Jump to content

Featured Replies

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

 
9 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL website reporting Melbourne has its future first-round pick on the table for the Suns' pick “13” selection. 

Hell yeah, this is a great move. I think it also might tap into Hardwick's psychology. The Tigers era has been and gone, and he's jumped ship right before it sank. Maybe they think we're in a similar boat to them: footy has moved passed us, and we're delusional about having the personnel and the buy-in to play the speed and skill of 2025 footy. Buy shares in our death-ride!

Conspiracy Theory Time: What if the events of the past week were a concerted effort to play up this image of an unstable club going into next year with two stars that don't want to be there, to convince the Suns, who we're currently in talks with for Pick 13, that we're a basket case and our future 1st is hot property. Hotter property than their pick 13 this year.

Surely, no club is that cunning. Pert, Clarry, everyone in on it, trolling Geelong and Gold Coast simultaneously. I'd love to think we're playing 4D chess and we're not a basket case. What a wonderful pre-2023 fantasy. :laugh::laugh:

Joking aside, if our current crisis could actually benefit us in some way by getting us pick 13, that's a pretty big positive to take into next year and we'll be better equipped to make that Future 1st a measly later pick.

Edited by John Demonic

21 minutes ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

We might have also been able to get Tholstrup with our original pick.

The whole concept of pushing up the draft is very expensive but it can be justified because we have been doing it to improve our team while we have Petracca, Gawn and Oliver in their prime. I am not sure that it holds anymore and, rather than paying credit card interest rates, I think we should be more willing to receive it.

 
1 hour ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

I’d rather pick 11 


11 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

Or a Tapscott, Gysberts, Strauss or Blease

Not when J Taylor is behind the wheel. Only B Prendergast was capable of creating that mess 

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

Thols is a gun

14 hours ago, Nascent said:

Like most years, we are seemingly on the hunt to have a better draft hand this year and have been linked to Gold Coasts pick 13 and Lions pick 20. 

With FA compo for some players released today, we potentially have other picks to target. However this has also strengthened our rivals hand to upgrade their picks if they decide to do that.

GWS now have 15, 16 (perryman) and 21 (Cumming).

Saints have picks 7, 8 (battle)

Freo have picks 10, 11, 18

Swans have picks 19, 22

 

We have currently picks 5, 40, 48, 53 and 64. Pick 25 (now 28) was suggested as a possible trade outcome for ANB but Peatling nominating crows perhaps complicates that.

We have allegedly already put our future 1st on offer for the Suns pick 13. Can we can get another top 20 pick by moving on our later picks to Brisbane?

A draft hand of 5, 13 and 20 would be an amazing outcome in a strong even draft.

Richmond are a very important player too. They may have 1, 6, 10, 14 and 18 after Rioli, Bolton and Baker are traded. They will want to move at least one into next year.

They also have a lot of later round picks that they could bundle to GC or Brisbane for draft points so could increase their bounty even further.

https://www.zerohanger.com/afl/afl-draft-order-2024/

Edited by old55

 
14 hours ago, Nascent said:

Like most years, we are seemingly on the hunt to have a better draft hand this year and have been linked to Gold Coasts pick 13 and Lions pick 20. 

With FA compo for some players released today, we potentially have other picks to target. However this has also strengthened our rivals hand to upgrade their picks if they decide to do that.

GWS now have 15, 16 (perryman) and 21 (Cumming).

Saints have picks 7, 8 (battle)

Freo have picks 10, 11, 18

Swans have picks 19, 22

 

We have currently picks 5, 40, 48, 53 and 64. Pick 25 (now 28) was suggested as a possible trade outcome for ANB but Peatling nominating crows perhaps complicates that.

We have allegedly already put our future 1st on offer for the Suns pick 13. Can we can get another top 20 pick by moving on our later picks to Brisbane?

A draft hand of 5, 13 and 20 would be an amazing outcome in a strong even draft.

We could also consider trading our first pick for multiple first rounders. I'd personally do:

- Freos 10 and 11 for pick 5

- St Kilda's 7 and 8, for pick 5, 25 and future first

- GWS 15 and 16 for future 1st 

- Freos pick 11 for future 1st

 

There seems to wildly different projected drafts, which makes me think having multiple top 15 picks is probably advantageous compared to pick 5 only.

Murphy Reid for example is projected to go pick 3 by RookieMe, pick 5 by Cal Twomey, pick 7 by Zerohanger and Fox, 10 by Mongrel Punt, pick 11 on BigFooty mock draft, pick 16 by ESPN. 

Edited by Lord Neville X Flash

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 


Right... but if we had 27 & 35 but no list spots or intention to use them... and no other clubs were interested in acquiring them for anything of real value... wasn’t it worth climbing the order by a few spots to get more certainty in the absence of a better offer?

It’s not like teams were clamouring for 27 or 35. Not a lot of players of note taken around those spots.


51 minutes ago, Lord Neville X Flash said:

We could also consider trading our first pick for multiple first rounders. I'd personally do:

- Freos 10 and 11 for pick 5

- St Kilda's 7 and 8, for pick 5, 25 and future first

- GWS 15 and 16 for future 1st 

- Freos pick 11 for future 1st

 

There seems to wildly different projected drafts, which makes me think having multiple top 15 picks is probably advantageous compared to pick 5 only.

Murphy Reid for example is projected to go pick 3 by RookieMe, pick 5 by Cal Twomey, pick 7 by Zerohanger and Fox, 10 by Mongrel Punt, pick 11 on BigFooty mock draft, pick 16 by ESPN. 


I feel like we wouldn’t rate Reid in our top 10.

41 minutes ago, Mach5 said:


Right... but if we had 27 & 35 but no list spots or intention to use them... and no other clubs were interested in acquiring them for anything of real value... wasn’t it worth climbing the order by a few spots to get more certainty in the absence of a better offer?

It’s not like teams were clamouring for 27 or 35. Not a lot of players of note taken around those spots.

We had list spots available for Billings, Fullarton, McAdam, Schache and Hore. We had no intention to use those picks because we recruited list cloggers from other clubs.

And I've already listed players taken around and after those picks. Plus there are numerous who have debuted and shown promise like McAuliffe, Freijah and Roberts. Calsher Dear was taken F/S with pick 56. If we bid with pick 27, would the Hawks have matched?

43 minutes ago, Mach5 said:


Right... but if we had 27 & 35 but no list spots or intention to use them... and no other clubs were interested in acquiring them for anything of real value... wasn’t it worth climbing the order by a few spots to get more certainty in the absence of a better offer?

It’s not like teams were clamouring for 27 or 35. Not a lot of players of note taken around those spots.

It’s nearly impossible to track because the Suns on traded and used those picks for academy but as far as I can tell 27 was flipped to the Saints and became 33 and the Saints used it for Angus Hastie. Mannagh was the standout pick of the second round so far.

35 would’ve been something in the 40’s and Joel Freijah is the standout there, from Lawson Humphries as the penultimate pick in the draft and Closehy in the rookie draft.

All together I think it’s fair in a draft that no one rated the late picks in to move up the draft. But it’s also worth questioning keeping Schache, bringing back Hore and generally not having enough list turnover or state league scouting.

If this draft is meant to be deep and even maybe rather than use a future first for pick 12 we should use a future 2nd and 3rd and aim for multiple picks in the 30’s and 40’s. (With the proviso being if JT has identified elite talent in the back end of the first round he gets the green flag).

 

24 minutes ago, mo64 said:

We had list spots available for Billings, Fullarton, McAdam, Schache and Hore. We had no intention to use those picks because we recruited list cloggers from other clubs.

And I've already listed players taken around and after those picks. Plus there are numerous who have debuted and shown promise like McAuliffe, Freijah and Roberts. Calsher Dear was taken F/S with pick 56. If we bid with pick 27, would the Hawks have matched?

We wouldn’t have bid 27 and they would have matched absolutely given all the circumstances.

14 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL website reporting Melbourne has its future first-round pick on the table for the Suns' pick “13” selection. 

I'd say a betting person would say our future first will be between 6 and 14 so trading for pick 13 is not a great trade


29 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I'd say a betting person would say our future first will be between 6 and 14 so trading for pick 13 is not a great trade

Get the players in now when you know it’s a strong, deep draft

7 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Get the players in now when you know it’s a strong, deep draft

Tasmania aren't in  the draft next year or the following year.

These draft years are premium for the future of the club.

We have a questionable forward line along with queries over our midfield. An injury to Gawn of over four weeks costs us 3-4 ladder places.

Saying we will finish 5th or above in 2025 is a big punt

From what I've read this is an even draft which does not make it deep from a future quality viewpoint

Edited by Diamond_Jim

North are very open to sliding back so my proposition would be 

2 and 22 for our 5 and future first. 

Assuming we make the 8 next year we could guess that would make it something like 5 and 13 for 2 and 22 which feels reasonably fair in general. 

6 hours ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

You have picked out ONE case and ONE season does not determine a flop win or loss. 

15 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Tasmania aren't in  the draft next year or the following year.

These draft years are premium for the future of the club.

We have a questionable forward line along with queries over our midfield. An injury to Gawn of over four weeks costs us 3-4 ladder places.

Saying we will finish 5th or above in 2025 is a big punt

From what I've read this is an even draft which does not make it deep from a future quality viewpoint

Wrong this draft is consider DEEP that means plenty of depth with quality choices for first second and into third round. Mids and later on key position players of quality are prevalent this year. 


37 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Get the players in now when you know it’s a strong, deep draft

Agreed. It’s not about what tomorrows value might be, it’s about what you can bring in today.

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I'd say a betting person would say our future first will be between 6 and 14 so trading for pick 13 is not a great trade

Agree. It’s super risky. It’s banking on the rebound.  It’s backing yourself.  Maybe they think getting a player “this year” allows extra development and the strength of this years top 15 is very good.  Of course it depends on whether the pick availability and whether we can outbid others.  

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I'd say a betting person would say our future first will be between 6 and 14 so trading for pick 13 is not a great trade


It clearly is if we think this year’s crop is much better than next year’s.

If you’re purely looking at the numbers, then yeah, you’re right.

 
18 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Agree. It’s super risky. It’s banking on the rebound.  It’s backing yourself.  Maybe they think getting a player “this year” allows extra development and the strength of this years top 15 is very good.  Of course it depends on whether the pick availability and whether we can outbid others.  

What ai would say is that I don’t want 5 already we have and say the 13 on offer to get say No2 and only one player from that trade.

With the draft depth a 5 and 13 is very good prospects for two high quality mids or a mid plus a high quality key position player like Armstrong or Faull depending upon other trade choices of other Clubs. 

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:


It clearly is if we think this year’s crop is much better than next year’s.

If you’re purely looking at the numbers, then yeah, you’re right.

We also need to consider the benefit of bringing in a player a year earlier and having them in our system developing for 12 months.

If we believe our window is open now then sooner would be better than later. Especially if we are considering a tall like Tauru or Armstrong.

What's more value, pick 13 this year with 12 months development, or pick 6 next year?

I would be very hesitant to trade next year's first as it could very well be a top 5 pick.


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

  • 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.

      • Love
      • Like
    • 87 replies
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    • 317 replies
  • 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/

    • 47 replies