Jump to content

Featured Replies

On 16/11/2023 at 13:53, Demon Disciple said:

How do they describe Daniel Rich? He’s a right footer isn’t he?

Left.

 
43 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Word is that Adelaide have been particularly keen to move to 7 to grab Curtin

I reckon we’d be trying to move up but might be difficult to match Adelaide’s assets (10, 14 and 20)

Then if WC want Curtin, it’s probably needing to trade with us. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Then if WC want Curtin, it’s probably needing to trade with us. 

It does seem like GWS’ willingness to trade pick 7 could shape a lot of the draft 

Could mean West Coast get the Reid-Curtin double if they trade their future first, or could see them miss out if GWS trade back with Adelaide 

I’d still love for them to trade pick 1 to us and pick Curtin themselves at 6 if they think he’ll slide to then (and it seems like he will) but from all reports they’re set on taking Reid - Curtin or no Curtin

Edited by demoncat

 
4 minutes ago, demoncat said:

It does seem like GWS’ willingness to trade pick 7 could shape a lot of the draft 

Could mean West Coast get the Reid-Curtin double if they trade their future first, or could see them miss out if they trade back with Adelaide 

I’d still love for them to trade pick 1 to us and pick Curtin themselves at 6 if they think he’ll slide to then (and it seems like he will) but from all reports they’re not set on taking Reid - Curtin or no Curtin

I think you mean they "are" set on taking Reid, as far as the reports have gone. Most reports saying they will keep 1.

Still think if we want Reid and they are prepared to trade pick 1, we are the real chance.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think you mean they "are" set on taking Reid, as far as the reports have gone. Most reports saying they will keep 1.

Still think if we want Reid and they are prepared to trade pick 1, we are the real chance.

Woops - mistype 

Edited now 


The idea that North (Clarkson) are keen on Curtin gives me hope that Duursma will slip through to 4 and we can get 4 from Hawthorn, however I think if that plays out they might elect to keep 4 anyway.

So many variables, but I think they are all pipedreams. Windsor & Tholstrup appears to be the likely outcome, and one we should be happy with.

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

 
32 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

I think we can apply occums razor here

Tholstrup wasn't going to be available at 14 and we traded up.

There may have been other hopes and designs for that pick to move even higher, but I think it's wrong to say Tholstrup would have been available to us at our original pick.

Multiple articles pointed to interest from rival clubs starting with the Bombers at 9, St kilda 12 and Sydney 13.

Edited by Nascent

On 11/10/2023 at 00:16, Binmans PA said:

What does leave us with picks wise?

??


14 minutes ago, David-Demon said:

??

In October, I was asking what trading in pick 11 left us with picks wise...

9 hours ago, kallangurdemon said:

Now that we have made our 2 first round selections I cannot still understand the swap of picks 14 ,27 and 35 for pick 11 and am actually further confused .We took Tholstrup with the pick 11(now 13 ) but there was nothing to indicate that any of the 3 clubs that would have otherwise been above us were interested in him .We would presumably got him with the old 14.We structured the final list after knowing that we had 2 less draft picks.We cant claim the swap assisted in trying to deal to climb further up the board because we were left after it with a diminution of  trade capital .Was there another discrete  reason for what appears to be an unusual trade .?

I think it was to make the Reid offer as appealing as possible and it just didn’t pan out.  Whether our Tholstrup would have been available at our original pick… I guess we’ll never know.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. But we gave up two decent picks to get Tholstrup instead of Leake who was taking at our original pick. Seems a lot to pay. 
 

Would we have used 27 and 35.

Seems to me that with keeping Melksham, McDonald and Brown that list spots were constrained this year by comparison to next when we could easily have 5 spots available.

I'll never understand keeping Schache as a back up ruck though

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Would we have used 27 and 35.

Seems to me that with keeping Melksham, McDonald and Brown that list spots were constrained this year by comparison to next when we could easily have 5 spots available.

I'll never understand keeping Schache as a back up ruck though

Probably not be we could have turned them into one or two good picks for next year. 


When you factor in where the bids came, 14, 27 & 35 became 17, 34 & 40 (40 got swallowed up by bid matches).

Depending on when you do the math we gave up the equivalent of either pick 17 to land move up to 10 pre draft or pick 25 to get up 4 spots to 13 as it stands.

On 20/11/2023 at 08:56, Binmans PA said:

In October, I was asking what trading in pick 11 left us with picks wise...

sorry.

18 hours ago, Colm said:

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. But we gave up two decent picks to get Tholstrup instead of Leake who was taking at our original pick. Seems a lot to pay. 
 

Won’t know about that for about3/4 years just like the Kelly trade off!

I am happy but really this draft was much deeper than most if you believe Montagna Ablett and Shifter!! Still raving about depth into the 60’s draft no’s!! 

6 hours ago, 58er said:

Won’t know about that for about3/4 years just like the Kelly trade off!

I am happy but really this draft was much deeper than most if you believe Montagna Ablett and Shifter!! Still raving about depth into the 60’s draft no’s!! 

Yeah I tend to think time will show that this was a quality draft. Both for top end talent and depth. Cal rated his top 10 in this years draft higher than 2018. I think the first round quality also went pretty deep. Wilson went pick 18 and should have a solid AFL career. 
 

A lot of list managers and recruiters said that the next tier of player( from say pick 18 onwards) was very even rather than poor. Take Collingwood for example they would be stocked to get DeMattia at 25 and Tee Jiath at 37. 
 

I think the trade up from 14-11 was more about putting our hat in the ring for Reid or another one of the top 4. I guess you have to be in it to win it but unfortunately we lost. We didn’t have the list spot this year anyways but we could have had a much stronger hand next year. 

I always favour the idea of trading into this year. Everyone knows the AFL like to change the rules, so you never know what’s coming. I suspect pick purchasing will gain momentum, and that will, once again, change the possibilities.

A bird in the hand and all that.


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

  • REPORT: Port Adelaide

    Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 2 replies
  • CASEY: Essendon

    Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • Clap
    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: Gold Coast

    The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

      • Thanks
    • 62 replies
  • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
    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/

      • Thanks
    • 31 replies
  • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

    The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

      • Haha
      • Thanks
    • 252 replies
  • VOTES: Port Adelaide

    Max Gawn has an insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Thanks
    • 31 replies