deanox

Please direct any enquiries through @Binmans PA.

We are already a bit of a pantomime with the villains and heros etc.

Fantastic analysis. One thing that isn't considered here is other types of moves: - players moving away from their home state - players moving from an "interstate club" to another "interstate club" and not going home It would be interesting to see if the "go home" factor is any more statistically significant than these other types of moves. I imagine the clubs have done this analysis, understand the likelihood and also have an understanding of factors that may affect a players decision to stay in one place longer term. I wish AFL journalists would present this kind of analysis in an article, rather than published opinion pieces around go home factor.

They are already a partner.

Plus an uncle-son in Pickett.

I feel something like this is a good step for f/d, f/s and academy picks but also the wording here makes me worried. If you hold pick 13 and you use it, and the player is drafted with pick 14-18 (end of first round) do you: a) miss out, because you don't have a live pick in that round? Or b) Have the ability to match because you had a pick in the round? If b) it seems to defeat the purpose and if a) the system seems very hard to navigate. I'd suggest something like: "Payment must include a pick within 1 round (18 picks) of the selection" or "Must hold a pick in the round where the selection is made. If that pick has already been used, must hold a pick in the subsequent round."

Also considering we technically drafted him injured, it would be a pretty good loophole!

I think the purpose is for the logo to be an contrast to the club colours. It needs to stand out. That's why Hertz choose to sponsor us and not the tigers, where the logo would blend in.

I think on reflection we tend to remember the end of Cales time with us instead of the start. He played 40 games in his first 2 years (2008 and 2009), averaging 18 and 23 disposals on the wing. We were wooden spooners both years, not much going on for development. In March 2010 (preseason) he did a PCL keeping him out for nearly 3 months. He only played 10 games that year. Late in the 2011 preseason he tore a finger tendon and missed 2 months. He only played 14 games that year, struggling for form. But who didn't? The year featured 186 (Morton didn't play) and the coach was sacked mid year. I recall in 2011 that we had shifted him to the HBF instead of the wing, presumably to learn more accountability, but it didn't gel. He was always at his best as an attacking winger. Anyway, enter Mark Neeld, who does not have a track record of developing young players at Melbourne. In 2012 Morton continued to struggle, before a season ending shoulder injury. We traded him to WCE but I think his confidence was shot. In a different environment, Cale Morton played a lot more games.

I'd suggest we identified wing and half forward as an area we really need to improve. Maybe it's about *gasp* forward connection. We don't know what will be available at the draft so we traded for Shane McAdam who can play as a medium forward, take marks and kick goals. He's 28 and hopefully will have an immediate impact. But he has a ceiling that we know. We also pick up Billings cheap. It's a dice roles. If his body holds up we know what he offers at his best. At the draft we pick up two kids who we hope can have impact in the short term, but realistically have 3-5 years before they hit their straps, like all kids. Tholstrop is a high half forward, with great endurance and agility, like ANB, but also super strong in the contest, a better kick. His ceiling is a player that is a bit of an ANB/Petracca hybrid. And we add Windsor, a winger with burst pace and great skills. Plus the ability to kick at pace. He'll start in the rotations, HFF, HBF, wing. I expect they see him as an upgrade on Jordan with potential to take Hunters spot on the wing.

We lost the same amount of finals in 2023 that we played in the period of 2003 to 2017 inclusive. Yes I'm disappointed we didn't win and I think we should have done better. But I'd rather have a team I can enjoy watching, who competes pretty well, that what we've had in the past.

I agree it's not a good idea. But I believe our coaches have shown repeatedly they value dominant rucks and don't value fill in rucks. We don't have a second ruck, the list management team didn't see it as a high priority (or at least not one they could fill). Schache, Fullarton, Verall are the only options as a ruck if Gawn goes down. I can't see them putting the trust in one of those as a permanent ruck, can you?

If I was WCE, in the mock draft I'd do a live pick swap to trade out pick 1. Testing the software of course.

Honestly the idea of a mock draft with fake inputs, and double fakes, bluffs etc. is amazing.

@Lord Travis what do you mean the recruiters do a mock draft? As in all the recruiters from the AFL clubs get together and do a mock draft?

For ruck, I think the plan is "unless you have a dominant ruck, you only need someone who will compete/break even". If Gawn goes down, I wouldn't be surprised to see us so something very field and play to ruck. Use Petracca, Joel Smith, JVR, etc. I'm not sure it's a great option,but I think that's how the footy department sees it.

7 interstate "away" matches, plus Alice Springs. But we don't go to Tassie or Geelong. Double ups against Pies, Lions, Port, Freo and West Coast, seems a supremely hard draw, with only WCE really expected to be a bottom fixture, and three of those teams being genuine top 4 chances.

Thanks, I missed that wording. Very silly system when you have to commit without knowing what else would be available.

So as I said we can match if we choose. We just don't want to match for Brown, because the price (if picks, points, deficit points, salary cap implications of primary list vs rookie, etc.) is higher than we think he is worth. Edit: Unless there is a specific subset of the f/s rule where you nominate a player as a rookie only, foregoing the option for a main list draft selection. But if that is only a box tick exercise, and isn't a committment to take him (which should be the case because you can always choose to not match a bid) why would that even be an option?

From my understanding, Cal is wrong. We can match a bid, but we have made a decision that we don't want to match a bid, because we would likely go into points deficit and would use a primary list spot if we matched, and we're seemingly not prepared to do that.

Yeah that seems like a strange statement to me. What does "can't be matched" mean to Cal?

Well Andre Dillon had this to say about us:

I reckon playing them first up, before they've had a chance to gel as a team is probably as good an option as we'll get.

It'll be really interesting to see how we use that, from a fitness and fatigue management perspective.

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!