Jump to content

Posting Unsubstantiated Rumours on this Website is Strictly Forbidden

Sydney_Demon

Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sydney_Demon

  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.
  16. Only about a million times. I know posters have varying opinions on Jordon but the considerations are totally different for a free agent and a contracted player.
  17. The reason why we want to trade Harmes out surely is because he's not in our Top 23 now and is a free agent next year. We'd get more for him now and he'd get more certainty and guaranteed game time elsewhere. In both the Club's and his best interests.
  18. No, the AFL will still give them Pick 3. They'll have a riot on their hands from North supporters if they don't because there's no way this package is worth anything like Pick 3! And it's a lot less that what North were seeking. I think we all agree that Pick 3 for Ben McKay is a joke and I'm still at a total loss to understand why free agency compensation picks should slot in straight behind the team's draft pick. Why should he be worth Pick 3 as a North Melbourne player but Pick 19 as a Colingwood player? It's the same player and I don't think Free Agency Compensation should be yet another factor in equalising the competition and rewarding mediocrity. All the bottom teams would have kept their earlier picks even if North had got Pick 11. Now all the teams keep their First Round picks. From a Melbourne perspective we get to keep 13 now instead of it being pushed back to 14 so I'm happy. Importantly from a trade perspective, if North had got 11 it would have meant Western Bulldogs 10 wouldn't have slid but our 13 would have.
  19. Well, I assume they will be tradeable as will this year's pick. The difference between this year and last is they don't have to trade them. Last year their Special Acceptance Package was a 2023 2nd round pick and a 2023 3rd round pick available after their normal picks that had to be traded (currently picks 22 & 41 owned by Fremantle). I agree with you that they'll want to trade those 2024 picks out just in case 2024 is a better-than-expected season. Here's the full statement from the AFL. Nothing in there about having to hang on to the 2024 picks, so don't know what the AFL will do if they're traded out before the 2024 season starts: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1041620/afl-statement-on-north-melbourne-assistance-package No, this has nothing to do with McKay's compensation pick. Theoretically they're totally unrelated processes and they're treated separately (having said that the free agency compensation process is so opaque and who's to know whether the AFL have factored in an assumed Pick 3 compensation somewhere in their background considerations).
  20. What it means at this stage that Melbourne picks 5, 13, 24, 32, 87 will become 5, 13, 25, 33, 88. Assuming the Ben McKay trade to Essendon happens and North get Free Agency Compensation Pick 3 that will change to 6, 14, 26, 34, 89.
  21. The AFL has just agreed North's Special Assistance Package: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1041604/afl-commission-signs-off-on-north-melbourne-assistance-package A good outcome I think in general for Melbourne as there had been talk of North getting an extra pick after Pick 10 (following the picks of all 2023 non-finalists), being gifted Ryley Sanders or being able to access Sanders inside the Top 40 using picks as with Gold Coast's Northern Academy players. What's the view of Demonlanders of the finally agreed Special Aceptance Package?
  22. This is one of by bugbears. It seems that the only way you don't get a blocking free against you in these situations is by getting out of the way and letting your opponent go up in the ruck by themselves. It seems now the umpires are under instructions not to recall the bounce unless one side has been severely disadvantaged which is a totally arbitrary call. The answer is obvious. Get rid of the bounce and then at least umpires will be picked on their umpiring ability, not their ability to bounce the ball.
  23. I hope you're right. I might be being slightly unfair but playing him in our 2 finals this year contributed to us losing both. It's easy to say in hindslight but in my opinion it would have been better if he hadn't recovered enough fitness to be selected (even with Melksham & Petty injured I would have brought in Shache ahead of him, at least Schache has a degree of agility). I really can't see any upside for TMac. He's taking up a list spot currently but he is contracted for next year so is entitled to remain on the list if we can't negotiate him off it.
  24. Yes, we get the 6th free pick of open players but all the listings I've seen so far include all the players, not just the players available to clubs that don't have father/son or academy selections available to them. That makes sense because you don't know exactly when those father/sons & academy players etc. are going to be taken or even if. e.g. if some club selected Ethan Read at 4 GC probably wouldn't match it so then he becomes an 'open' player. Much easier to understand if you leave all the players in the pool & slide back the picks. If you look at historical drafts that's the way it works. e.g. Matt Jefferson went at 15 last year which was Melbourne's first pick, not Pick 13, if you don't count Brisbane's 2 father/sons. In evaluating the value of Fremantle's Draft swap in 2022 I can guarantee Melbourne wouldn't have said it doesn't matter about Brisbane's picks, they would have said they had access to the 15th best player, not the 13th.
  25. No, what happens say if North puts a bid in at No. 2 for Jed Walter and GC match it Jed Walters goes at 2 and every pick after that gets pushed back. So, right now it's: West Coast 1, North 2, Hawthorn 3, GC 4, Melbourne 5. If North get a compensation pick for Ben McKay it will be: West Coast 1, North 2 & 3, Hawthorn 4, GC 5, Melbourne 6. After Jed Walter goes to GC: West Coast 1, GC 2, North 3 & 4, Hawthorn 5, Whoever trades for GC's Pick 6, Melbourne 7. The players don't slide anywhere. Yes, you're right. If Ethan Read goes a little earlier, then all the players expected to go above him slide back one position. That's a totally separate issue.
×
×
  • Create New...