On 05/09/2023 at 02:57, BAMF said:

You have to have some incentive for clubs to invest money into the academy though.

It would be interesting to see how many kids from QLD have been drafted each year pre and post introduction of the Gold Coast academy.

every club puts $$ into them though.  but for some reason SA, WA and Vic don't get to keep theirs unless its outside the top 40.  Like Mac Andrew

  On 04/09/2023 at 02:07, DeeSpencer said:

The Jackson deal put most of our picks in to 2023.

2022 picks - Jefferson, Adams both long term projects 

2021 we took JVR and thank the lord we did because we’d be stuffed without him.

We need to take at least 1 high quality player now and get them in to the 22 as soon as possible. Either an elite tall if they’re too good to pass up or more likely some pace and class. 

Trading out of 15, 25, 35 whatever they are I get. I don’t get trading out of 5 unless JT hates the top of the draft

I'm in favour of bringing in a ready made first or early second round draft pick each year. Such players usually crack into our best 22, don't cost much in terms of salary cap space for the first 2 years, and play regular AFL footy for 5+ years. They also allow us to trade out a mature player who on 300-400k a year who can perform a role but probably wont improve much.

The Dogs are well placed for GC's pick 4 (2034 pts) with pick 10 (1395) and Brisbane's 17 (1025), that's 2420 pts total - a very nice upgrade for both clubs.

  On 04/09/2023 at 22:03, rpfc said:

No, Taylor and Lamb go up to get someone. Like they tried to Humphries last year and like they did to get Oliver and Pickett. It’s not going up for the sake of going up - it’s to get a specific player.

Correct, but they’ve either done it (Oliver, Pickett, JVR, Bowey and drafted Jackson) or tried it (Butters, Humphrey) nearly every year. If there’s anyone they like at all they won’t be trading backwards out of an early pick. JT’s said many times the best players go at the top. 

  On 05/09/2023 at 04:00, old55 said:

The Dogs are well placed for GC's pick 4 (2034 pts) with pick 10 (1395) and Brisbane's 17 (1025), that's 2420 pts total - a very nice upgrade for both clubs.

The Dogs have enough points this year but would also need to supply 2024 picks.

I assume the Suns will want to cover the points for 2023 and then pick up the most 2024 assets. It's the view that our 2024 pick will be later in the draft that hurts our chances of getting pick 4.

  On 05/09/2023 at 04:32, Fat Tony said:

The Dogs have enough points this year but would also need to supply 2024 picks.

I assume the Suns will want to cover the points for 2023 and then pick up the most 2024 assets. It's the view that our 2024 pick will be later in the draft that hurts our chances of getting pick 4.

If I'm the Dogs I'm not paying more than 10 and 17 (2420 points) for 4 (2034), that's a 20% upgrade on points.  If I'm Melbourne I'm not paying more than 15 (1112) + 24 (785) + 34 (542) a similar 2439 points to the Dogs offering.  The issue for Melbourne is that we hope 15 and 34 end up being later when the season ends and draft positions are set, whereas for the Dogs, Brisbane's 17 can't be much later.

  On 05/09/2023 at 05:20, old55 said:

If I'm the Dogs I'm not paying more than 10 and 17 (2420 points) for 4 (2034), that's a 20% upgrade on points.  If I'm Melbourne I'm not paying more than 15 (1112) + 24 (785) + 34 (542) a similar 2439 points to the Dogs offering.  The issue for Melbourne is that we hope 15 and 34 end up being later when the season ends and draft positions are set, whereas for the Dogs, Brisbane's 17 can't be much later.

Except that the Dogs I assume will be interested in getting Father/Son Jordan Croft who Cal Twomey has at 11. If they lost 10 & 17 (the latter linked to Brisbane's finishing position) they would be left with 36, 63, 66, 84 which will give them 694 points, a fair way short of the 1063 they would need for Pick 11 after the 20% discount.

  On 05/09/2023 at 06:22, Sydney_Demon said:

Except that the Dogs I assume will be interested in getting Father/Son Jordan Croft who Cal Twomey has at 11. If they lost 10 & 17 (the latter linked to Brisbane's finishing position) they would be left with 36, 63, 66, 84 which will give them 694 points, a fair way short of the 1063 they would need for Pick 11 after the 20% discount.

True, they'll be a mid 3rd rounder short of sufficient points IF Croft gets bid at 11 - probably not too hard to trade in the necessary though. Pick 4 and Croft would be a good haul for them.

  On 05/09/2023 at 03:42, Travy14 said:

every club puts $$ into them though.  but for some reason SA, WA and Vic don't get to keep theirs unless its outside the top 40.  Like Mac Andrew

That was the thing though. The Vic clubs haven't been putting in much for them at all. Understandably through covid.

The doggies getting access to JUH when they put sweet [censored] all into the academy killed it. JUH was ALWAYS going to play AFL.

The northern academies tap into areas that are dominated by other sporting pathways.

The players GC draft this year likely would never have been in the draft pool if the academy didn't exist.

  On 05/09/2023 at 06:27, old55 said:

True, they'll be a mid 3rd rounder short of sufficient points IF Croft gets bid at 11 - probably not too hard to trade in the necessary though. Pick 4 and Croft would be a good haul for them.

I'm not saying it's insurmountable. Just that it's something that might mean they are not as active in seeking a trade up to 4 as they would have been otherwise. It will mean that the Dogs will want to trade out 10 & 17 whether it's to go up to 4 or go down to get more points.

4 in it's own right will be attractive to a lot of Clubs whereas 10 is particularly attractive to Clubs like Melbourne that could package it with a higher pick to go even higher. 10 I think is a big advance on 15-18 as there'a a chance that 1 or 2 of the Gold Coast Academy picks and the Bulldogs Father/Son will fall below 10 (essentially what I'm saying is 10 might become 12 whereas 15-18 might become 19-22).

As I posted earlier, Melbourne Picks 18 & 24 for Bulldogs Pick 10 + future 3rd round? Could even 18 & 37 for 10 work? Probably not, but it is a slight points improvement for WB. Then we have Picks 5, 10 & 37 (am I dreaming?) for Harley Reid or we just keep them for draft selections. West Coast would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5.

  On 05/09/2023 at 01:53, Nascent said:

5381 subtracting 20% for their academy discount makes it 4305.

4305 - 4191 = 114 points.

Their short the equivelent of pick 62.

Outside of pick 4 they have picks 28, 31, 42, 47, 56, 60, 65, 69

Most of these could easily be traded down to cover the points if needed.

That's before a potential 2nd or 3rd round pick comes in for Hollands.

They aren't desperate for points, but any deal will have to cover the points equivelent of pick 4. There's a few clubs interested allegedly that could cover the points. The team that gets pick 4 will have to offer more than just points this year in my view.

I'm all on board having a crack at pick 4, for either a bundled up package for Reid or two high end players. I'd be happy either way.

I'm not sure what you mean by easily trading down. No club will want the picks after 4 except for another club trying to accrue points for a father/son or academy player (but even then you're not going to give away more points equivalency than you get). Would a Club really want to trade up to get a player at Pick 28 (or 32 as it's likely to end up at)? The whole point of acquiring those lower picks was to use them for Academy players.

You have ignored the GC 4th Academy pick in your analysis (Will Graham, who is likely to go in the mid-30s) but I take your point about possible additional picks coming in to GC through player trades. I really just don't see that GC are going to be in a position where they would prefer a combination of future picks plus current picks (which they can use for points) to just purely current picks. If they had a 1,000 point Surplus I would get it. Now if some other Club was feeling really generous and threw in a future pick whilst still meeting GC's need for points this year that could be attractive, but the 2023 points will be mandatory component of any trade.

We're probably all a bit early with all these prognostications given we won't know where all the picks lie until the final ladder positions are  determined, we know where North's special compensation package ends up, all the trades are completed including free agency compenssation (especially fot Ben McKay) ...  But we do know that Melbourne is very-well positioned to get a decent draft outcome, even if we don't get 1, or 4 or 10.

  On 05/09/2023 at 15:53, Sydney_Demon said:

I'm not sure what you mean by easily trading down. No club will want the picks after 4 except for another club trying to accrue points for a father/son or academy player (but even then you're not going to give away more points equivalency than you get). Would a Club really want to trade up to get a player at Pick 28 (or 32 as it's likely to end up at)? The whole point of acquiring those lower picks was to use them for Academy players.

You have ignored the GC 4th Academy pick in your analysis (Will Graham, who is likely to go in the mid-30s) but I take your point about possible additional picks coming in to GC through player trades. I really just don't see that GC are going to be in a position where they would prefer a combination of future picks plus current picks (which they can use for points) to just purely current picks. If they had a 1,000 point Surplus I would get it. Now if some other Club was feeling really generous and threw in a future pick whilst still meeting GC's need for points this year that could be attractive, but the 2023 points will be mandatory component of any trade.

We're probably all a bit early with all these prognostications given we won't know where all the picks lie until the final ladder positions are  determined, we know where North's special compensation package ends up, all the trades are completed including free agency compenssation (especially fot Ben McKay) ...  But we do know that Melbourne is very-well positioned to get a decent draft outcome, even if we don't get 1, or 4 or 10.

I assume @Nascent meant that GS other picks could be also be split. Certainly 28&31 and probably 42 could be split to gain even more points in this years draft. Likewise if the received a late first rounder as part of the deal for pick 4 it would probably be split again to gain maximum points value. I don’t think the Suns will have much difficulty obtaining enough points for their academy players and get one or two nice picks for next years draft. 

  On 05/09/2023 at 11:45, BAMF said:

That was the thing though. The Vic clubs haven't been putting in much for them at all. Understandably through covid.

The doggies getting access to JUH when they put sweet [censored] all into the academy killed it. JUH was ALWAYS going to play AFL.

The northern academies tap into areas that are dominated by other sporting pathways.

The players GC draft this year likely would never have been in the draft pool if the academy didn't exist.

Yeh they got lucky with JUH too, the rules changed the next year.

Yeh i get that but also remember that GC, GWS and the lions are the top 3 assisted clubs by the AFL.  So really who is paying for it?

Just think the rules should be the same, maybe some other sort of incentive like more of a discount but they can't be matched if they are in the top 20

  On 05/09/2023 at 21:27, Colm said:

I assume @Nascent meant that GS other picks could be also be split. Certainly 28&31 and probably 42 could be split to gain even more points in this years draft. Likewise if the received a late first rounder as part of the deal for pick 4 it would probably be split again to gain maximum points value. I don’t think the Suns will have much difficulty obtaining enough points for their academy players and get one or two nice picks for next years draft. 

This

  On 05/09/2023 at 15:53, Sydney_Demon said:

I'm not sure what you mean by easily trading down. No club will want the picks after 4 except for another club trying to accrue points for a father/son or academy player (but even then you're not going to give away more points equivalency than you get). Would a Club really want to trade up to get a player at Pick 28 (or 32 as it's likely to end up at)? The whole point of acquiring those lower picks was to use them for Academy players.

You have ignored the GC 4th Academy pick in your analysis (Will Graham, who is likely to go in the mid-30s) but I take your point about possible additional picks coming in to GC through player trades. I really just don't see that GC are going to be in a position where they would prefer a combination of future picks plus current picks (which they can use for points) to just purely current picks. If they had a 1,000 point Surplus I would get it. Now if some other Club was feeling really generous and threw in a future pick whilst still meeting GC's need for points this year that could be attractive, but the 2023 points will be mandatory component of any trade.

We're probably all a bit early with all these prognostications given we won't know where all the picks lie until the final ladder positions are  determined, we know where North's special compensation package ends up, all the trades are completed including free agency compenssation (especially fot Ben McKay) ...  But we do know that Melbourne is very-well positioned to get a decent draft outcome, even if we don't get 1, or 4 or 10.

We saw last year with Brisbane that they were able to generate extra points for both Aschcroft and Fletcher with live trading on the night and did it relatively cheaply.

1. Brisbane gets 41, 50, 52 and 63 - Hawthorn gets 36 and future Round 3

2. Brisbane gets 40 - North Melbourne gets 63 and future Round 3

For a draft that only gives 50odd deep and speculation that most clubs will be taking only a couple selections (as mentioned by Paul Connors on twomeys show), clubs will probably be willing to bundle up multiple late picks to get as high as possible this year.

Fair point re Graham, but again I don't see it as too much of an issue for them to find points if they choose to. Particularly if Chol and Hollands find new homes. Also a possibility they will be happy with their 3 first round kids and pass.

Agree entirely on your last paragraph, this is all very much premature speculation and we will get alot better lay of the land come trade/fa period post grand final. I may very well be off the mark, these are all just my opinions.

And as you say, we are in a great position.

  On 05/09/2023 at 15:14, Sydney_Demon said:

I'm not saying it's insurmountable. Just that it's something that might mean they are not as active in seeking a trade up to 4 as they would have been otherwise. It will mean that the Dogs will want to trade out 10 & 17 whether it's to go up to 4 or go down to get more points.

4 in it's own right will be attractive to a lot of Clubs whereas 10 is particularly attractive to Clubs like Melbourne that could package it with a higher pick to go even higher. 10 I think is a big advance on 15-18 as there'a a chance that 1 or 2 of the Gold Coast Academy picks and the Bulldogs Father/Son will fall below 10 (essentially what I'm saying is 10 might become 12 whereas 15-18 might become 19-22).

As I posted earlier, Melbourne Picks 18 & 24 for Bulldogs Pick 10 + future 3rd round? Could even 18 & 37 for 10 work? Probably not, but it is a slight points improvement for WB. Then we have Picks 5, 10 & 37 (am I dreaming?) for Harley Reid or we just keep them for draft selections. West Coast would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5.

I think the Dogs 10 will fall before Croft gets bid. They'll either use it or use it to trade up earlier.

  On 05/09/2023 at 23:19, old55 said:

I think the Dogs 10 will fall before Croft gets bid. They'll either use it or use it to trade up earlier.

I did see a rumour on another site (big footy) that Croft may not nominate the dogs. I assume due to their tall stocks and perhaps a lack of opportunity in the future.  

This proposal was mentioned on SEN, but I would be surprised if the Swans would use Pick 11 for Grundy:

Demons plan to get pick 1:

1st move trade Grundy , pick 24 and 34 to the swans for pick 11, 30 and 41, leaves the demons with 5, 11, 15, 30 and 41.

2nd trade, trade 15, 30 and 41 to Gold coast for their pick 4, then trade picks 4 and 5 to the eagles for pick 1.

ninefax saying doggies are favourites to land pick 4 at this point in time

  On 05/09/2023 at 23:51, Jibroni said:

This proposal was mentioned on SEN, but I would be surprised if the Swans would use Pick 11 for Grundy:

Demons plan to get pick 1:

1st move trade Grundy , pick 24 and 34 to the swans for pick 11, 30 and 41, leaves the demons with 5, 11, 15, 30 and 41.

2nd trade, trade 15, 30 and 41 to Gold coast for their pick 4, then trade picks 4 and 5 to the eagles for pick 1.

You have too much time on your hands!

In Jason Taylor and Tim Lamb we trust

  On 06/09/2023 at 00:22, whatwhat say what said:

ninefax saying doggies are favourites to land pick 4 at this point in time

If true, we could even target that pick as gold coast would again want to trade it out probably. 

Pick 10 for 18 and 24.

There will be ways for us to get up the board I'm sure.

  On 05/09/2023 at 23:24, Colm said:

I did see a rumour on another site (big footy) that Croft may not nominate the dogs. I assume due to their tall stocks and perhaps a lack of opportunity in the future.  

This makes sense. Nominating as a father/son (obviously) enhances your chances of being selected by that Club but does potentially scare off other clubs. WB can't even find a place for Sam Darcy in their current best 22.

  On 05/09/2023 at 23:51, Jibroni said:

This proposal was mentioned on SEN, but I would be surprised if the Swans would use Pick 11 for Grundy:

Demons plan to get pick 1:

1st move trade Grundy , pick 24 and 34 to the swans for pick 11, 30 and 41, leaves the demons with 5, 11, 15, 30 and 41.

2nd trade, trade 15, 30 and 41 to Gold coast for their pick 4, then trade picks 4 and 5 to the eagles for pick 1.

The problem with a lot of this speculation is that Melbourne's Pick 34 could end up anywhere from 32 to 37 and similarly Swans Picks 11 & 30 could end up (in an extreme case) as low as 18 & 37. And all those picks could be pushed back by North getting Pick 3 as free agency compensation for Ben McKay.

  On 06/09/2023 at 00:35, Nascent said:

If true, we could even target that pick as gold coast would again want to trade it out probably. 

Pick 10 for 18 and GC will wnt to on-trade 24.

There will be ways for us to get up the board I'm sure.

If Jordan Croft doesn't nominate as a father-son then that will definitely encourage WB to pursue GC 4. I agree GC will want to to on-trade Pick 10 and even Pick 17 if that happens. 3-way reade involving GC, Melbourne & WB? 

Dogs have a possible F/S as a 1st rounder. Although Croft is undecided according to the media and the bullies have a stack of talls.

GS get a 20% Academy pick discount which will probably in total equal around a pick14/15 in an uncompromised draft.

GC have already accumulated draft picks and may be interested in our future 1st plus our 22 and 34 and maybe some of what we get if some of our players leave, eg Grundy, Jordan, Harmes etc.

That would leave us with picks 5/6 (after GC bid) and late 1st rounder. Another batch of 3 good players at once - is that possible?

GC get plenty of points and another 2024 1st rounder. So they get 3 1st round players this year as we do but they will have 2 1st round picks next year.

  On 05/09/2023 at 23:51, Jibroni said:

This proposal was mentioned on SEN, but I would be surprised if the Swans would use Pick 11 for Grundy:

Demons plan to get pick 1:

1st move trade Grundy , pick 24 and 34 to the swans for pick 11, 30 and 41, leaves the demons with 5, 11, 15, 30 and 41.

2nd trade, trade 15, 30 and 41 to Gold coast for their pick 4, then trade picks 4 and 5 to the eagles for pick 1.

So Grundy and 4 draft picks (4, 5, 24 & 34) for the #1 pick?   I can't see that happening.  The scenario is also contingent  on Grundy nominating the Swans and from all accounts it looks like he will nominate Port. 

  On 10/09/2023 at 04:40, grazman said:

So Grundy and 4 draft picks (4, 5, 24 & 34) for the #1 pick?   I can't see that happening.  The scenario is also contingent  on Grundy nominating the Swans and from all accounts it looks like he will nominate Port. 

You forgot we would also gain pick 11.

Not saying I think it will happen though.

  On 05/09/2023 at 06:27, old55 said:

True, they'll be a mid 3rd rounder short of sufficient points IF Croft gets bid at 11 - probably not too hard to trade in the necessary though. Pick 4 and Croft would be a good haul for them.

Not sure Croft has committed to the dogs, they have too many tall forwards at the moment. Lobb, Naughton, JUH and the old ruckman's father son. As already mentioned above.

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by Viscount Cardwell