Dr. Gonzo

Without knowing much about this year's draftees, if Parish is the best mid available and can win a contested ball as well has class outside then we need to get him. We've had problems drafting "skinny outside" types in the past but we didn't have the foundation of contested ball winners we have now and they also didn't have much of a contested ball element to their games. Previously we recruited these "outside" mids and just threw them in the deep end without support and expected them to do the leg work for the club. With Jones, Vince, Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca, Salem etc already there to provide some grunt we can handle getting an outside classy type to complement them anf hopefully help deliver the ball on a platter to Hogan.

I've thought it through. Rookie contracts should also be 2+1+1 years and players should not have a trade veto until they become FA's.

At the moment the argument for those who lose free agents is that you can use the extra salary cap space to recruit FA's of your own. The limited amount of FA's each year makes that impossible, reducing it to 6 years will open up the movement of players more allowing lower clubs to actually use that salary cap room. Younger players are also less likely to leave for immediate success over money as they still have a period of time left before retirement that the current crop of FA's don't really have.

That's why I was confused when the FS/academy bidding didn't happen before trade period as it had previously. The reason the bidding happens before is to stop teams trading out picks they would otherwise have to use on those players. Now the points system mitigates against that somewhat but not entirely as the Swans example shows.

Rich, Sidebottom maybe Vickery & Nick Smith are the only ones worth even looking at. Pretty uninspiring list, is a good argument for reducing the qualifying period to 6 years rather than 8.

Say Richmond bids on Hopper at 12 = 1268 points GWS need to find 1014.4 points Can they use 43, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 64 & 70 = 1330 points, keep picks 10 & 34 and be given back pick 48 (points difference for pick 43)? EDIT: Don't worry, in this document it says the next pick must be used; In order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club’s next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required. • If the points required are greater than the value of the next available pick, the remaining points are subtracted from the Nominating Club’s next selection and so on, until all points are paid. http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

If they take a deficit of 52 next year that won't affect their first pick will it? I thought it would only affect a later pick worth a commensurate value - or does it depend which round the academy player is taken in this year?

Do you know whether the bidding points have to be taken from the clubs first pick on? Or can they tally up all their picks at the back end of the draft and use the points that way? EG Essendon bid on Hopper at 4 = 2034 points GWS need to find 1627.2 points GWS has 10 (1395), 34 (542), 43 (378), 53 (233), 55 (207), 58 (170), 63 (112), 64 (101), 65 (90), and 70 (39) = 3267 points Can they use picks 34, 43, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65 & 70, keep pick 10 and be given pick 49 (downgraded from 34)? I know they need to take 3 picks to the draft but you get the idea, the example may work better for their second academy player (Hopper) if there is a later bid on him (in the teens say).

Was sitting right behind this mark, the only interstate game I've ever been to.

Will be interesting to see what Carlton/Brisbane do with picks 1/2. Carlton are deficient everywhere but they a re sorely lacking midfield depth. They may end up going for Parish at 1 with Brisbane taking Weitering at 2.

He may have networks that get him some "scoops" but the guy should stick to ambulance chasing and hiding in garbage cans like his mentor Hutchy, he doesn't have a clue or the credentials when it comes to analysing the game.

That would be good, we would then pip Carlton at pick 8 if they have their sights set on the same player we do.

Yep agree with this.

It's so tricky with the structure of the feeder comps - if the draft is shallow does it make the top end look better than they are due to the competition being worse (especially for u18 carnival, tac cup etc)? I think it's still an inexact science and a lot of variables that don't exist in other professional "draft" structured leagues.

God it's not a very enticing list which makes the argument to reduce the qualifying period for FA even stronger. On the surface people will be against it but both clubs and players will be better off for it. The only player on that list worth pursuing is Hannebery (assuming he hasn't already extended?)

Unless the rules change again which, with a new CBA on the horizon may not be out of the question.

That's right - on the face of it this looks like a good win. But if next year turns out to be a superdraft and this year we get another Sylvia/McLean deal it will look like a disaster. On the one hand well done for getting the early pick which we obviously have a player in mind for (as well as another top 10 pick though may have been better swapping next years first rounders?) on the other hand I'll reserve judgment at this stage.

Cook, Watts, Molan - we don't have a good track record with reaching for KPF's. Hogan was different as the kid is a beast.

So Trengove, Dunn, Fitzy and whoever else was named in the texts between Bates and Dank are subject to the same treatment?

Any analysis would probably have to group the draft picks as it would be difficult to pin down on individual draft numbers. Either grouping them in lots if 5/10 or doing some kind of formula like Draft Pick +/- 2 picks and start looking from there.

If that is the case, which I am extremely skeptical on, then we may as well blow up the club. I cannot fathom a situation where Viney would let that happen. If reports are true he had a blue with Neeld over the Toumpas/Wines fiasco - if it was a Kennedy/Wines decision there would have been blood on the floor.

Don't take anybody's word, use your own head. Wines was a monty until GWS passed on Toumpas for Plowman.

If so she's delusional (and/or doing the clubs PR work) and so are you for swallowing the tripe.

If you seriously think we would have drafted Kennedy at 4 over Wines, Stringer or Macrae then you're either an idiot or deliberately talking [censored] to try and placate the masses.

You're in the bargaining stage, I'm still in anger.