Macca

I wouldn't necessarily be buying into the next year's first rounder in the deal. The deal could be of a more immediate nature. My thinking is more so this year and what GWS can give us or what they can find for us (this year) More picks outside of the 1st round and/or a player. As for next year, we've finally got moving with free agency so what's to stop us gaining 2 or 3 more RFA's next year? All things are possible. We don't necessarily need nor may we even want a first rounder next year especially if we go to the draft with 2 first rounders this season. And possibly a 2nd rounder this year as well. And trading in some established talent with one of our first round picks this year can't be ruled out either (even after we possibly trade pick 3) But I'm just guessing like most others Rusty. Could be quite a day tomorrow hey?

If we go by what happened last year all rookie elevations happened before the actual draft No draft pick number attached but a rookie elevation effectively acted as a pick. The wiki page with regards to the 2018 draft explains it all. Of course, wiki isn't always correct but in this case I believe it is. On another thread I speculated that our 3 choices could all be rookie elevations. But there are rules surrounding having to use 1st and 2nd round picks in the mysterious '4 year cycle' But if we end up dealing with GWS we could end up with more than just 1 pick back our way anyway. My guess is that we'll somehow end up with 2 picks in the top 10 and another pick in the 20's (from an overall perspective) And maybe a player as well - at what level, who knows? As others have stated (notably Axis & WJ) pick 3 is worth a lot more to GWS because of the academy prospect 'Tom Green' ... if they hold pick 3 no other club can bid on him except the Gold Coast and they (the GCS) are almost certainly going to draft Rowell & Anderson. So GWS get a free hit at pick 3 and then use another later pick (or picks) on Green (if, as expected, another club puts in a bid on Green) So we could expect a fair bit coming back for pick 3 (especially if the 2 clubs have had dialogue over the scenario previously)

We're creatures of habit too and we're well used to the club drafting at least 3 players and sometimes up to 6 players are drafted But I'm not sure we'll just end up with 2 picks anyway. 'Axis' has put forward a compelling argument that GWS will have to deal with us for our pick 3 and we might end up with pick 6 and another pick in the late first round or a 2nd round pick. Maybe even a 3rd rounder as well. Or a player (?) The whole 'package' isn't done with yet you'd imagine. Which was your original reasoning. So in the end, you may well be kinda/sorta right.

Don't worry DW ... I am absolutely sure many were in the dark as well. But promoted rookies taking up a draft pick may not have always been the case The media don't do a great job explaining it all to the footy folk either. I think I'm right in saying that our 3 picks could all be promoted rookies but that may not be altogether correct. You have to use a first round pick in the '4 year cycle' and I believe the same rule applies for a 2nd round pick. But if a club uses 2 picks in the first round some sort of carry-over applies. And the 4 year cycle is a bit ambiguous too. I've yet to see it explained where it makes sense.

There are an infinite number of picks ... for instance Richmond hold pick 95 but 96, 97, 98 and so on exist (in theory) Just imagine that Richmond use pick 95 on a player and there is just us left to draft a player. We'd then use pick 96. Which isn't listed but it's there (at least in theory) But there's a caveat ... all promoted rookies happen before the actual draft rather than afterwards. And each promoted rookie acts as a draft pick. So there's no actual draft pick number attached. So we can go to the draft with just 2 picks (3 and 8 or whatever combo) and a promoted rookie effectively acts as our 3rd pick (with no actual draft pick number attached) Go to the wiki page for the 2018 draft to see the draft as it's played out.

Felt like the Packers got away with one there ... thought that Darrius Sheoherd dropped sitter was going to cost us. But Rodgers does it again and the defence held Detroit to field goals. 170 rushing yards was very pleasing as well Only did the audio so will watch the highlights later. All the same I'll take 5 & 1 from 6. Even with a softish home field draw we've still played some decent opposition. Any observations from anyone who might have watched?

Thanks Rusty Down a bit but the eyes have it in terms of whether those taps to advantage this season became productive. I say no and I reckon the recipients of many of those taps to advantage were often immediately tackled or pressured. Time after time and game after game. The ideal scenario sees a tap to advantage quickly given off to a player streaming forward kicking it to the advantage of a forward leading into space. And then a shot at goal. It's not rocket science. But the opposition often roved to Gawn's taps so we got hurt the other way. Taps to disadvantage should be a stat. And that's no knock on Gawn. With such a dominant ruckman the coaching staff has to be able to turn that dominance into an advantage. And our midfielders should be properly drilled into getting to the right spots. Anyway, we'll see how we go with a revamped coaching structure. And we've at least seen personnel changes in those areas. That's a positive.

Racing at Caulfield on Wednesday ... 4 stakes races to be run and all 4 look to be decent betting races. The fields are decent too. The winner of the Coongy Hcp (Race 3) gets a berth in the Caulfield Cup and the last 3 races will attract the most attention ... Races 6, 7 & 8 Go to www.racenet.com.au for the full fields, form & odds.

With the earlier pick dipping out I've gone with the 2 live bets. 14-1 as well so good odds fellas

Watched the replay a number of times now ... I was watching Damien Lane like a hawk and once he took the fence position he was always riding for luck. But I'm guessing it was under instruction too. He went straight to the fence from the jump and that had to be a pre-planned move. But we'll probably never know for sure. And it looked like he was trying to get out along the back straight but Jamie Kah aboard Lord Fandango was giving no favours. 'Ride Like a Girl' hey? Jamie plays for keeps and good on her. The connections probably thought the gaps would appear for 'So You Win' but it was a very competitive field despite the seemingly easy win for Dr Drill But I was like you BM ... I talked myself out of backing Dr Drill and went for the swooper and the odds instead. Shortish straight though hey? They didn't dawdle up front either and So You Win was in the clear at the top of the straight but had no real acceleration. As previously stated, the bookies probably cleaned up as a lot of the money may well have come for So You Win (at the odds)

To be fair all the other clubs should then therefore be given their own zones to square things up. But where does it all end? Over time some zones end up being deemed to be more valuable than other zones (as it was from 1963 to 1986) so nothing is ever 'equal' Why should the Northern Teams get a leg up? 3 of them are already in a stronger position (player personnel wise) than what we are are (for instance) and before you know it the Suns will be stronger as well. I'm for the Demons ... the others can push off. Care factor zero. There seems to be a Victorian supporter edict that the Northern teams need help but if it's at the cost of my club, forget it. Actually, it is already happening but what can one do? SFA in real terms.

No worries Wadda I'm just in the jockey's corner. No big deal. A point of difference without any fanfare. As an example ... both DZ and I were on 'So You Win' in the Cranbourne Cup today - ridden by Damien Lane. The horse gets back as a matter of course but it ended up 3 or 4 back on the fence because of its racing patterns. And you what happens from there ... the jockey on the horse on its outside locks it in because that's what happens. Nearly every time. Before it could see real daylight Dr Drill had scooted away. Might have been rigged that way for all we know! ? But I factored that in beforehand. $5.50 with the bookies and it looked over the odds . But the bookies cleaned up. So I'm the mug (probably)

I have come to terms with the Frost departure Let's face it, the area that Sam is lacking in is his actual disposal efficiency and his decision making. Comparisons to Oscar are onerous as well ... we are highly likely to bolster our KPP stocks although I did think that with the Hogan departure. Petty can be the answer but he is very young. So let's hope the club realises where its deficiencies lie. We need another key back and another key forward. Upgrades. That's how I see it.

Of course We are still in the drafting 'First' era ... and it's been that way since 1986. No club has ever even attempted to build their list with trading as a primary objective (at least in the more recent past) And I'm not advocating that any club should trade primarily I am looking for a shift in the thinking. Not a complete departure. A bit of both with a leaning towards trading. Don't forget that by 'AFL' law, we have to draft at least 3 players and I'm happy to adhere to those conditions (for now at least)

They've got elite talent (Reiwoldt, Martin, Cotchin, Rance (pre injury) Lynch, Houli, Prestia, Grimes(?) and then their 2nd tier is probably as good as our first tier players (based on our actual output this season) If we played them 10 times in a row we might beat them once or twice but after that they'd beat us every time (if they were serious) Prosperous systems are dependant on talent. In the workplace it can happen but only with qualified personnel. Sport is no different. As an example ... Neeld tried to bring in a system at our club but it was doomed to fail because we didn't have the skills to enact that system. Whatever that system might have been (?) ... his comment of 'We will be the hardest team to play against' was the "Tell"

Actually, in real terms we have previously (2007 - 2015) taken great risks in drafting high school age prospects in the draft. It's only recently that we've decided to go low risk (trading 1st & 2nd round picks for May, Lever, Hibberd, Melksham, Frost, Vince etc) We even drafted a 21 year old in 2017 (Fritsch) so we've taken plenty of chances in areas of recruitment. It's just that drafting high school age prospects is seen as 'normal' where as I've only ever seen recruiting that way as high risk. But we are creatures of habit so what is normal?

Upside along with a pick around the 10 -12 mark (for pick 3) but we don't want another Dom Tyson type. Dom gave his all and at times he was more than handy but not handy enough to keep (ultimately) Above all else we are screaming out for good decision makers possessed with excellent skills. And a functional forward line. Our best (Oliver, Brayshaw & Harmes) struggled (in real terms) this season. That may have had a lot to do with the opposition sweating on the recipients of Gawn's taps* but again, it's a real issue. *Taps to advantage (from Gawn) this year compared to 2018? Anyone know? DeeSpencer? Rusty? Pates? More so 'Taps to advantage with a clean possession to advantage" (that outcome (in total) was one of the main reasons we won 16 games in 2018 - in my opinion)

Best 12 rather than best 22. Before injuries are factored in. The whole best 22 often includes C or D graders if we're being specific to our team, Pates. So I'd prefer that player that you have envisaged to be a player that we know can perform to a more than decent level. Undroppable (?) Along the lines of Tomlinson or Langdon but perhaps better. My reasoning is that with injuries factored in our last 6 players picked really aren't good enough and those ranked from 12 - 16 have usually got some sort of issue. And when injuries are factored in we're more talking top 10 in terms of a trade involving pick 3 and a return of a pick between 10 & 15 (as you've described)

Yep ... undecided here as well DZ Let's just say we got picks 8 & 12 for pick 3. And then we go to the draft. You're still holding your breath. For long periods of time (unless it's an Oliver type) But if we traded the pick for proven talent I'd have no interest in what pick 3 actually delivers. Couldn't care less because the decsion has been made and it's final. You can't have regrets with drafting. There's no point. Make the decision and live with the decision.

And there can't be 18 Richmond's because of the talent pool. As an example, we couldn't possibly replicate Richmond with our current list. But with an injection of real talent from the talent pool, we can get there. But again, the talent pool dictates all. We're in the mix but we've got a long way to go. Systems can work well but only with proper levels of talent. And some would argue that you build your system around the talent that you've got. And then fine-tune as the talent levels increase. Do what you do, do well (and all that)

Go for it I say but you've got to have bartering tools. In other words, there are limits unless the talent is being offloaded and comes cheap And we're talking about talent AF. There's a big difference between elite talent, difference makers, B graders and role players. And list fillers. 900 players in the system and probably close to half are either not really good enough or not ready. 350+ is my estimation. For the AFL it's great ... young blokes all over Australia know they've got a real chance at being a professional sportsman. But for us supporters who just want their teams to win, there are too many C & D graders in the system. 12 teams would work better but that would cost the sport itself. We're stuck with what we've got. The coaching needs to be stepped up right across the board though. Too much 'managing' and not nearly enough emphasis on actual skills. We should know.

I was talking about those who sell the whole drafting concept That can be recruiters, draft predictors, those directly involved and so on and so forth. Supporters as well obviously. The strike rate is what it is with top-end picks but there are very few who even want to acknowledge the actual data that comes later. I came to terms with drating in 1985. That's right, before it even existed here in Oz. Most people I know felt the same way then too. It's a glorified lucky dip and always has been. And if you add up the whole risk/reward as opposed to trading for 'real' talent, the choice isn't difficult for me. But hey, that's just me. Others can have a completely opposite view and that's their right But I get really annoyed at those who happily go along with the choices that the club makes and then turn on the club when those choices go South. And then there is the messiah mentality. I'd rather play safe and know what I'm getting. Other sport bodies around the World would probably be shocked if they knew that professional football teams here in Oz are built on the back of high school age draftees. But no one is looking at the AFL except AFL people. The NFL draft from College but College football is full on. And the draftees are 22 years old (on average) And their strike rate amongst 1st & 2nd rounders isn't great either. Clubs over there trade for talent more than what we do yet the draftees are 4 years older.

And if we look back at Naivasha's previous form it had a show at getting into the finish today. It drew wide but it gets back anyway. The quinella paid $167 and the exacta $181 and on form Naivasha was in the top 5. One that got away but I got a nice collect in the Apache Cat Classic. Horrid day yesterday but got back on board today. Our 3pick on the MB thread adds up to a tidy sum too. Here's hoping DZ!

And Craig Williams wins another Listed race aboard Dr Drill. I was on 'So You Win' but Williams had the race won a long way from home. Decent prizemoney too ... $400k for a Country cup (Cranbourne) Of course it's Casey territory so it's not really the Country anymore! And Dr Drill just keeps winning too. Gets placed well more importantly. Too good.

Got the exacta in the William Thomas race bingers. Really fancied Fine Dane and if it had have got up the exacta might have paid 200+ Had William Thomas included but only for 2nd place. Tavisan too good though. Decent field too although it was a $100k race.