deanox

I cant see how this can work. We currently have more picks than list spots. Why can't they? If the dogs have 3 spots and 3 picks on draft night but then pick an academy player with pick 1, then they'll lose all 3 picks (points cost will be all of them) and will have their other 2 picks at the end of the draft.

33, 43 and 53 is more points than pick 14. I think we'll go a points swap with the dogs to get their first rounder, then use a future pick to get Brown.

Honestly, this is why we need to be able to trade players in contract, but have complete FA out of contract. If a player wants security of salary? They can take it, but they might get traded. If they want to move, they always can but clubs will need to pay a premium for them. Alternatively, they can retain their option to move with short contracts, but they'll probably not get paid as much.

The tax saving for him is that if he moves 100k from year 1 and 2 into yr 3, that $200k starts in the lowest tax brackets again in the 3rd year, instead of being at the top bracket in year 1 and 2.. It would only be a benefit if he wasnt otherwise going to get a contract or income in yr 3. If a player retires end of season and takes a few months off (ie doesnt earn any income from Nov-July) that last little pay packet could be quite tax effective vs a normal season. I imagine most earn something else though.

He would only do it if it got him a 3rd year. Ie drop to 3 × $600k, or 2x $600k + 1× $400k with incentives. Better off overall, better off tax wise, extends career when may be on the way out.

Why do you think Green is on the board? There was a group of ex players and other members rumbling about being unhappy. Green was one of them. The two groups got together, and a represntative from the outside group was brought into the fold. Much better then a winner takes all board spill election that will be completely emotive: how could the members really know who would be a better director?

Out of interest is that the ave of the 22 picked or the list? I think the most informative part of this is that Geelong and Hawthorn need to drastically rejuvinate their list, WC, PA and Coll are in their prime window age wise and risk getting old, and Carlton and NM are quite old for "young sides".

So the premier can be almost any age (24.5 to 27 is a pretty big window, and probably typically of almoat of teams, given players are only agred 18 to ~32) as long as they have a positive percentage? Given by definition the premier wins lots of games, most often more then anyone else, then that seems like a strange way of presenting relatively useless data?

I've often wondered if multiple, shorter trade periods and list lodgements would be better. 2 day FA window. 3 day FA match window. List Lodgement. 5 day trade period. Anyone not in contract 5pm Friday is auto delisted. List lodgement. 5 day DFA signing period and further contracted player trade period. List lodgement. AFL Draft. Final 3 day trade period (contracted players, preseason, rookie draft or future draft picks). Preseason/rookie draft to fill any open spots. Final list lodgement. I think the overlap of the FA, trade and DFA causes too many hold ups. This way there is incentive to trade out your uncontracted players in the first trade period, because they'll become DFAs otherwise and you'll lose their value. But you can't ruin the whole trade week by holding that trade up until the last minute.

It feels a slow trade week this year. It might be unknowns re list sizes, reluctance because of compromised drafts etc. But I'm wondering it's because there are a few players like Treloar, TMac, even Polec who are readily gettable but require salary balancing. So negotiations are a bit more complicated than usual (high sal, low pick, options, instead of just negotiating over pick) and also have flow on effects for other deals. Hopefully we see a couple of bigger names like Saad, Dunkley, Treloar, reaolve early this week, because then I thinkn there will be a bit more movement league wide.

Career average comparisons. Vs Darcy Moore, Omac has more disposals, better disposal efficiency, more intercept possessions, less turnovers. That is a small sample size that means nothing on a true comparison basis, but it does enough to show that OMac is AFL Standard. He may not be elite. He may be out of favour at Melbourne (with May and Lever entrenched, Omac has got close to his ceiling while Hore, Petty and Smith are still developing). He may not even get another go somewhere else. But that doesn't mean he hasn't been AFL Standard, particularly during 2016-2018 where his numbers were very good. Also note the change to 666 at the end of 2018 that coincided with his loss of form...

From 2016-2019 Oscar recorded "disposal efficiencies" and "kick efficiencies" between 75-80% for all 4 years. This year he dropped a bit to 64-69%. Hardly a turnover merchant.

He is one of the tallest guys in the squad so it's likely he is down the order somewhere. Someone needs to be second last. He is also reasonably quick at reading the play so rarely gets caught out of position when he leaves his man to impact another contest. But, I'll take your point. If you can show me a clip where we concede a goal because he runs 100 m too slow, this might have some relevance. However I'm sure while you are looking you'll find tons of clips of Frost running really fast and watch the ball coming back over his head for a goal. Maybe realising that will solve your confusion? FWIW I agree Oscar isnt good on the lead. And Frost is (if he stays where he should). But if we are trying to defend leads, then we have already failed in our zone defence. It's secondary at Melbourne.

I said more effective, not better. Frost definitely had a higher personal ceiling. But OMac plays his role in the team system much better. So even if Frost is a 20% better footballer than OMac, the team was a better team with OMac.

If your opinion is that you think the majority of the 400+ players are AFL Standard but there are a few across the league like OMac who genuinely aren't, I can understand your position. However I do think it gets thrown around more often than that as an insult rather then as a meaningful commentary. ANB, OMac, Tomlinson, Hunt are 4 on our list with 80+ games played that I think people say that about. Spargo, Smith, Weid, Lockhart are others who are developing and playing regular AFL football that peoppe say it about. That's nearly a quarter of our list and probably 5-6 out of our 22 each week I think its fair to say that players who play a bunch of games but never cement a spot probably werent up to the standard (which could be any of the second group) but the first gave consistently been AFL players for 3-6 years. FWIW though I disagree with your assessment of his faults, Wakefield vs Frost. If anything his strength is reading the play and knowing when to leave his player to get to another contest, so I dont underatand timid. He is definitely cautious with ball in hand, but as a KPD his job isnt to launch attacks. I'd prefer a guy who plays a role within his limitations and gets the best out of himself and improves his teammates then a guy who refuses to follow team rules, doesnt understand his limitations and keeps turning it over to the detriment of his team. Frost might look exciting and OMac look boring, but one was more effective in their time at the MFC.

Steve May, Ryan Griffen, captains....

I wonder if covid and its affect on salary caps is an issue too, preventing the contract from being restructured? For example: maybe if they offload him Collingwood is prepared to pay more next year, but not in year 5, but Treloar may not want to "front end" his contract to 2021 in case we dont have crowds and salaries are halved again. Think of it like the Jack Martin effect.

Just to explain further here because of @DeeZones shocked face: OMac has played over 80 games putting him in the top 15% of most games ever played for the MFC. So is the arguement that only 1 in 5 playeras who have pulled on the guernsey are AFL Standard? And if so how do you define AFL Standard, if it isn't defined as someone who played more AFL games than most players who ever get drafted?

Agree wholeheartedly about the Clarke and Thompson trades. I'd like to add to the talk about the Tyson/Salem trade. We lost: - Pick 2, Kelly, 124 games at GWS with 6+ years left - Pick 20, used in a complicated 3 way Jared Polec trade, but ultimately Darcy Gardiner, 124 games at Brisbane with 6+ years left. - Pick 72, ultimately passed by GWS We got: - Tyson, 94 games over 5 seasons (at a time we desperately needed a solid midfielder) - Salem, 106 games in 7 seasons, now only 25 yo, so 6+ years and another 150 games to come. - Pick 53, became pick 57 and we got Jayden Hunt, 74 games with at least 2 years left (contract, I'd hope more). - Preuss (for Tyson), 10 games in 2 years as a back up - Pick 62 (for Tyson), used as part of the Hogan + 62 for May + KK and + 23 (Sparrow) trade - Whatever we get for Preuss from GWS this year So on raw numbers we gave up: - 248 games (Kelly and Gardiner) + 12+ more years from them combimed for - 284 games (Tyson, Salem, Hunt, Preuss) + up to 12 years to go from Salem and Hunt + 2 years ruck cover + about 5 draft places to get us Sparrow + whatever we get for Preuss. Yeah, there is a fair argument that Kelly has been a better player than Tyson, Salem or Hunt, but I don't think they have been so bad (in fact Tysons first couple of years were also very good while Kelly was still developing) or that either Kelly or Gardiner are such excellent players, that you could say we lost this trade, given we had a definite need.

Ground use/overuse. Want to play 2-3 games there every week? You can't train there as well. Also, it can't be used out of seaso. Because of cricket. That being said, I can't see the overuse being caused doing a short weekly or fortnightly session there, for the purpose of full ground drill/zonal work, with other aspects of the session such as warm ups, skills etc. being completed elsewhere. Which means it becomes an issue of "it's everyones homeground so we cant have Melb, Rich, Coll, etc. all doing it".

Personal pet peeve: anyone who puts up a best 22 without also listing at least the emergencies (thanks @AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey) but preferably listing the next 8-10. There are 40ish on a list, and while the top 10-12 are always locks, outside of that there is normally almost always a controversial call. Working out which fringe player was not included is always a pain!

I always get confused by this type of statement. There are 18 teams, so a minimum of 396 players are by definition AFL standard. Assuming "AFL Standard" alao includes at least some of the reserve players who are in the teams in each week due to injury then there are say 450 AFL Standard players in the comp. Do you mean "a player who would make the best 22 of a top 4 club"? Because even that would depend on list need. How do you judge that?

Have we tried Smith in the medium HBF role? I know we've tried him as a tall and a small to imo limited success. I'm not sure he has the smarts to play the attacking HBF, but could he play a pure negating role on an opposition "feeder HFF" ie the players who win the ball and get it inside 50?

I wouldn't be surprised if players felt that at every club. It happens in every sporting club, professional or local, and every work place. The real issue is why is it happening? Some players will get more leniency because they have runs on the board. Because they have a bigger upside. Because they add secondary value (eg leadership, or decoy) as well as their main role. Others will underperform in obvious measures (eg disposals) but out perform others in team measures (eg position in a zone, effort, smothers). Some might seemingly compete for a position but actually be playing different roles. Some players respond well to harsh treatment (eg get a rocket if they are yelled at or dropped). Others need a hug and a show of faith to build or regain confidence. It is why it's hard to coach young sides vs experienced sides. Once you are established, you know how to perform and motivate yourself. The coaches have known you for long enough that they know how to help if you need it. So it is absolutely the coaches job to play favourites in order to maximise bothe the short term performance and the long term development of the team. That's what they are paid for, those are the hard, complex calls. This is why many people who aren't necessarily Goodwin supporters will still say they want to stay the course with him to see the outcome. I don't know if he is playing the right favourites game or not. I certainly disagree, or can't understand the reason behind some. But how could I? I've never met any of them, and don't know the basis for their decisions.

I also think he is the most versatile of the mids. Oliver is a centre square bottom of packer. Viney is a see ball get ball bull. Petracca is a powerful mid/HFF. None of then can play HBF. Brayshaw was tried outside all 2019 and struggled compared to inside. Harmes has more ability to play anywhere. Its just that HBF is probably his third worst position after mid and HFF.