old55

Now the Swans and Tippett doing similar: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/swans-reach-rookie-list-deal-with-tippett-20181109-p50ezm.html

Who is the most recent MFC player to play in long sleeves?

Missing the finals is a failure now but even then there could be injury reasons for that. So making finals is a pass. Winning finals is a reasonable expectation, top 4 a good result - last year was really ahead of expectations. Flag is definitely possible and that's a great position to be in.

Sounds dedicated. I'm not sure I'd draft him, it would be hard to accommodate him culturally. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/miles-ahead-smith-s-discipline-sets-him-apart-20181107-p50elp.html

inb4 "mentally weak"

Some clubs have selected DFAs. It's a legitimate pathway to get delisted players to clubs ahead of the draft and doesn't impede or cost anything. I think if you pick up a DFA they go onto your Senior List, if DFAs aren't picked up in this period their prospects in the ND are grim but they may be selected in the RD.

Were you feeling it last year? Did you expect our first two picks to play the vast majority of games?

Makes me doubtful about your extensive draft prognostications ... Frost ahead of OMac? Hannan ahead of Vanders and Spargo? Garlett in at all? In: OMac, Vanders, Spargo Out: Frost, Hannan, Garlett I think that we may start with the Preuss experiment but it won't last long. Probably in time for Lever to return.

Yes agree with this - the vee starting at where ANB's armpits intersect the sleeve like on Robbie's jumper would be an improvement IMO. But keeping the current deeper vee shape.

Irrationally pessimistic outlook based on last year's haul - Spargo, Fritsch and Petty are all very exciting prospects and Baker could go either way. I have expectations of some Taylor magic again.

One implication of the above is that you have to go into points deficit the following year if you can't match with list vacancy picks from this year and that devalues your next year picks which is highly undesirable. Pick points go to zero at pick 74. An interesting scenario is if a team bids on Bedford at pick 63 just after we use 62. Pick 63 is 112 points and pick 91 is worth nothing so we'd have to go into 2019 points deficit. We don't want that to happen so I think that means if we want Bedford we have to take him at 62. That sounds fine to me but could get tricky in other similar scenarios.

Yes I believe that's correct Jack, we get a 20% discount on the points at the pick he's selected. And you also may get "change" from the picks we use. One important recent change is that you can only use picks that correspond to list vacancies byou have. This stops clubs using 7 picks in the 40s to match a 1st rounder when they only have 3 list vacancies. If we do use say 54 and 62 on Bedford and want to fill all 6 spots we'd have 2 picks after 91.

I don't think it's mandatory to fill the rookie list to make it to 44. The new pre-season signing period and mid season draft require vacant rookie positions.

All media seems to list the following 5 draft picks for us but we've actually got 6 primary list vacancies so we have another live pick in round 6 after 91 if we want go to the maximum of 40 on the list. Who knows what number it will actually be after all the Academy, F/S and other clubs fill their list vacancies and don't use late picks. Alternatively if we go to the minimum of 38 then 62 or whatever it becomes will be our last pick. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-11-05/returning-to-the-track Draft picks: 23, 28, 54, 62, 91

I'm confused about how you think Bailey Williams is going to provide AFL depth in 2019 if Weid doesn't perform consistently? Sure it's a reasonable argument to recruit KPF depth but there's no way a draftee is going to help next year. I think you've put two ideas in the blender there.

Sydney finished 7th

We've got 34 + 2 rookies (+2 Cat B) at present. We not rushing to sign any DFA. Makes sense to just take 4 at the ND and go with a senior list of 38. There's a small salary cap saving there too. Then add just 2 in the RD and go with 38 + 4 + 2. Leave 2 Rookie spots open for those 2 new sign-ups/drafts mentioned in that article and take a ruck there like @Good Lord George says if disaster hits.

As every day goes by it looks increasingly unlikely we'll take anyone. Why wait, someone else may get your target?

There's a mid season draft too - dates to be announced. Read to the bottom of the article.

Academy and F/S selections that will push our picks back a bit. Did I miss any?

Rubbish superficial analysis IMO. They have Collingwood finishing 2nd and then going out in straight sets at the MCG vs West Coast and then Port. That is a ridiculously improbable prediction.

AFLW and AFLX to fill the void? The key is satisfying the broadcast revenue. There's a fair way to go before they will fill it but it is possible and we could get to the fair 18 round with as others have suggested, more byes to cater for anomalies. I know the relatively short NFL season made me so hungry for it when I lived there.

17 rounds is clearly fairest. I could live with 18 with a double up on "rivalries", WA and SA really want that and n the long run it should be good in Sydney and Queensland. That leaves a 4 week media void. I don't like an extended "play-off" with say 9th and 10th involved but it could be fairer than the current fixture inequities. I'm not a fan but perhaps AFLW can grow to fill a 3-4 week void?

GC win more than 6?

I think if you look at a combination of @DeeSpencer, @FireInTheBelly and my posts above you'll get at the truth. Hawthorn save salary cap probably in 2018 so they don't go over, Langford gets some consideration somewhere to make up for foregoing the last year's contract payment and other clubs won't pick him because he will retire if they do. It's bending the rules. i agree there is risk for Langford. Why is he doing it? Generational love for the Hawks despite being delisted. They are going to pay him even more some other way? There's a few plausible explanations.