Lucifers Hero

Our first pick is #54 in round 3. Does anyone know what happened to our 1st and 2nd round picks?

List updated for departure of Stretch and Kennedy-Harris. That gives us 5 vacancies on the senior list. Based on new info I have updated the footnote and vacant spots. We now have 35 senior players, 4 'A' Rookies and 1 'B' Rookie. We can only have a total of 44 Senior + 'A' Rookies. At this stage I've made a working assumption that we will have 44 players and fill all the Senior spots. On that basis we can't add more 'A' Rookies. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't fill all 40 senior spots and we draft at least one Rookie (or upgrade an existing Rookie to the Senior List). Half our list is OOC next year - our contract staff will be very busy!

Anyone know the basis for selecting the names listed in the op? We have half our list OOC next year. The above named players plus: Our contract staff will be very busy!

I fully understand why we recruited Langdon and Tomlinson and the benefit to the midfield. The context of the post, you omitted important parts of, challenged the concept that TOG = hard running. Jay gave no evidence to support that premise. And, I suspect a fair part of Tomlinson's TOG was not in the midfield, eg defence where 88%-95% of TOG is common. To me it was a flaky article. As I said in my earlier post, endurance and hard running will come from fitness and attitude. Sure Tomlinson and Langdon may give other mids a minute or two more 'resting' time per game but if their fitness and attitude doesn't improve it won't help us one iota in two-way running and running out quarters/games.

Thanks for the summary. I can't see the article so not sure if I've read your post correctly: Is there anytime frame over which the 3 players TOG % were calculated? Does Jay realise the difference between 86% and 84% is about 2 minutes a game ie 30 seconds a quarter! Also not sure why Jay thinks there is some correlation between % TOG and hard running. Someone could spend 100% TOG and not move an inch. Seems a fairly meaningless stat. iirc our mids were usually on field for about 80% of games, except Viney which is a little more than 3 quarters. I think Tomlinson and Langdon will be big pluses for our midfield but they will replace players who also had high TOG like, Stretch, ANB, Hunt etc so not sure about the keep us fresher for longer part. The only way to do that is to get fitter and work harder.. Think Jay is drawing a long bow.

Games played now included ?

It wasn't the possibility of 'tampering' that I was highlighting. It is that imv Carlton can simply not be trusted to keep their word.

Your point is valid as part of the AFL assistance package GCS were given rights to their Academy players without using any draft picks. This is as good as more first and second round draft picks for them so they wouldn't use Carlton's 2020 picks offered enabling them to reject the paltry offer they made for Martin.

Can't trust them.

^ your post is correct @DeeSpencer

If he goes into the National draft I reckon GCS will let him go rather than use a round 1 pick and we won't take him either. If he goes into the PSD and GCS draft him he has to sign for two years so the next years FA status lapses. It is then active at the end of 2021. If he is drafted by GCS in the PSD and he refuses to play for them he sits out of the AFL for two years. Not sure if he then goes into the draft or he is still a player that GCS can trade. If GCS are adamant about drafting him his best bet is to sign a one year contract with them. So in 2020 he will be an FA, can go to the club of his choice and GCS get a compensation pick. Hope that clarifies it a little.

Martin has the option of going into the National Draft and picked up by the first bidder which won't be Carlton. If he goes into the PSD and GCS take draft him he will have two choices: Sign for two years (the minimum term) and then ask to be traded next year. Not sign, sit out a year and nominate the club of his choice in 2020. GCS get zip. He is probably better off signing a one-year deal with GCS and leave as an FA next year, even if he plays the year in the NEAFL. GCS seem up for a fight and I reckon they will bid for him in the PSD - they have nothing to lose.

I don't think so. The best offer Carlton made was their 2020 2nd (30+) and 3rd round(50+) picks. An insult really. Useless picks to GCS in 2020 as it is highly compromised. Also, if Carlton made the same contract offer to Martin next year when he is an FA, GCS would get a first or mid first round pick eg 2/3 or 10 as an FA comp pick. It is a similar situation with us and May last year - we had to give a higher trade than the market warranted because GCS would have had pick 2 this year as an FA comp pick. I thought GCS's starting point of pick 9 and for 15 and Martin +/- bits and pieces, was reasonable. Sydney may probably have taken 15 +/- bits and pieces for Papley. Carlton tried to shaft GCS and missed out on both players. They could also have had Butler with a late pick but missed out on him too because they were busy trying to shaft GCS and because their football manager and list manager publicly disagreed on whether they wanted him. They may get Martin in the PSD by default but their trading reputation is shot. Not sure players and their managers will be so quick to nominate them. Destination club? Doubt it! GCS may lose Martin for zip but they have taken a stand against offers that are insulting ala Carlton's for Martin. Good on them.

Thanks for the correction. Updating the games takes a bit of time so will do over the weekend. In the meantime the latest figures are here https://www.melbournefc.com.au/Team/players/senior

giants-still-hunting-for-topfive-pick-despite-trade-period-lockout "There have been offers made for it {pick 3}, but at the moment we haven't had anything that's satisfied us," Melbourne footy boss Josh Mahoney said on Wednesday. "Have we been offered two first-round picks for it? No." Its been stated several times on DL that Mahoney rejected that offer. Does anyone have a quote where he actually said we have been offered and have rejected GWS's two first-rounders (pick 6 and their 2020 first round)? Or has that just been media speculation? I'm a bit worried that we may consider that deal if it is offered ?. Definitely wouldn't like to see that trade. Pick 3 to the Draft!

I would do that. Back ourselves to have a good year. But I suspect Bell just can't get his head around two first rounders for one despite the clear benefits for them.

Updated for Draft picks. Does anyone have an update on Bradtke's contract status. I expect that we will keep him.

I don't know much about him or if he passes the NDH test. But we reportedly had some interest in him a few weeks ago so I assume he passes (or perhaps he didn't pass so we lost interest). He is still available as a Delisted Free Agent and we have the list spots. Or we can get him as a rookie in the supplementary draft that goes from Dec-Mar.

I went on to say he wouldn't even tho it could work well for them. Ego is his problem.

From what others have posted Henry isn't on our radar as a small forward. Not sure 'threats' are a good way to negotiate. Would prefer to keep it amicable and slide our 8 to their 10 + +. Also if Henry goes top 5 they may not match the bid. Was touted as a low teens bid until Carlton missed out on Papley.

It is most unlikely Henry will be bid before pick 7 which Freo hold. Carlton's first pick is 9 so can force Freo to use 10. To stop Carlton in their tracks the answer is for Freo to trade their pick 10 and their next year's first round pick for our pick 8. Back themselves in to rise up the ladder next year. They can use 7 and 8 to before Carlton can bid on Hnery and then they use pick 22 which is what they plan to do anyway etc. This effectively gives them 3 top 10 players this year. Pick 8 is suddenly quite powerful. Bell will want 8 for their 10 and next year's second, which I might do if they give back our 2020 second round pick as well. But I reckon Bell is too focused on winning every trade to see the big picture and the advantages of such deals.

I really like taking 3 and 8 to this draft. We have a looming age/talent gap in our list, not having taken a top 20 draft pick for 3 years and we have very few senior listed players under 21 y.o. So two top 10 players will help fill that gap especially as we don't currently have a top 20 pick in 2020.

GCS aren't interested as they have a few late picks they are unlikely to use and could have offered. If he gets an offer from another club we would delist him to help him get there. We have been very good in delisting players early to help them find another club. So reckon we would accommodate them. If not we could rookie him. It also depends on how many senior list spots we want to use. Final lists aren't due until after the drafts so their spots may depend on who we draft or pick up as free agents in the meantime. Same applies to JKH.

I understand the bluff. I was saying we call the bluff if GWS get 4 (dropping two spots for Adelaide plus an extra 2020 first round may be worth it for them). Even if GWS get 4 they still don't have the currency to get 3 from us. If GWS don't get 4 we don't have to call the bluff as Green won't get to 6.

The clubs who have the currency to do this are Freo (pick 7 and 10) and GCS (15 and 2020 1st round (likely 1-5) and their mid 1st round pp (likely 10-12). Just can't see any benefit for either Freo or GCS needing pick 3. So l also think we will go to the draft with 3 and 8. It will be interesting to see if we bid on Green at 3. Two scenarios: If GWS get 4 from Adelaide, I reckon we will bid on Green at 3 to force them to use it. No reason for us to gift a Grand Finalist a free hit at another top 5 player especially if it is the player we want at 8 (and I'm guessing the quid pro quo of players for GWS to not bid on 3 if they got it would have been discussed in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink manner). If GWS don't get 4 from Adelaide we can pass on Green because Sydney will definitely bid on him at 5 forcing GWS into pick 6. Sydney won't trade GWS 5. As and aside as this comment not related to either post above. For posters concerned about bidding on Green and then 'stuck' with him because we already have too many 'inside mids' we can always trade one of them out next year. And Green may well spend some time at Casey as most first year players do so I have no problem taking him at 3.