Jump to content

rpfc

Life Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    22,904

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    130

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rpfc

  1. rpfc
    Patrick Keane confirmed the fluid nature of the picks on the night - so once Mills is taken - Brisbane's, and GWS's picks become more valuable. They go 'up' the draft as picks are burnt through. Essentially it becomes easier and easier for teams to get their talented academy kids the more there are.
  2. rpfc
    They are both set at 20%.
  3. rpfc
    Actually, this is wrong, the discount is 20%, not 25% which is the assumption above. It was changed to 20% mid year. I will give it another go when I have time.
  4. rpfc
    Yeah, well, baby steps.
  5. rpfc
    A team that 'bids' on a Northern State Academy player, or a Father/Son player, will make the team that wants to keep that player pay a certain price through draft picks rather than just be allowed to use their next available pick. All the picks in the draft up to 72 have points attached to them to determine how many picks they must 'give up' to take that player. For example, if Sydney had a player that was worth Pick 1 - Carlton would bid on him with Pick 1. Sydney would then have to surrender all the picks they have to meet the equivalent amount of points as Pick 1. How's that?
  6. rpfc
    I don't have an issue with it - they are trying to maximise points and some clubs benefitted. It loosened up trade week. It also meant that players that really wanted to go to other teams - did.
  7. rpfc
    Definitely.
  8. rpfc
    The deficit will go against the pick in the round that caused the deficit - so if a club nominate Dunkley with a 2nd round pick and that causes them to take hium and go into deficit - their 2nd round pick and onwards will be affected - not their 1st round pick.
  9. rpfc
    It will affect the next pick - there is no skipping of a pick.
  10. rpfc
    Unfortunately, while creative - it is wrong. There is no mechanism for us to Rookie Fitzpatrick before he would be available in Delisted FA. And even if we didn't delist him, Hawthorn would be able to take him at ND94 before we did in the Rookie Draft. I think they did it as a statement of intent to Jack and because they know that means something to people and they are a strong club.
  11. rpfc
    We have the best CHF of this generation - we do not have a 'need' to take a tall forward at 3.
  12. rpfc
    If Carlton nominate Mills, Sydney will burn through all of their picks and will have picks ~76-82 to fill their list. They will take a deficit of 52 into nest season's first rounder which won't dent picks 1-12 but will push 13-18 down a place. I am not certain what happens if they trade away their first rounder, it may simply affect 'their next pick' or the aFL might say it will affect their next '1st rounder' whenever they take one to the draft. The maximum deficit a club can take into next year is 1728 so if Dunkley is a FS and is nominated by a club with picks 2-6 (Pick 1 being Sydney now with Mills) - Sydney WILL NOT be able to meet that bid and that club will take Dunkley.
  13. rpfc
    They will be 40 and 44 but with 5 players taken before that that we had little chance to acquire.
  14. rpfc
    If the following kids go in these spots; Hopper (GWS) at 4, Mills (SYD) 5, Kennedy (GWS) 11, Hipwood (BL) 15 and Keays (BL) 18 (pulled from a phantom on Big Footy) then the draft will look like this: Hopper burns through 10 and moves 34 to 42 for GWS. Mills burns through 33, 36, and 37 moves to 61 for Syd. Kennedy burns through 42, 43, and 53 moves to 72 for GWS. Hipwood burns through 38 and moves 39 to 72 for BL. Keays burns through 40 and moves 41 to 64. This needs to be cleaned up when I know how it functions in a bit more clarity but essentially, our pick at 46 is now 35 and 50 is 39. So people feel better with 3, 7, 35, and 39?
  15. rpfc
    The GWS twitter peeps replied with "*when"... Good fun.
  16. rpfc
    Ok, so I am unsure of the ins and outs and I have tweeted Patrick KEane about whether or not Sydney's matching of Mills by using 33, 36, and 37 as an example, will turn the Lions 38 into 35 with the equivalent points. I really hope they thought about this... As for the Dees - let's say that these teams burn through 9 of the 13 picks before our 3rd pick at 46. That would turn our pick 46 into pick 37 in a proverbial instant. I am just eager to know where these picks will end up but I am also interested more broadly too in what it will look like.
  17. rpfc
    Ok, now that the craziest Trade Week ever is consigned it is time to look at the points system and how it will work. I would like to run through the scenarios of where players will go and what will happen to those picks that get eaten up by a bid from a rival club. Sydney, GWS, BL, and GC all have Academy players that will fall in various spots - could those that know more than I give me an idea of an approximate spot in the draft that they will go and we can work from there? Sydney has 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, and 72 that are worth points. GWS has 10, 34, 43, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, and 70 BL have 2, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 GC have 6, 16, 29, and 56. Two things to consider; 1. There is a maximum 'deficit' that a club can take into next year (1728 - this fluctuates with in-traded future picks). http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-12/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole 2. That deficit will be paid starting in the Round that the bid came from that caused the deficit (if a Rd 3 bid put Syd into deficit, their Rd 3 and onward picks next year will take the burden, not their 1st rounder). http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-08/league-adds-safety-net-to-draft-future-picks So who are these kids and where are they rated, and let's find out what that will mean for the draft.
  18. rpfc
    If Petracca is fit - he will be playing round 1. All players being fit and ready to go: Backs (6): McDonald, Garland, Jetta, Dunn, Lumumba, and Melksham. Mid Rotation (9): Jones, Vince, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw, Vanders (F), Trengove (F), Bugg (B), and Salem (B). Forwards (6): Hogan, Garlett, Dawes, Kent, Watts, and Petracca. Ruck (1): Gawn It's getting tougher to do these which is good - and I haven't included Pick 3 as I don't really think Roos wants that unless the door is being banged down. Some of these are my desires with Salem in the middle, Trengove back with no worries, Bugg in the middle, and Petracca given a forward role.
  19. rpfc
    Well, it is irrelevant; Mills and Dunkley if they meet him will be the only players in the top 70 they will get. Essentially, it is making them pay a high price for these talents and that is what is happening.
  20. rpfc
    White has agreed to be on the RL for another year. I expect to see Harmes has agreed to an elevation and two year contract any day now.
  21. rpfc
    He would have decent peripheral vision, fitness, and adherence to strict instruction to play at a high level of Bball, but that's about all you can read into it as far as how he adapts to footy. Most bball players I have come across that move into footy are all over the talent spectrum but they all really buy into the structures - makes sense to them coming from bball.
  22. rpfc
    I have heard similar things - Hogan always mentions him as well when mentioning the prospects of the forward line. Structure requires roles to be fulfilled - you don't need world beaters everywhere. And we already have one down there...
  23. rpfc
    Hyperbole. There is a required role to be played and he, Pedersen, and/or Frost are the players that can fill that role. Frost is not a good enough forward from his limited time up there. If Pedersen's form keeps Dawes out of the team then great - but he isn't 'completely ineffectual' and he will play games. And he will play in games that we will win.
  24. rpfc
    I believe his player sponsor informed me he was OOC in 2015. I initially had him OOC in 2016.
  25. rpfc
    Sometimes basketball clubs/academies measure blokes "with shoes on" as they would rarely play without them...
×
×
  • Create New...