old55

I like the idea to incentivate GC to pick them, I agree that it's most likely a win for Meesen and Newton. While I think GC are flush for cash this may be our only offer. What sort of player swap do you have in mind? GC said in that same article that they're targeting 8 uncontracted players with their 16 options next year. I think they'll be gunning for one of Blease, Frawley, Garland, Jones, Jurrah, Strauss, Warnock or Watts. There's no way we'd want to entertain a deal with any of them. Our Qld players Petterd, Miller, Spencer and Bail are all OOC next year but I doubt they'd use an option on any of them. They could just get them to go into the draft and draft them if they want them. It seems a high price to pay to pre deal a trade with them now just so we can rookie Grimes or Daw.

Take a look at Warnock, some players mature a bit later and Hughes has had injuries. You're clearly off the pace - the FD rate Hughes or they wouldn't have re-contracted him. His style of player has made an impact in recent times.

Agree that someone like Ablett or Harris may appeal But they will nedd at least one mature ruckman. And Newton is younger than mature age so wouldn't take one of those slots.

Here's a list of delisted players (including those drafted in the ND) who are available: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...61/default.aspx

I think PJ has played his best footy when he has been the sole or #1 ruckman in the side. When he's in a rotation or 2nd choice ruckman he's been ineffective.

And when one of our really good players gets offered a contract by another team and his manager who is also manager of Newton or Meesen says to him "well you know the Demons don't honour their contracts and agreements ..." I know what I would prefer ...

We need to meet our commitment to re-draft Meesen and Newton in the rookie draft if they are available. It's important that they have their agreed opportunity on an AFL list. They get paid in full whether they are picked up or not. We've had our advantage from this tactic - we've got 2 of Gawn, Fitzpatrick and MacDonald that we wouldn't have otherwise had. I'm assuming Richmond and Essendon wont take either in the PSD, there may be some further delists but I'd be amazed if they were to accommodate Meesen and Newton in the PSD. GC may draft one or other - they need mature bodies, particularly in the ruck, to compete at VFL level. Hawthorn and Port are also in the market for mature rucks so may take Meesen. I'm unconvinced by WC and Freos ruck depth too. There's a number of scenarios where one or both may be selected.

I welcome Jordan to our club, we need to continue to load up on quality. The idea that 2009 pick 11 and 18 was our last opportunity to get quality talent into the club through early picks is flawed. The GC and GWS picks in 2010 and 2011 are 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13 and 15 That means in 2010: 16th gets pick 4, 15th - 6, 14th - 8, 13th - 10 and 12th gets pick 12 We need to finish 12th or higher in 2010 to receive a later pick than pick 11 I'm tipping another top 10 pick next year In 2011 17th gets pick 4, 16th - 6, 15th - 8, 14th - 10, 13th - 12, 12th - 14, 11th - 16, 10th - 17 and 9th get pick 18 We nee to make the 8 in 2011 to receive a later pick than pick 18 I'm tipping a "normal 1st round equivalent" pick in 2011 So it's quite likely that over the next two drafts we'll again have picks earlier than 11 and 18

I'm middle finger

Paul Chapman, Robert Murphy, Alan Didak, Adam Goodes, Colin Sylvia ...

Average games played by draftees will be misleading because of course many are still mid career, Jack Watts has played 4 games so will drag down the pick 1 average. We'd need to go back far enough so that careers were complete and that's too far because drafting science has improved a lot. Here's some analysis that is useful: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=654570 It shows that from pick 21 on (about the value of 2009 pick 18) the % number of games played is pretty constant and about 60% that of 1-10 and 75% of 11-20. It shows a decent drop off and puts the value of pick 18 into some context. If we happen to take Ball with 18 it will be great to hear who posters think we should have taken instead. It took over 5 years for the coach of a generation saga to play out on demonology - I'm a patient man.

That is a valid point. Alternatively maybe we need those 60 games of experience and example right now to help set us up in 5 years.

What's not flawed is that Ball will give us 60 games minimum - how many games will the average 2nd rounder give us (which is what pick 18 is this year by rpfc's sig logic)? And it needs to be at least 20-40 more for us to be ahead because there is learning curve for 18yos. This average number will give an indication of the relative risk and reward. Of course it comes down to BP's analysis of the individual players available at the pick but we can get a guide from the average. Anyone have this info?

The BF $2000 thread has us taking a mid in only 8/120 phantoms so it's impossible

We're obliged to rookie Meesen and Newton if they haven't been picked up. We have pick 6 in the RD following 5 GC Rookie picks. That means they both have to go in the ND, PSD or in one of the 5 GC RD picks otherwise we have to take one of them at RD6 and if the other one is still there at RD21 (or earlier if not everyone uses RD picks). For example if Hawthorn wants Meesen they'll need to take him in the ND or PSD because otherwise we're obliged to pick him or Newton with RD6 before they get a Rookie draft pick. They might be willing to take the chance that we'll take Newton first but I wouldn't bet on it.

They've probably all got Merv Hughes as forward scout.

Stop making sense

Great work by CC. If we think Ball is the best player at our pick we should take him. If someone else is the best choice then pick them. There's a lot of factors that go into deciding who is the best player at a particular pick and often very different players are being compared - it's not easy but that's what BP is paid to do. One factor that wouldn't come into it for me is Ball's preference to play elsewhere. There is no way he'd sit out for 2 years and as CC says he'd give his all. Ball is guaranteed to give us 60 games minimum, that means an 18yo alternative would need to give 100 games minimum given the first 40 would be learning curve. I'm not committed to Ball in any way but I can see how he would be a legitimate selection. The risk that Ball would look elsewhere in 2012 is low - if things go according to plan MFC will be the exciting club on the rise to be at then.

That's the truth, but we're not going to know that for 3-5 years.

Joel Selwood is not going to be in the PSD. It's really a free hit without us having to use an ND pick. Since the rules were changed re contract terms in the ND the PSD has lost its punch.

Nice work thanks McPhee, Macdonald, Shirley, Bradshaw absent.

I believe the official inquiry found no evidence of tanking, I'm not sure what TOX is on about. Since 2000 the premiers have been: Brisbane - salary cap concessions Port Adelaide - start up concessions Sydney - salary cap concessions West Coast - priority pick Captain Geelong - unprecedented father-son advantages Hawthorn - priority pick Wake up and smell the roses - St.Kilda, Carlton, Melbourne, Gold Coast and GWS are all closer to a flag than Collingwood.

And Collingwood's 4th top 8 finish in a row for no flag. You probably think you're getting closer.

You might think I'm making a pedantic point. But it really goes to the heart of the perceived authority of phantom drafts. No-one slides - phantom drafters just get it wrong. The only type of slider that exists is if Barry Prendergast sees more of a player during the year and subsequently rates him lower than he previously did and that's a very different thing.

Oh really? http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/emma...7491840994.html My point exactly! It's an important difference that seems too subtle for some.