deanox

6 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Would imagine Birch moves for pick 19 from North.

We paid pick 8, 48 and Ashleigh Guest for Birch.

When we pick up Darcy as a free agent at the end of this year, after he chooses to leave because they brought Jackson in, the scales will be firmly tilted in our favour.

On 30/11/2023 at 12:42, Nascent said:

For some reason I was picturing this

Is that Cameron Schwab's new desk?

Please direct any enquiries through @Binmans PA.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Don’t encourage her.

DL will turn into the Bold and the Beautiful or Days of our Lives.

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

14 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

There’s a lot more to this than the ’54 first rounders have gone home’ headline. It’s 19% of first round draftees, which sounds alarming but I ran some of the numbers myself. The data is extremely heavily skewed by a few things.

Firstly Gold Coast/GWS. 56% of all the first rounders (30 in total) who went home had been drafted to either GWS or Gold Coast, with only 24 of ‘go home’ players leaving other clubs. Victorian teams have the best retention of all clubs, with each club on average only having lost 0.9 first round players across that 12 year span. This equates to an 8% chance (0.08 player per year) of any particular Victorian club losing a draftee in any individual draft year (compared with Gold Coast/GWS who lost an average of 1.25 first round picks per year to their native state). Those players who ‘went home’ from Victoria were: Reece Conca (106 of his 150 games at Richmond), Jamie Cripps (16/228 at St Kilda), Troy Menzel (40/44 at Carlton), Jimmy Toumpas (who was basically delisted, 27/37 at Melbourne), Blake Acres (who didn’t want to be traded and returned to Victoria, 75/145 at St Kilda), Ryan Burton (who didn’t want to be traded, 47/139 at Hawthorn), Sam Petrevski-Seton (94/121 at Carlton), Luke Jackson (52/75 at Melbourne) and Jason Horne-Francis (17/41 at North). If you look at that list there are really only a couple of ‘we were desperate to keep them players’, being Cripps, Jackson and Horne Francis …. Which equates to one good Victorian first rounder going home every 4 years.

Secondly, the data is heavily skewed by the first 3 years of the sample (2010-2012), where a total of 29 players went home, whilst only 25 went home in the next 9 years. The return home rate reduced by 70% after 2012 (0.17 players/club/year) compared with that from 2010-12 (0.54 p/c/y). These were due to the GWS/GC start up priority draft selections where they had great difficulty retaining those players, with GC and GWS losing an average of 8 first rounders each to ‘go home’ across those 3 years. Post 2012, a Victorian club loses 0.06 ‘go home’ first rounders per year …. Only 5 in total, and this includes those that were traded reluctantly (2 of the 5) and one that was given away cheaply.

Basically, the go home factor for Victorian clubs is mostly non-existent. It’s slightly higher for WA and SA clubs, Sydney and Brisbane (0.13 players lost/year) and much higher for GC and GWS (0.88 players lost/year) but it is far lower than it was during the formative years in 2010-2012. In short, despite Jackson leaving, I wouldn’t worry much about it.

I’ve got my working below for anyone interested.

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.

15 hours ago, bluey said:

What’s next?

McDonald's.

.

 

 

 

They are already a partner.

5 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

That makes 4 at the club now.

Can't ever remember us having that many at any other time I've been a follower.

It's kind of 6 if you include Spargs and Bowey, be it son's from other clubs past players.

Plus an uncle-son in Pickett.

6 hours ago, Dees_In_October said:

...

AFLW clubs will now need to hold a pick in the round where the player is bid on in order to match and win access to the player.

...

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."

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Page 111 of the new CBA spells out details of the Inactive List and it only mentions players with season ending injuries becoming inactive and able to be replaced. No contingency for players to go on the Inactive List for a period of time before being reactivated.

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

20 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

For all the fashionistas out there, yes this yellow logo is visually offensive, but you know what isn't visually offensive? Having a positive bank balance! 

 

19 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Couldn't they just use all white letters and no big yellow square?

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.

19 minutes ago, monoccular said:

He (CM) certainly didn't work out as planned - one wonders how he may have performed in a better structured club environment with time to develop in the 2s, without thrusting them in as Messiahs..  (Add JW, Maric, Strauss, Valenti etc into that category)

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.

21 minutes ago, mo64 said:

McAdam is a legitimate goal kicker with X factor. Billings recruitment is a headscratcher. Both are 28yo, so we still need to look to the future.

17 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Billings cost nothing, has great experience and good skills.

You need a squad of players to win a flag. And multiple 18yo's won't cut it

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.

5 hours ago, 58er said:

I hope we don’t get this opportunity to try such a scatterbrained idea. Dangerous Trac doing this even once let alone multiple times per match.

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.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Yes, they do a trial run for the technology and any rule changes. Whether they actually input real players or they get set up with 70 fake names to work with I'd have no idea. Maybe they do use the real players and the recruiters use it to psych each other out.

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

46 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Gave nothing away other than we're still keen to trade up whether for pick 1 or improving our draft hand. 

The recruiters do a mock draft together every year and it was this afternoon. If anyone gets details of how it went, please share!

@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.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Read what Cal has written.

If you nominate them as a national draft father son they automatically get drafted to your main list as your last pick if they aren’t bid on.

Nominate them as a rookie father son and you can’t match a national draft bid but they automatically go on your rookie list. That’s the choice that we’ve made. So whether it’s coulda/woulda/shoulda that’s now what’s done.

It’s a silly system, you should be able to match late bids in the national draft without automatically committing them to your main list. But as it currently stands you can’t. If you don’t commit to the main list you don’t get the chance to match bids. 

Thanks, I missed that wording.

Very silly system when you have to commit without knowing what else would be available.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Has nothing to do with points deficit. We have pick 42 to use which would cover the points for any bid outside the top 25.

This is from Cal a couple of weeks ago. Pretty much we’ve decided he’s a rookie and not worth a main list spot.

Clubs can nominate in that period whether they plan to take a father-son in the national draft – meaning if the player doesn't receive a bid they will automatically be added to a list with the club's final pick in the draft – or if they want to list them as a father-son rookie.

A father-son rookie leaves the door open for other clubs to pick them as a national selection but allows the holding club to automatically list the player as a rookie if they get through the national draft without being chosen.

 

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.

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Confirmation from Cal that's it's the rookie list only for Kynan Brown.

 

Yeah that seems like a strange statement to me. 

What does "can't be matched" mean to Cal?

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Well Andre Dillon had this to say about us: