Jump to content

Posting Unsubstantiated Rumours on this Website is Strictly Forbidden


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Sydney_Demon's Achievements

Mighty Demon

Mighty Demon (3/10)



  1. I'd like to formally apologise for my earlier posts. Yes, when Melbourne traded 14, 27 & 35 for 11 we only gained availability to a player 3 positions higher in the open pool. Whether 11 ends up being 14 with 3 academy & father/sons taken earlier or 16 with 5 taken it makes no difference. I suppose theoretically those unavailable players could come into the open pool if a bid isn't matched but the 20% points discount & ability to accumulate points means that rarely happens. The only slight caveat now is that 14, 27 & 35 have become 14, 28 & 36 🙂.
  2. Thanks @Viscount Cardwell for this clarification. I was incorrectly thinking 11 would be a significant advance on 14 because we would likely get ahead of the Rogers, Croft & McCabe picks. Cal Twomey had McCabe at 18 in his Sepember List so maybe we'll end up with 15 rather than 16. We can only hope that some of these picks from Rogers onwards slide a bit. It depends how honest Clubs with picks at those levels decide thet want to keep Gold Coast. Who can forget the ridiculous situation where Collingwood got Nick Daicos at 4?
  3. Thanks @Lucifers Hero for your continuing great work on this. Do we still have Pick 92 (sorry I think that might be 93 now) or do we need to use that to upgrade Disco Turner to the 2024 Senior List? Also, is it likely Melksham will be rookied in 2024 or just stay on the Senior List?
  4. In fact the WB/Gold Coast trade was 5, 47 & 52 for 11, 18 and a future first (let's say 13ish, adjusted to 16 after 2024 FA Compensation, Father/Sons, Northern Academy picks) Let's translate this into what it likely means after Northern Academy & Father/Son Picks: 19+30+38 = 13 27+29 = 19 27+29+30+38 = 13 23+27+29+30+38+2024 16 = 5+49+54 So in reality 5 plus Chris Burgess have been traded for a late first rounder and 4 2nd round picks. Not quite as extreme as you have stated, but no doubt it reflects the thought that the top end of the draft is considered a step above. Points equivalents though are fairly meaningless except for the clubs who are using points to acquire players or the clubs who want to trade picks with those clubs. I think we all recognise that the AFL points scale overstates the value of lower-ranked players.
  5. I disagree about us being screwed on this. The Swans wanted to give us just 46 which I agree was too far below the 27 we traded for him. But a Swans 2nd rounder is worth at worst 36 and maybe as high as 29 (assuming they just scrape into the 8) so I reckon that's way more than the Club would have initially expected. As far I recall Grundy had one good game for Casey which was the Wildcard Round that Casey won by 101 points against North. Where does the 'quite well' come from? I think you need to differentiate Grundy's performances as sole ruckman from those where both he and Max were playing. If you are playing a sole ruckman then Max obviously gets picked. So the form when Max was out of the side injured was irrelevant (and in any case it was against easier opponents generally). The fact that you believe the relationship was beyond repair is neither here nor there. Do you have special information that the rest of us are not privy to?
  6. Point well made about the later picks 27 & 35 coming in, except I think that effect will be minimal, especially for 27. Would expect picks 27 & 35 to be pushed out 5 picks (GC 3 Northern Academy, Hawthorn 1 Father/Son, Western Bulldogs 1 Father/Son) and 27 might come in 1 spot because of GC pick exhaustion although GC will probably be trying to push back even further from 18. Maybe 35 comes in 2 or 3 spots (although even there Caiden Cleary & Will Graham are likely to be taken as Northern Academy before 35). Net effect maybe is 27 & 35 becoming 31 & 38. So 11 becomes 12/13 and is effectively being swapped for 17, 31 & 38. (not 11 for 14, 27 & 35!).
  7. I think what has been overlooked is where these picks will end up. There's only one definite Northern Academy player that will go to Gold Coast before 11 and that's Jed Walters. It's quite possible that Ethan Read & Jake Rogers go after 11 but before 14. And Jordan Croft has now nominated as a Bulldogs Father/Son. So, 11 could end up as high as 12, 14 could end up as low as 18 (or even 19 if Hawthorn take Father/Son Will McCabe around about that point).
  8. There are so many problems with the Brownlow Medal process that it isn't funny. But essentially it's a midfielder's award and Melbourne's elite midfielders take votes off each other. At the Bulldogs Bontempelli is the standout and the only reason he hasn't won the Brownlow is he's playing for a mid-range team that doesn't win enough games. Very hard to get 3 votes if your team has lost the game. Why Neale? Because he's the standout midfielder in a standout team. Clearly be benefitted from Will Ashcroft's season ending early. I feel sorry for Nick Daicos because he deserved to win.
  9. As I understand it these are the current criteria: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/free-agency The formula used is deliberately opaque and then the result produced from the formula can be overridden 'where the formula produces a materially anomolous result'. In who's opinion? I'm at a loss to understand why there needs to be 5 bands and why three of them are dependent on where the Club concerned finishes on the ladder. Why should ladder position affect compensation given? Equalisation already happens through the reverse draft based on ladder position and through the fixturing process which favours lower teams. Why not just allocate a free agency competition pick independent of finishing position? Much fairer.
  10. It's great that the AFL has finally confirmed Sanders is not available to North unless outside Top 40 (🙂). It's not just him being available to Melbourne, but it takes pressure off other potential choices having him in the mix.
  11. We were gifted Pick 1 in 2009 as a Priority Pick you might recall.
  12. But this will change after AFL Free Agency Compensation for Ben McKay. Extremely likely to be North Pick 3 with every subsequent pick sliding back 1.
  13. I agree. It doesn't make sense but at this stage the AFL hasn't put any restrictions on North trading those picks right now as far as I can see.
  14. A bit harsh! I guess we'll see if there's any interest out there. If other clubs are interested they won't be offering him a multi-year contract because they're after depth.
  15. Look at it from his perspective. He plays 5-10 games next year and he's out of contract so Melbourne could delist him if there's no interest. He moves now, gets a multi-year contract, more likelihood of game time elsewhere. From Melbourne's perspective: he walks next year (and we are subject to the vagaries of AFL free market compensation) or his form drops off and his value decreases. We should trade him because he's likely worth more this yer than next year and there's no compelling reason to have him on the list. We need to improve the list and free up spots. That's more important than depth. If there was some upside for him then it would be different. Others are younger and improving.
  • Create New...