old55

Amazing that people are unhappy with the Academy advantages the AFL is gifting to GC but still consider it's worthwhile for us to draft McKercher or Sanders. You just know the AFL is going to put rules in place to make sure they get to the inaugural Tasmanian team, it fits the pattern.

He won't be there because Academy and FA Compensation picks will intervene.

You're actually arguing for abolishing Academy, F/S and FA compensation. That's a legitimate position to hold. I'm OK with them but I understand your point.

I think there's a legitimate case for Sanders to be part of North's Academy. He said on Gettable that they have helped foster his development and he has had his Aboriginality confirmed. He is now actually confirmed as North Academy but they cannot match before 40.

He was never going to be a "freebie". North wanted the rules bent so they could match a bid before 40. They still would have had to pay the points with the discount. I'm pleased the AFL didn't allow this.

Yes but @drdrake point is O'Sullivan is actually 8th best player in the available pool because Walters and Read aren't available. Still see my argument above that the earlier the pick the less detrimental effect this has.

I do understand your argument and you are technically correct, pick 18 delivers the 13th best available pool player who is actually 18th best player in the draft. If we can trade up then we can get access to a player whose quality is closer to the pick used. For example, as it stands pick 5 will deliver the 7th best player in the draft (after the Walters bid is matched and North's McKay compensation). If we can trade up into that range with 10 and 13 we decrease the deficit.

5, 10, 13 quite likely to be 7, 13, 18 in the actual Draft after Academy (3), F/S (1), FA compensation (1) picks intervene. I'm in favour of trying to trade up.

The proposal would be something like 25 + 33 + Grundy pick to GC for 10. Gives them more points.

The proposal would be something like 25 + 33 + Grundy pick to GC for 10. Gives them more points.

I think that's very hard to believe. How did you like his SF game? We wanted to keep Bedford and we offered him a 3 year contract and were sorry to lose him. I'd be disappointed if we offered JJ a 3 year contract.

Is that a fact? Pretty sure @Nudge and @Ethan Tremblay have their fingers on the pulse of something big. Come on guys - show your cards!

Maybe we can throw in Bob Spargo and Bob Spargo Snr as well.

Chris Newman is moving from Hawthorn to Richmond as Assistant Coach, that probably confirms McQualter is on the move.

And fans are deserting the game in droves as a result.

Jordan Croft is yet to nominate as F/S at The Dogs and with their tall forward stocks it's not a complete surprise. I wonder if they'll still chase GC's 4 with 10 + 18 + future something if he doesn't nominate them? He might fall in around our pick 13 if he doesn't nominate.

I haven't run more than 2m for 10 years EO

Contract length is a factor too. Maybe a contract worth $4.5M is top 5%?

Like this year when Oliver was out for 10 weeks?

Gee if $750k x 6 years = $4.5M isn't band 1 then it's a very high bar.

Next generation of KPBs coming through?

It's a midfielders medal no doubt, but are you really suggesting that the top 10 - Neale, Bontempelli, N.Daicos, Gulden, Butters, Petracca, Serong, Viney, Cripps and Anderson are a set of "marketing" imposters and not a roll call of the top midfielders in the AFL in season 2023?

Christian Petracca and Jack Viney in the top 8 in the Brownlow, then there's that fellow Oliver. Andrew Brayshaw's brother is there too and Tom Sparrow on the rise ...

That was before Harrison Petty became a forward. I know the mantra is "best available" for developing lists, but with a contending list like ours I think we need to draft for needs.

Don't need a KPB like O'Sullivan to apprentice May?