deanox

I guess we could infer a couple of different long games here: - Positioning ourselves for a strong 2021 and 2022 draft (always a good strategy, but surely secondary to finals in those years) - Positioning ourselves for the expected list and salary cap decreases over the next 2-3 years to avoid a Collingwood type cap crunch or a GC type list crunch while also doing the following: --- Positioning ourselves to re-sign Oliver and other OOC players through trade moves now (definitely makes sense) --- Positioning ourselves to recruit (by FA or trade) certain targets at the end of 2021 (very realistic given i) we need to have the money and picks to do it, ii) that those players will probably improve our chances in 2022 more than kids we draft next week, and iii) these things seem to start planning a few years out). We have been very smart operators in list management recently. We haven't lost players who we didn't open the door for. We have targeted recruits a long way out. The concept of a 3 year trade and draft strategy is something I hope and expect we have, but there are obviously some clubs who don't. With the looming cap and list crunches and the aging of Geelong, WC Collingwood and even PA lists, there is much to be said for making sure we are ready to grab the opportunity as it presents in 2021-2023 rather than selling the farm for 2021. Obviously this is reliant on believing we have a relatively atrong core list which is capable of competing, which the club seems to believe.

You have read into this what you wanted to. The initial information you read was half rumours as reported. It could have been that they wanted 23 plus a player, or 23 plus next years 2nd. Also Mahoney said “I don’t think it’ll be a first rounder (we’ll be giving up) for Ben Brown,”. Giving up 2 second rounders or a points equivalent 1st is not the same. He is saying we wouldnt give up our first pick (this year or next) and we wouldnt trade out to get a first only to give that up. Ben Brown for 33 and Preuss (pick 31). We are bloody laughing if that's the case. The key here is that we obviously want to do something else wirlth those picks too. So can we do 26 and 33 and still get it done? Or does it need to be 31 and 33?

Need your tall forwarda to apply pressure othwrwise they'll walk it out of there.

I think we are saying similar things. It is definitely a good outcome for you. But the balance isn't horrible in that if you get pick 1, you get nothing else that year except re-rookieing or 65+ speculative picks. So while its a great outcome, it also forces eggs in basket. Previously if you could stock up you could theoretically get pick 1 for a couple of 2nd rounders then still take picks in the 30s and 40s. I would be inclined to support it if points only counted for that round and the next. So pick 1 could only take points from 1st and 2nd and otherwise carried over to next years 1st and 2nd round. You get the discount for development, but it does hit you in the pointy end.

Cheers mate. I thought I'd do a quick analysis. Lets assume a club finishes 8th and therefore gets picks 11, 29, 47, 65 and 83. Let's say they need 5 players this draft, and the club has an academy selection rated at no. 1. When the bid comes at 1, they'll pay 3000 minus 20% or 2400 points. That means they'll lose 11 (1329 points), 29 (653 points), 47 (316), and 65 (90). 2388 points in total. Pick 83 is worth 0 points. So they'll get pick 1, then all other picks will get pushed to the final rounds, and they'll have a 12 point deficit next season. While it is a boon to get pick 1, it doesn't actually seem that unfair, because basically you get that pick and then only the bottom. And if they game it to have less then 4 list spots, they are forced into significant deficit (which comes off their first pick) next year (only 2 list spots would push their deficit by 412 points, meaning next years pick 11 goes to pick 20).

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".