Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden

Sydney_Demon

Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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 🙂.

    • Like 1
  2. 5 hours ago, Viscount Cardwell said:

    Pick 11, I believe, becomes pick 16, if you factor in F/S and academy picks, using Cal Twomey's September rankings players may not fall in this order, but you can see how compromised this draft is. Our pick 6 (8) may net us one of Curtin, Sanders or Caddy, with pick 16 a toss up between Murphy, Windsor and Wilson, along with Young Doggie Brown, job done for today. Hard to turn 8 and 16 plus a FF1 into #1.

    image.png.53cdf93fce88c6eb5992595c0259c201.png

     

    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? 

    • Like 2
  3. On 12/10/2023 at 06:02, Lucifers Hero said:

    Updated for the Grundy trade.

    As Brisbane will want future points I would think the WBD F3 will go to them for Fullarton.

    Crows will want a future 2nd but don't think that McAdam is worth that.

    That we have traded in a F2 and F3 pick almost guarantees we will trade out our own F1.

    image.png.fa4528e5ec5fcec3efd560f98c56a011.png

    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?




     

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

    From the AFL website's article on the Suns trading down of pick 4. After the Bulldogs got 4, there was a frenzy...

    "It started with the Demons, who shifted picks No.14, 27 and 35 to get to pick No.11. It continued with the Crows, who gave up picks No.23 and 26 to get pick No.14 and defender Chris Burgess from the Suns."

    Interesting comparisons of values;

    14, 27 and 35 were worth 11. 14+27+35 = 11

    23 and 26 were worth 14 and Burgess - a steak knives at best depth player. 23+26=14

    So, if you compress the equations in this draft; 23+26+27+35 = 11

    Meanwhile, pick number 4 was deemed worth three mid-late first round picks; 11, 18 and a future first. We've already worked out that 11 alone is worth four second round picks, with three of them right at the start of the second round.

    A low-ball estimate would be that recruiters consider a single top-5 pick to be worth as much as seven or eight second round picks.

    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. 

    • Like 1
  5. 13 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

    A bit disappointing that the Brodie Grundy trade didn't work out. Many of us had high hopes.....but oh well! 🤷🏼‍♂️

    As for the trade of pick #46 and a future 2nd round pick for Brodie Grundy. Talk about getting screwed! I would of preferred a lower pick. But it is what it is I guess?

    I wish Brodie Grundy all the best (except against Melbourne).

    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.

    40 minutes ago, Macca said:

    It's highly questionable that the selection committee could ever believe that Schache was ever a better option than Grundy in a final

    Schache lead up form for Casey was bog average whilst Grundy was doing quite well

    Simply saying that they simply didn't pick Grundy is quintessential fence sitting

    You're allowed to question club decisions you know?  Rhetoric and the company line is boring and uninteresting

     

    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? 

    27 minutes ago, Macca said:

    And if Schache was first ruck in those early games in the season proper?

    Early in the season I believe we went 5 & 1 with Grundy at the helm

    Now, I believe the relationship was beyond repair and that's why I believe he wasn't picked

    But we can agree to disagree

    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?
     

    • Thinking 2
  6. 16 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

    And at the other end of the pole, pick 40 could drop well into the 30s given the vast collections of picks which are going to be cashed for points.

    Gold Coast currently have four second round picks and pick 18, which will likely all be cashed.

    Bulldogs will probably set themselves with two late second-rounders to build points for Ashcroft.

    Hawthorn may well upgrade a second pick into the late 30s to be ready to get Will McCabe.

    Plus, Kynan Brown might get bid on in the second round, in which case, well, bugger it, why burn the second-rounder we had anyway when a couple in the 40s will do?

    Still, seems a lot to pay to go from 14 to 11.

    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!).

    • Like 2
  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).

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  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. 

    • Like 1
  9. 13 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

    Marc McGowan in the Age suggesting that the offer is expected to be around 750k over 6 years:

    https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/north-melbourne-get-three-first-round-draft-picks-in-afl-assistance-package-20230925-p5e7fg.html

    Could be right on the edge of band 1. 

    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.

    • Like 2
  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. 2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

    gives north the ammo to make a run at pick 4 and hold 2-4 inclusive

    geez

    we'd have killed for this sort of compensation-for-being-[censored] draft assistance when we were at our worst

    We were gifted Pick 1 in 2009 as a Priority Pick you might recall.

  12. 1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

    The AFL has announced its North Melbourne assistance package which gives that club an end of first round pick this year. This means that the first round draft order becomes:-

    ROUND ONE

    1. West Coast Eagles 
    2. North Melbourne 
    3. Hawthorn 
    4. Gold Coast Suns 
    5. Melbourne (via Fremantle) 
    6. GWS Giants (via Richmond) 
    7. Geelong 
    8. Essendon 
    9. Adelaide 
    10. Western Bulldogs 
    11. Sydney Swans 
    12. St Kilda 
    13. Melbourne 
    14. North Melbourne (via Port Adelaide) 
    15. GWS Giants 
    16. Carlton 
    17. Western Bulldogs (via Brisbane)
    18. Collingwood 
    19. North Melbourne (compensation) 

    The picks in the following rounds are put by one selection e.g. ->

    ROUND TWO

    20. West Coast Eagles (and so on)

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Angry 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, BW511 said:

    I’m not sure he gets guaranteed game time anywhere

    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.

  14. 4 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

    Not best 22 certainly , but good depth . Definately would have preferred him over Laurie  and Jordon in the finals this year if he was fit 

    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.

    • Like 3
  15. 3 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but Jordon is a free agent.

    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.  

    • Like 1
  16. 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. 

    • Like 4
  17. 28 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    I wonder if the AFL has given them these picks to let them get pick 4 but won't give first round compo for McKay.

    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.

    24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    If I'm right in my previous post then all the bottom teams get to keep their earlier picks which would calm their nerves.

    It makes sense and means we get pick 5.

    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.

    • Like 1
  18. 3 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

    it all depends on whether those 2024 end-of-first-round picks are tradeable or not

    if they are, then north will jettison them quick smart

    because they wouldn't want to suddenly have 7-10 wins next year and lose em; better to use em this year

    they're in the box seat to get gc17's pick 4, which means in addition to their own pick and the likely compo pick for mckay they're likely to hold picks 2-4 inclusive at the pointy end of this draft

    it's the sort of compensation concession we would've killed for when we were a hot mess on field

    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

     
    1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

    I wonder if the AFL has given them these picks to let them get pick 4 but won't give first round compo for McKay.

    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).

  19. 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? 

    • Thanks 1
  20. 15 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

    Another decision I found bewildering was in the Brisbane game. Umpire made a terrible centre bounce which was going to be called back in any match. Oscar Mac stopped going for it knowing it was out of circle and should be recalled. Decision = block against Ocsar. Ridiculous decision and ridiculous performance by the umpire, including stuffing up the bounce. 

    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. 

  21. On 9/23/2023 at 9:53 AM, biggestred said:

    Tmac spent a lot of the year injured dont forget. I think with a massive preseason and staying injury free he can definitely challenge for a spot in the team. 

    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. 

    • Like 1
  22. 6 hours ago, rodney_g said:

    I agree that the North compensation pick will affect the value of our picks. Our current pick 5 becomes Pick 6 based on the latest reporting.

    But Academy and Father/Son picks don't affect our value. With Pick 6 we have the 6th free choice of 'open' (non-aligned) players. If Walters and Read and Rogers all get jammed in before us, it doesn't matter - we still have the 6th free choice of a known pool of players.

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  23. 5 hours ago, Ouch! said:

    Not sure I get the reasoning why putting bids on GC academy players makes our draft hand look worse?  If someone puts a bid in on Ethan Read a little earlier (such as Nth for example) Sure all the other picks slide back as they match it, but so do all the players on the table as well... in addition all the picks that occur after the ones that the GC need to use to match the bid move forward. The only picks that hurt our position are those obtained via free agency compensation (such as the Ben McKay one) or any compo that is granted to Nth for being so poor.

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...