Lucifers Hero

Jordon sounds like a real prospect: "... will provide some great outside run to the Demons with his best work done on the outskirts of the ground and delivering the ball into the forward 50. Jordon is renowned for his accuracy by foot and good decision making with ball in hand which will be beneficial to Melbourne who at times lacked composure when entering their forward half. He can often play as that link-up player who can connect passages of play and impact the contest with his high footy IQ". Still only 17 but what an asset he will be if all those attributes are developed. Imagine: Salem and Jordon with good decision making, high footy IQ and accurate kicking to our forwards. Happy days! ? He may turn out to be the gem of the draft!

Under the pss rules Mclean is effectively a Free Agent so we can rookie him up until March 2019. Or line him up as pss rookie for the 2018/2019 sign up. (We don't have a rookie spot right now but a current rookie could be promoted to the seniors list where we do have a spot). Can't help but think the last seniors spot has been left vacant for a reason, yet to unfold. It seems that Keilty will be give first shot at the role and good on him. He has worked hard and could easily see him being promoted to the seniors at some stage.

I was a bit surprised by this as our debt position is quite reasonable. We save interest on the $1.5m and we can always borrow again but I thought we might conserve capital for 'our $ share' of new facilities cost - which is one of the reasons we sold Leighoak.

Overall, it is a great result. Jackson certainly left us in a very strong position: financial, staff, sponsors and football. Hard to believe it all happened in just 5 years. I have little doubt we will continue his work and be a really strong club again.

No need to delete - its a good time to clarify the player's age shown is as at the end of their contract. Thanks to all for changes. I will do them when next I update the table, which probably won't be long since the club would want to sign up a few players soon rather than later.

Yes, I meant Median. Have gone back and edited post. Thanks.

The Roar has produced player list analysis: Team Profiles The Average isn't the best measure; I prefer The Mean Median. Nonetheless, the Roar tables are a good indicator of each team. I was a bit surprised to see Collingwood so high in the age profiles. The likes of Lewis and Jones are raising our age profile somewhat. For us to finish 4th in 2018 when on average age we were 9th and average experience we were 12th shows what a mighty effort it was by the club. An interesting comment from the article: "Overall the numbers hint at a few possible conclusions, one being that putting heavy 2019 expectations on the likes of Melbourne, Fremantle and Essendon because of their notable trade period recruits might be a little premature. Of these three sides, only one – Essendon – is in the top eight for age, and they are eighth. None is in the top eight for experience. That’s not to say that these lists aren’t capable of achieving great things in 2019, but instead that they are still some distance from hitting their high-water mark in terms of talent maturity". Nonetheless, the expectations on us will indeed be 'heavy' and we will rise to the occasion! Edit: change 'Mean' to 'Median'

The club has officially locked in our list: "The Demons will have 39 primary listed players and six rookies for the upcoming season" Demon List The updated player details are: I've assumed Corey Maynard and Kade Chandler contracts are for one year. If anyone has any other info or corrections to above please advise. Its great to see so many of our young guns reach the 50-100 game range. Bodes well for us as they can only improve with more games under their belt and cohesion from playing together. Mods, could you please unpin the 2018 thread and replace it with this. Thanks.

I reckon all clubs are scouring players who missed being drafted to line them up for next years pss. They are Free Agents and can sign with club of choice. And, it is mighty attractive for clubs: recruit player as an 'A' Rookie (they can play seniors immediately) then promote them to the seniors, if a list spot is available. My reading of pss is that Tim Kelly (Geelong), Bailey Fritsch etc etc would qualify so no draft pick required. Clubs will soon squirrel away such players until the pss and get them free. This pss rule, academy draft points, trading away high picks, and clubs (eg Sydney, North, WBD) bending the live trading rules (with the AFL's blessing, because it pleased the broadcasters) to get their 'Tied' players on the cheap have significantly changed the recruiting/drafting landscape. And, collectively have opened a pandora's box of potential manipulation.

'...super competitive, win the contested ball, stays in the contest, excellent recovery...' A typical Goodwin player! Good get!

Good to see us continue our practice of bidding on F Looks like that backfired with WBD trading out pick 30 to Freo so pick 30 still in play. Lots of clubs playing funny b.....s at the last minute.

That no club bid on Blakely earlier to force them to use pick 24 allowed them to cash in. We would have forced their hand earlier as we did with Mills and Heeney. It just shows the distortions the points based trading system creates. Last night 3 Academy picks were matched: Tarryn Thomas to North who started with 42, 47, 48, 49, 55, 58, 86 Nick Blakey to Sydney who started with 26, 33, 38, 39, 40, 70, 88 then traded out 26 before the opp bid and traded back in 24 after matching Isaac Quaynor to Collingwood who started with 41, 44, 57, 59, 60, 93 North and Collingwood have Academy players tipped to go in the top 10 picks tonight (as do GWS and WBD). Colllingwood also have the highly touted F/S, Will Kelly. It is shocking that all these top players can go for 'junk' picks. Yesterday, I posted that trading of picks by clubs with 'Tied' players (either Academy or F/S) needs revamping, starting with the elimination of discounts for Academy players. I really dislike Sydney's clever trading last night but I have greater disdain for the underlying system that allows clubs to trade out high picks for junk picks during the trade period or during live-trade. And it will worsen in coming years as more Academy (and F/S) players come into the system. The draft points system is no longer working effectively and needs to change.

GWS just beat them to it!

Adelaide just traded out the pick they got from us for Lever and their 2019 1st rounder, to Carlton for their 2019 1st round pick (around pick 1 to 4) Carlton obviously very keen to get Stocker from Sandringham. Lots of pick movement going on - wonder what Mahoney and Taylor are thinking tonight, now that we have slipped down the order! They might be manning the phones overnight!

That trade of Syd 2019 2nd round pick (around 30+) for WCe pick 24 explains the earlier lop-sided trade that greatly favoured WCE. We still have pick 23, one ahead of Sydney so may get our preferred player. Very clever of Sydney to do this after Blakey was selected otherwise they would have had to use pick 24 for him!! They are very active and creative with pick trading - they may catch a few clubs napping!! Edit: cross out ref to Syd pick

Fox is reporting that Sydney have traded pick 26 to WCE for a 2019 3rd round selection (around pick #60). I assume it has been incorrectly reported as it is such a lopsided trade - there has to be more to it! Edit: WCE now have picks 20, 22, 26.

A team works very hard to not go negative into the next year. eg Sydney will have the points for Blakely @ 6/7/8 with picks 26/33/38 and maybe 39. They will still have picks 39, 40 and 88 to fulfill their draft quota without going into deficit.

If the club to which an Academy or F/S player is 'Tied' kept their 1st round pick (eg pick 11) it would be used to draft their player. By trading that pick out the 'Tied' club uses junk picks late in the draft to match a draft bid on him and the club that received their 1st round pick eg pick 11 draft a player. Effectively, two players are removed from the draft instead on one so less players to then chose from. Eventually, late in the draft it evens out when the 'junk picks' are used but the top end of the draft is distorted and valuable picks slide eg our #23 to #29.

True. I may be getting old earnest - there was a time, not that long ago, when new systems would be tested under various conditions and scenarios over and over again before declaring them 'ready to go'. Smacks of incompetence to leave the 'real-time' trial to the last minute.

Talking of things not going to plan: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-draft-worry-as-rehearsal-abandoned-in-shambles-20181122-p50hlt.html Live trading was trialed last night, then abandoned because the internet kept crashing. " The AFL told clubs on Wednesday night they would fix the problem but a back-up plan would be for the clubs to lodge their picks by pen and paper with AFL-employed runners scuttling along the corridors from club boxes to the AFL hub." That will make for entertaining viewing, Not. Beggars belief that they left it until the Eve of the draft to trial the system in 'real-time'!

Our draft position has slipped a bit - pick #23 is now pick 27 to 29 in a number of the 'phantom' drafts and pick #28 is now in the low to mid 30's, courtesy of the high number of F/S and Academy 'Tied' players at the pointy end of the draft? Most of the clubs to which a player is 'Tied' have traded out their first round picks for later pick points. This distorts the draft as both they and the club that now holds their 1st round pick get a top player pushing the rest down the order. It somewhat defeats the purpose of trading to get into the top quartile of the draft. This situation will happen more and more with so many Academies in place and F/S players. Feel the current trading/bidding system needs to be revisited by the AFL. Removing the point discount might be a good start.

Sorry, I can't find written sources for the 9 contracted MCG games and the 2 'compulsory' Away games at Eithad. Based on memory of what I've read or heard. I'm not entirely sure how the Stadium deals work but each stadium tenant club (ie Home ground) is contracted to play X 'Home' games at said ground. eg I think Carlton is contracted to play 7 games at Eithad, Adelaide and Port have 11 each at Adelaide Oval etc. I recall reading somewhere that Victorian non Etihad clubs had to play two games there to ensure AFL fulfilled its committed no of games. This is relaxed for big clubs, when it suits the AFL or when joint memberships don't fit in the stadium. Whatever the contracts and policies, my post was directed to the assumption that if we give up NT games that they will revert to the G. As I noted there are a variety of reasons why this may not happen; they could be Eithad 'Home' games and we get extra 'Away' i/state games so we still travel a lot. You are right 9 games is the minimum. Nonetheless, with all clubs wanting to play more games at the G I am skeptical of our chances of getting more Home games there. But it is a moot point as we are committed to NT.

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this: "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback. One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat". Lyons to Brisbane I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

Its worth remembering we are contracted to play only 9 Home games at the G. So the extra two 'Home' games will almost certainly be at Marvel Stadium. Plus the two 'compulsory', 'Away' games there it totals 4. Not so good for members. Without NT members gain only if there are more (total) games in Vic but lose because we will no longer get the 2 NT substitute games at the G. It will be only the 9 contracted 'Home' MCG games. What could be worse, the AFL could change other aspects of the fixture: oh, gee whiz the Dees go i/state only 5 times lets even it up with other teams and give Dees extra 'Away' game(s) i/state'. Two annual trips to Perth, anyone? Lets be careful what we wish for.