Random Task

With the trade period more or less complete, I thought I would put together our list for people to refer to. Apologies if there is already a thread similar to this, mods feel free to move. The list has to be made up of between 38-40 Senior players, 4-6 Category A rookies and 0-3 Category B rookies. Essentially we can go into 2020 with a squad of 38 senior players and 6 Cat A rookies 39 senior players and 5 Cat A rookies 40 senior players and 4 Cat A rookies Senior List Oscar Baker Toby Bedford Angus Brayshaw Bayley Fritsch Max Gawn Mitch Hannan James Harmes Michael Hibberd Marty Hore Jayden Hunt Neville Jetta Nathan Jones James Jordan Jay Kennedy-Harris Kade Kolodjashnij Jake Lever Steven May Oscar McDonald Tom McDonald Jake Melksham Alex Neal-Bullen Aaron Neitschke Clayton Oliver Christian Petracca Harrison Petty Braydon Preuss Christian Salem Joel Smith Charlie Spargo Tom Sparrow Billy Stretch Aaron Vandenberg Jack Viney Joshua Wagner Sam Weideman ------------------------------------------------- 39. 40. ------------------------------------------------- Rookies Cat A Kade Chandler Kyle Dunkley Jay Lockhart Corey Wagner Cat B · 1. Austin Bradtke* Possible Delistings Jay Kennedy-Harris Billy Stretch Draft Selections 3, 8, 97, 115, 133, So the state of play is we currently have 35 senior players and have to at least take 3 national draft selections or 2 and upgrade one rookie to the senior list. This gets the squad to 38 senior listed players. If we delist Kennedy-Harris and Stretch then we need to fill the senior list with a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 7 players via the national draft, rookie upgrades, delisted free agents or the pre-season draft. *unsure if Bradtke re-signed as a cat B rookie or if has been moved to category A

Indeed, but if Keith is still keen to go to the dogs would he not just nominate for the National Draft and attach contract terms to himself. That would be his best bet of getting past teams and slipping through to them. If he opts for the PSD he probably isn't getting there as us or GC will probably take him.

I do remember that, but my understanding is the PSD was Stevens only option back then when a trade deal wasn't reached. The AFL have since changed the rules and allow uncontracted players to nominate for the National Draft. Keath and Martin, without coming to terms for a trade, can put a price on their head and try their luck in the National Draft, most likely making it through to their club of choice. Pretty sure it has only happened once with Ball though so I could be wrong about how it all works.

This would be my ideal scenario. Out: Pick 3 In: Pick 6, Future 1st, and one of Hately, Caldwell or O'halloran. Can't see any further picks from GWS satisfying us. We don't get a player we like then I'd be happy to just go to the draft with 3 and 8 and force GWS to pay for Green with Pick 3. Can't really lose.

I thought players could nominate for the National draft now and attach contract length and $ terms as well. Luke Ball the obvious example. Otherwise we could be eagerly awaiting either Keith or Martin to fall to us, and either would be nice to have on the list, but I don't think the PSD has much use anymore.

The AFL table just limited themselves to putting in 5 rounds worth of selections. But you can can go into round 6, 7 even 8 if required. The picks are there. We will have pick 97, then 115, then 133 ad infinitum until all the required spots have been filled. These numbers will of course change as each club will only have a certain amount of selections and picks will change with acadamy and f/s selections.

I agree with everything you've said now and previously. My quote was in reference to dworship to try and enlighten him as it appears he is misunderstanding the situation.

It appears you missed my post earlier on the topic so I will post it here again. From the AFL rules 2017 page 63/64. 10.10 Inclusion of Rookie List Player onto Primary List (a) Prohibition – Playing in AFL Competition 64 A Player included on a Club’s Rookie List shall not play for the Club in the AFL Competition except for the Pre-Season Competition. (Refer also Rule 5.7) (b) Primary List (b) Primary List A Club may apply to the AFL to transfer a Player or Players from its Rookie List onto its Primary List: (i) on the day when its Primary List is lodged with the AFL prior to the National Draft Selection Meeting under Rule 6.1 by lodging with the AFL the form prescribed in Schedule 1 as Form 33. In which case, the Club shall forfeit its last selection or, if more than one player, its last and each previous draft selection at the National AFL Draft Selection meeting.

Makes sense, gets us back into the first round next year despite it being compromised. This may also open up options for us to trade up higher next year as other clubs looks to offload selections for later points. GWS can't give picks this year as they need them for Green so has to be a future first or a player. I suspect we will see this happen tomorrow as well as GWS I'd imagine would want the certainty of having both top selections rather than risk us dealing with other clubs or having the power to bid on Green.

They changed the rules a few years ago that allows a rookie upgrade to count as a selection. In 2016 we only took Mitch Hannan and Dion Johnstone and then upgraded Wagner to the senior list. As someone else as stated, rounds are infinite until all positions on the list are filled or clubs pass and choose to take more rookies. Think its the clubs choice of 40 senior and 4 rookies, 39 senior and 5 rookies, or 38 senior and 6 rookies. At the moment we have picks 3 and 8. If need be will have a selection in the 6th round which starts in the 90's as it stands. This will most likely come into the high 60's/low 70's by the time clubs pass on selections and academy picks are used.

I'm convinced we will have some sort of deal with GWS, whether its done in the trade period or up until the draft could be another matter. I just can't see why they would trade up to pick 6 if it wasn't to put themselves in a position to acquire pick 3 from us. As others have pointed out, they're actually worse off points wise with the St Kilda trade and if they aren't aiming to add two high end talents then what was the point of it? Green sure isn't getting past Adelaide or whoever ends up with Pick 5.

Because the Giants won't use pick 3 on him, the whole purpose of trading for a pick before a bid is so they can add another young talent (Young, Serong, whoever) and Tom Green. Most likely if we do trade pick 3, Adelaide will bid for Green at 4. Giants then need to come up with 80% of 2034 which equals 1627 point or the rough equivalent of pick 7. They only have 40, 59 and 60 at the moment that is worth any points and that only equals 733. They roughly need another 900 points (approx pick 20) to get the required points to match the bid for Green. In summary, Giants still need to acquire more picks/points to achieve this.

Would be happy with a Stephens and Weightman combo. The two paragraphs I've read and the zero footage I've seen of them sounds promising.

Lukosius anyone? Would love for us to make a play for him at the end of next season.

Wonder if we would be better off going after Jack Lukosius. Whispering Jack posted an article in another thread that suggested clubs thought he was gettable (in reference to end of next year if I remember correctly) and would be open to moving to vic.

All depends on how each team views the draft and those potentially available at each selection. Port Adelaide offered us pick 8 and 9 to get their hands on Trengove at pick 2. We refused. The point system is really only a guide and meant to add fairness to father/son and academy bidding and helps clubs even up trades with later pick swaps. They already did the latter intuitively before the f/s overhaul. The points index value pick 8 and 9 as superior to pick 1, but you're not going to see Gold Coast give up Rowell for those picks and Carlton certainly wouldn't give up Walsh for that last year. To even consider giving up the right to an elite player someone would need to pay overs. You're probably right that a team won't want to give up 2 picks inside the top 10 in this draft. But that doesn't mean we should throw away pick 3 for inferior picks in the teens if we don't see value in it. I guess it will be up to the recruiters to identify where that line is.

I wonder if this means we'll deal with giants for 6 and something?

Seems like Freemantle is getting a taste of their own medicine after spliiting their picks we were after for Jesse last year. The vindictive side of me is pretty happy about this, although the dockers can just keep hill if they aren't happy with those picks from the saints.

Another risk for GWS is us splitting our pick, I'm sure there are a number of clubs that would bid on Green if they had the chance.

Maybe they're all just drunk and its the end of the night?

True, could give us some bargaining power on and leading into draft night pending other clubs intentions. Removes the element of getting a player from a deal though.

Gunston?

Exactly. I can't see a 'split' scenario that would be likely as it currently stands. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds though.

Seems the most enticing for us if that eventuated. We would have to add to that deal though, maybe pick 22 if we can use our future second for Langdon. Bombers would be asking for our pick 3 and future first instead I'd imagine, but even then I'm not convinced the would prefer that to 5 and 9.