DeeSpencer

Not necessarily. His manager might've wanted good money for him ie. 300k a year for 2 years. Melbourne might've said that's too risky have 200k for 2 years. A one year 250k deal might've been the compromise. If he settles in and plays well for the year he might get more in 2019 on a new deal than if he signed for 2 years now. From what he did in a few games this year and WAFL form I think he's a very strong chance of getting another contract if he doesn't have the personal issues.

Watts and Motlop are enviable additions to an outside running and skill game that is already pretty good. But it's only Rockliff who adds to their strength at the contest and even he hasn't been a known defensive worker. I like what they are doing - going all in on Hinkley's preferred style of play - but we are doing that as well. Also he had a bad year with personal issues this year but don't underestimate Impey. When the Dogs and Hawks go after a guy that's a good indication he can play. They'd stopped playing him down back and have Neade as a pressure forward and Motlop as a creative flanker, but Impey can be very good forward or back.

Taylor said on the road to the draft podcast (and I can't remember the exact words) that he was down on this draft but was starting to find about 30 he liked and had a few in the naughty corner. Might not be the top end quality or the back end depth but the 3 picks in the 2nd round should all be guys the recruiters like. I'm also hoping the 2nd round is a good spot for those speed and skill types who don't quite crack the first round.

Go buy a 1. Print it on next to the 4 and your problem is solved.

We have: 29, 31, 36, 47 and 66. They have: 41, 42, 57, 60 and 79. I doubt we will use 66 even if Garland retires. We are better off having a look at delisted free agents, the preseason draft or an extra rookie and then having flexibility to promote one of them. 66 I'd suggest is on the table but the Dockers will want more. So we can do 47 down to 57 or 36 down to 42 or similar but ideally it comes with a 3rd party who might be keen on taking on later picks to move one our picks up the order.

Port had 34 as well, plus later picks, plus future picks. They could've easily included 34 for 45 and given us another couple of hundred points right there. Or done a deal with a club in the mid 20's to move back a few spots for other things. There's a lot of teams getting very creative to do deals.

Hogan needs to tackle Oscar needs to crash packs Petracca needs to get super fit Hard to demand it from those 3 when they see a 9 year player and number 1 pick coasting through his career.

I think that's the bit you've got wrong. Most teams aren't looking for a tall forward who doesn't crash packs or work really hard at forward pressure. Teams are structuring up with 1 key forward who draws the footy and a 2nd taller option who crashes and bashes. Port are a little different because they want to move the ball with skill and Watts can fit in next to Dixon. Geelong had a look because Watts would go well with Hawkins. Most other sides have set ups that work for them. Look at the lack of interest in Schache

He's good below his knees and has a nice side step but I don't see him being a midfielder. I wouldn't be adverse to giving him some time on a wing against smaller teams. In anything just for some development of being around the packs and moving the ball inside 50, plus we need a wingman! That said, I'm a big fan of shuffling the magnets in general, there's almost no player on our list who I wouldn't try in different spots on occasions.

That should be your choice though. If you're last it usually means you are no good. There's a chance there's sides with far stronger lists finishing 3rd or 4th last and have draft capital to take the gun number 1 pick who some years might be a Hodge or Riewoldt. It is interesting that the number 1 pick has been a poisoned chalice for a while now but at some stage that trend has to reverse. Points over picks with the potential to steal a number 1 pick might be a tanking incentive we could do without as well.

No thanks. Last gets pick 1 is how I think it should be. Bit unfair if a club finishes last and there's a clear number 1 pick and a club with a much better list is 4th last and has a bunch of mid round draft picks so can justify going all in on buying the number 1 pick. I'd open up future trading for 2 and 3 years in to the future and allow pick protections first. That's a way to give clubs more flexibility. Then change the trade period to all off season (with a xmas break). There shouldn't be such a rush to deal contracted players. Let them work through it with clubs over time. Then increase draftee deals with club options and change all uncontracted players to restricted free agents after 4 years and free agents after 6 years and work on a system for restricted free agents to move clubs via a tender bidding system or sign and trades.

Contracted player that Freo don't want mixed up in their Wilson negotiation. I see it as very smart to ask for a top pick, it either shuts up GC and his manager or makes them work really hard to find a good deal.

Call me old fashioned but I'd prefer our club doesn't do photoshoots with players we are yet to have signed and sealed. There's a lot said for due process Whispy

I'm a believer that the points system overrates late picks to help the academy clubs. A good pick 13 is worth those picks easily. If you've got 10 good names on your draft board you make that deal. Shame it can't be done on draft night.

We had to give players extra money to come to us but I didn't really see the need to give teams extra draft capital just because we had it. For uncontracted players it's a matter of getting them on board and then negotiating the trade. But yes, I did expect it to change as better players nominated us and this thread was started on the back of what I deemed was us giving too much for Lever. Lever had agreed to a contract and was jetting off to Europe with his Demons hat and whilst I wouldn't want it to go down to the wire and give him a heap of stress there didn't seem to be any pressing need to submit to the Crows demands so early. Getting Lever helps us attract players in the future that's for sure, and my big caveat on the criticism is if we sign Gaff as a free agent I'll take it back, but for any players we want to trade for next year we'll have less picks to use.

You'd think the family would still be dirty on the Suns but they've been through a few different staff members since that was done. What's interesting is the Weller's came from Tasmania and Lachie was never eligible as a GC academy player, then the family moved to Melbourne when Mav moved to the Saints. So there's not really a strong go home factor. I think Lachie is saying move me to where I've got some high school mates - and give me a handsome pay rise to make it happen.

Guess it makes him one of the clowns. The MFC has employed his sun for 9 years. Hasn't always been the best treatment but it could've been a lot worse. Is it too much to ask for him to shut his fat trap for a while until the deal is done?

I think Ward, Shiel and Coniglio do a lot of work getting first possession to give Kelly handballs in to space and he hasn't copped a tag yet. I'm not particularly annoyed that we didn't get him. I just think if you give up pick 2 you should get pick 9 and Tyson - who's value at the time wasn't more than a top 10 pick. You shouldn't have add pick 20 and 72 to that for pick 53 back. According to the draft value chart we paid equivalent to about pick 7 for Tyson and that's even undervaluing what pick 2 is worth in my opinion. Look at what Carlton is about to get Matt Kennedy for whom I rate as similar to Tyson (good contested player, clean hands, bit slow and dodgy kicking) after 2 years at GWS and you'll see we overpaid. We've targeted the right players and the right deals and then paid overs for them. It's like we think our draft currency is forged currency and we have to get it out the door.

Give me Richmond's backline, Jack Riewoldt and 14 Jack Viney's and I think you'd win the flag in a canter. In fact if you can guarantee Oscar and Frost step up a bit give me our backline, a fully fit Hogan and 14 Jack Viney's and we'd get the job done. Hunt and pressure the opposition in to coughing up the ball then run in numbers and compete for the footy when it's their to be won is what modern footy is about. Skillful forwards with goal kicking accuracy and who can kick to a lead are nice to have but I'll take half back kicking and mids with clean hands around the packs

I think Zac Clarke, Sam Collins and Aaron Mullett should be on AFL lists and would all offer us something but we have Mitch King, Declan Keilty and *insert back flanker* in their spots. If we convert a draft pick in to a future 2nd round pick or free up a list spot in some other way then they are 3 I'd take a look at. Weak draft = weak delisting year. Most teams aren't cutting too deep this year.

Pats Packers Deep regret in not doing my tips before TNF Bucs I guess. Was tempted to take Indy, I don't hate how they are playing as much as I should.

I'd swing it around and name it differently. FB: DBJ, Hombsch, Jonas HB: Hartlett Howard Broadbent C: Polec Rockliff Westhoff HF: Motlop Watts Boak FF: Neade Dixon Wingard Foll: Ryder Wines R. Gray Int: SPP Ebert S Gray Pittard Backs: Clurey, Houston, Austin, Bonner Mids: Atley, Amon, Drew Forwards: Johnson, Marshall Ruck: Frampton Interesting list. Lots of young defenders who will have to play at times and backline seems the weakness. Midfield and forward they have so much flexibility and should be able to play a really good ball movement style of game plan. The question mark will be if they or will they defend.

It takes 30 on your list to win games through the season and it's how you play as a team that has a far greater impact than one player from the 30. Especially not a top 5-10 player and Watts can't be a top 5-10 player because he's not a consistent performer that the side is structured around. With Hogan, Tom McDonald and Pedersen we have 3 good options to be the 2 key forwards who the forward line works around. Watts isn't the high level goal kicker who gets special consideration inside 50. He's not a gun half forward in the mould of Tom Lynch (adel) who controls ball movement. His class will be missed but in terms of winning games he is easily replaced by a player who contributes more in other areas.

Both Goodwin and Roos have tried that at various times but he's always been a media favourite and he's either played too well or too inconsistently to be a traditional role player. Having a game based on skills isn't really suited to just being a standard role player. If he routinely was the back up ruck and made some contests forward or if he was a hard running half forward every week then it would be easily to control the narrative about him. Unfortunately he's floated around different roles depending on the season/week/game and not got that continuity. A fresh start in a defined role makes that easily to control.

Maximum compensation should be pick 11 so all the non finalists get to pick first. Ironically if that's what we got we probably would've drafted Lever! If the max a team could get was pick 11 then the Franklin for 19 deal wouldn't have been so bad, especially when they signed Frawley for free the next year. Frawley and 19 for Franklin isn't such a bad deal, not when you keep winning premierships!