Lucifers Hero

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.

Yes. It was very odd that Sydney traded him for just pick 61... Some post-trade/DFA player movements are interesting... Hawks delist the contracted, Will Langford ('for list management reasons'). He is then a DFA, he announces his retirement, then a week later the Hawks announce they will rookie him as a DFA so he doesn't go into a draft. Hawks to rookie Langford Brisbane coax the contracted Jarryd Lyons to join them (after the trade period closes) and GCS conveniently acquiesce and delist him and he becomes a DFA. Brisbane get a contracted player for zip, Gold Coast get nothing in return...?? Lyons to Brisbane Mumford seems to qualify as a DFA, altho delisted last year, and can go to club of his choice ie bypass the draft Mumford to GWS From a far, these look premeditated to happen post the trade period closing as no attempt was made to trade Langford or Lyons and neither requested a trade. And, there seems to be a new rule for Mumford: I think the rule is that if a player retires he needs to wait a certain number of years and come back thru the draft, but not entirely sure how that works. The DFA status gives clubs a convenient way to 'manage' their list 'by-pass' draft/trade rules. The whole area of what is a DFA is becoming very murky!

Source: Champion Data Fixture Summary The Bulldogs have gone 'under the radar' in terms of media review of the fixture. They have an absolutely dream run re who they play twice, 5/6 day breaks, i/state trips etc. If someone ran an analysis of all the variables I reckon they could come out with the 'easiest' draw of the lot! The AFL is giving the Bulldogs every chance of be relevant again. Ditto Adelaide, they have a dream draw but travelling i/state makes it a bit harder. Both clubs have fared well given there recent successes in finals. Coll doesn't travel so much but lucks out with 8 six day breaks. Essendon is also up there with 7 six day breaks. Who is played twice is not a measure of how difficult 2019 becomes; some top teams slide, others come up. I expect Cats, Swans, Hawks to slide a bit. Question is who rises to take their spots - Crows? Bombers? Power? Our draw is very reasonable. I like that we play Sydney and Ess early in the season and if we win those we are off to a good start re potentially difficult teams. One thing is certain, it will be a very open season again.

Its interesting that the AFL has put its chips on Essendon on the back of their 'successful' trading...last time I looked their only trade of note was Shiel. Last year the AFL put its chips on Carlton who have now been banished to day games (only two night games). Backing Ess could easily backfire, not as spectacularly as Carlton did but backfire nonetheless. But hey, couldn't happen to a 'nicer' club!!!

Home games at the G vs Ess, Hawks, Tigers and Pies is huge for us financially. Also huge for fans to see us play some really big games at the G. Will be good for memberships. Lots of good value games to watch - a few may be sell out games! Edit: Not fussed that ANZAC and QB are 'Away' as we only miss out on hosting rights - the 'return' games will still get good crowds as fans come to the G to watch some damn good games.

Travis Auld: “We want to bolster Friday nights, we want to make sure that Thursday and Fridays are really strong that those feature events are there.” "We want to reward teams that have been playing really good football...West Coast and Collingwood are the two obvious ones but Melbourne and Essendon look quite exciting after trade period...So we want to feature them in the right spots as often as we can.” Melbourne and Essendon set to take centre stage Thursday and Friday nights here we come!! Hopefully a few are home games at the G as better for our sponsors and members!

Not sure if this is guesswork but here is a view of the Easter - Anzac weeks. Thursday 18 April: Easter Thursday (Brisbane v Collingwood?) Friday 19 April: Good Friday game (North Melbourne v Essendon?) Saturday 20 April: Four games Sunday 21 April: Easter Sunday, two games Monday 22 April: Easter Monday (Geelong v Hawthorn) Tuesday 23 April: No footy Wednesday 24 April: Anzac Eve (Richmond v Melbourne) Thursday 25 April: Anzac Day (Collingwood v Essendon) Friday 26 April: Friday Night Footy Saturday 27 April: Four games Sunday 28 April: Two games Easter and Anzac Logjam Presumably the AFL will keep the Rich vs Coll and Demons vs Ess as the games post ANZAC day. Hopefully, Melb and Richmond play their Pre Anzac games on the same day, ideally Sat April 20, altho the article suggests Rich could play North on Good Friday. I just hope we are not disadvantaged by having the shortest breaks during that 3 week period relative to our opps. Will put my hand up as being wrong about an Ess vs Carlton Good Friday Eve match. It was requested by Ess and endorsed by Carlton but fortunately the AFL had different ideas.

Heard the news? The AFL wants 'Carlton to be Great Again'!!! AFL general manager...Travis Auld: the Blues were never going to be stripped of the fixture privilege despite their struggles in recent seasons. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-27/afl-reveals-opening-round-fixture-for-2019 Carlton will get other favours one way or another: The new Good Friday Eve vs Ess game, also a stand alone, marquee Thur night game. They may have less Fri nights but will still get some, will have lots of Home games at the G vs big Vic clubs (good for revenue) and will get more than their fair share of FTA broadcast time slots eg Saturday night and Sun afternoons. Yes, some sour grapes on my part when it comes to Carlton's many privileges but mostly I feel for the likes of North, Bulldogs and Saints who are small and get few favours to help grow: Catch -22!!

?