing until into the 50s+. Something I didn't fully consider with the alleged limited draft pool.

Particularly with Gold Coast and Bulldogs owning so many picks in the mid part of the draft, clubs that only take two picks may not have another one to pass on until the 50s or 60s. 

One thing I think we know is that I'm sure the MFC recruiting team have a good idea of whether they think it will come in enough to generate points!

Great discussion of the details thanks @deanox and @Nascent

Confirmation from Cal that's it's the rookie list only for Kynan Brown.

 

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

Confirmation from Cal that's it's the rookie list only for Kynan Brown.

 

Do you know how that works @DeeSpencer? Have we essentially only agreed to match if he doesn’t get bid on in the ND?

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Confirmation from Cal that's it's the rookie list only for Kynan Brown.

 

Yeah that seems like a strange statement to me. 

What does "can't be matched" mean to Cal?

7 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Do you know how that works @DeeSpencer? Have we essentially only agreed to match if he doesn’t get bid on in the ND?

Correct. If a team bids on him during the ND we can't match. Once the ND is over he goes straight on our rookie list.

Why can't we match it?

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

Why can't we match it?

Because we've chosen not to as we clearly only rate him as a rookie.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Correct. If a team bids on him during the ND we can't match. Once the ND is over he goes straight on our rookie list.

Gee, the FD has me well and truly covered,  but that seems a risky strategy to me. 

1 minute ago, Palace Dees said:

Gee, the FD has me well and truly covered,  but that seems a risky strategy to me. 

Might have a bit to do with how many list spots we have. If we pick at 6 and 11 and have committed to upgrading Turner, we may not have the spots to match

Just now, Mickey said:

Might have a bit to do with how many list spots we have. If we pick at 6 and 11 and have committed to upgrading Turner, we may not have the spots to match

Yeah, there has to be logic to it. Maybe a rookie spot is our only real choice if we want him. I'd just hate to lose a father/son that can play. 

12 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because we've chosen not to as we clearly only rate him as a rookie.

So we can, but we won't.

I like the other explanation better but I'm unsure about list spots.  It seems a bit strange to me that there isn't more love for him.

16 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because we've chosen not to as we clearly only rate him as a rookie.

So it means if another club select him, he goes on their senior list, but if not selected, he is ours as a rookie.

6 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

Yeah, there has to be logic to it. Maybe a rookie spot is our only real choice if we want him. I'd just hate to lose a father/son that can play. 

Think about what you’re saying. The club clearly only rate him as rookie worthy, otherwise they’d have made it work.

I love the romance of father/sons and have a connection to the Brown family through my local footy club. I’d love nothing more than for him to make it.

But the reality, as I’ve tried to hint at a few times from watching him play personally a number of times, is that he’s unlikely to have enough AFL level attributes to make it at that level. There’s a reason not a single expert has him in their top 50 rated prospects.

Would love nothing more than to be proved wrong but some people need to temper their expectations.

22 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because we've chosen not to as we clearly only rate him as a rookie.

sounds like we don't have picks to match it with, and not going into deficit, not so much that we would refuse to take him unless it's a rookie.

4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

So we can, but we won't.

I like the other explanation better but I'm unsure about list spots.  It seems a bit strange to me that there isn't more love for him.

Strange?

The club rates him purely as a rookie prospect.. not only that, he barely got enough nominations from opposition clubs to qualify for the state combine. That in itself would explain why he's rated as a rookie prospect. It's just Melbourne, bit other clubs also.

I'll happily back our gun recruiting team on this one.

I’m theory we have 4 main list spots, but in practice we have 2 certain main list spots and 2 spots that are best used as rookie spots, because rookie spots come with a chunk of salary outside the cap. 

So if we draft a 3rd or 4th national draft player we don’t get the cap relief of using a rookie spot. 

In the case of Brown who isn’t in the top 50 on any projections we are clearly happy to roll the dice with him getting to the rookie list. I’d imagine it’s fairly likely he does.

When it comes to using pick 42 I’d imagine it would have to be a top 20 player on JT’s board falling through to make that investment. It’s far more likely we trade that for a future 3rd.