Lucifers Hero

We are in great shape Dee Dee! The earliest read I have is 19,026 on Oct 26, 2015, so at least 3,000 up on this time last year! For those wanting to track how we are going vs prior years this thread might be useful: Beating the Hawks and Hogan re-signing would be a huge part of that additional 3,000. Now that Lewis chose us and is on board it should give the numbers another boost. PJ had a goal of 50,000 for 2017. Doubt we will get there but would expect that we will get at least 45,000. We are nearly half way there! Exciting times

I think you are right re Hawks 2017 2nd rnd pick. Message to self: do not rely on newspaper reports - check AFL website! Given that, your reasoning is more balanced than mine. I will put an edit in my earlier post to reference yours. The GWS one is interesting - what is the point of the AFL rule picks = vacancies (to stop Academy clubs downgrading picks)? It does seem that Hawks and Cats are throwing the dice a bit of not recruiting young player and leaving themselves exposed on 1st round picks. They may end up where Tigers and Roos are with that strategy!

Penalty: face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks. Not sure how much of a deterrent that is if the ban is only a year or two. Yes they are banking on trading in a pick, which really can only be for players.

Interesting. The AFL seem to have now given us extra games at Etihad vs North, StK to offset the games vs Ess & Carlt we don't play there. Win for Ess Carlt and a loss for MFC! A big problem for MFC is we never get the 'home club' gate revenue for the MCG games - vs clubs with high memberships. Ditto Hawks. Carlton and Essendon have been bleating for years for more home games at the MCG and that has stealthily happened. AFL politics and power broking will make it very hard for us to get a fair go on fixtures be it venue, time slot, FTA, etc. Our cash flow is considerably compromised from backroom maneuverings. Only winning will give PJ the negotiating power to claw back some beneficial scheduling from the AFL.

Agreed. Would be surprised if some clubs don't raise it with the AFL. A bit late tho'. On drafting of future picks: Its interesting that Hawks and Cats have taken out a big mortgage on their future. Hawks first pick this year is #88 and next year #50 approx leaving a big gap in their young player stocks for several years. If they want to get back into the 2017 early rounds or an age group they must trade out players (or 2018 picks which just puts out the day of reckoning, like the Cats now) Cats have to find an extra 1st round draft pick in 2017/2018. The only way they can do this is to trade out players. For both clubs they will need to trade out quite good players as other clubs will know Hawks/Cats must get the required picks and can't expect 1st round picks for throwaways. They are both playing at the 'don't worry about drafting and developing' we will just get players as FA's, when OOC or when the 'go home' thing kicks in. GCS and Carlton showed that won't be so easy in future.

What I really liked is our trading strategy has been thought out well in advance and we stick to it. I particularly like the players we traded in are players we targeted during the year (Bugg, Melksham, Hibberd) or players we liked during their draft year (Kennedy, McKenna) and now went for them. It means our research is really solid. The only exception I can think of is Lewis but its a no brainer to take a windfall like that! I also liked that we got in there and got our deals done rather than some clubs which waited till the end to get 'bargains' (Ess, Coll, Carlt) or got caught up in the 'buying frenzy before the sales end' of yesterday. Good players were being given away for peanuts in the end!!

What happened to the draft pick rules! Hawks trade out 2017 1st and 2nd round picks - rules say if you trade out future round 1, a club cannot trade out the 2nd round. GWS have 2016 draft picks: 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 77, 109 but the rules say you cannot have more picks than list spots (with some exceptions on future picks from prior year). That is 11 picks that carry draft points!! And a number of clubs traded future 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks - are they allowed? I thought it was only round 1 and 2? A week into the trade period the AFL gave Geelong a correct interpretation of the 'two 1st round picks in 4 years' rule that allowed them to trade out their 2017 1st pick. The AFL hadn't thought it through before the draft started so had given the wrong advice on which clubs could trade their 2017 1st pick My point is the rules should be set before the trade period and not rejigged on the run. I know this is the AFL but changing the rules on the run is unfair to the clubs that don't know the rules have been 'reinterpreted'. The AFL certainly did not issue any bulletins (that I could find) clarifying any of the above. Edit: refer to Fifty-5's post #3896 below for clarification of these points.

What about this line in the op article: "However, the League's general manager of clubs and operations Travis Auld is set to examine other potential fixture formats, including the 17-5 model and potential to introduce finals wildcards". Each team plays once then the ladder splits into groups of 6 to play off for positions on the ladder. The top 6 definitely play finals, the next 6 play for the last 2 spots in the 8 and the last 6 play for/tank for...the #1 draft pick. The intention is to make the fixture more even. In practice I think it means a round of finals for the first 6 before the actual finals. I think the finals before the finals will disadvantage the younger, less experienced teams in the top 6 as they will potentially have 5 tough games to end the season before they play (the same group of teams) in a tough finals series. I can also see all sorts of opportunities for teams to manipulate the outcomes in each group of 6 depending on their win/loss ratio after round 17. It also means the last 5 games will be pretty boring for the fans of the bottom 6 just playing other poor/mediocre teams. As for 'wildcards', hope that is not another way for the AFL to 'use their discretion' and control over the game!! I don't know if, on balance 17/5 will be good or bad but personally I prefer they leave it alone. And, no wildcards!

I would be very surprised if he is being looked at as a starting 22. Nor should we on Demonland. I think he is coming in on the same basis as Newton, Kennedy, Bugg etc:. "Son, here is a 2 year contract and a second chance for an AFL career, show us what you can do". He is a no risk prospect. And, maybe GWS would have done the pick upgrade anyway. But because they need to reduce their list size they thru McKenna in as well.

There is talk going around that GWS might lose draft picks over this. He who giveth, taketh away!! AFL works in strange ways - it helps that they up the top of the ladder, so any penalties won't sting so much. If so, there is a bit of poetic justice in it all.

Thanks...maybe some other version of 2016 for 2017 picks...

Talk around that GWS may be stripped of draft picks over the Whitfield episode!! Now wouldn't that make a lot of people happy! A bit of poetic justice one would think. Back to the draft: they might do a last minute deal to get 2017 early picks. I don't usually hypothesise about picks but this would be nice: GWS: a 2016 1st and 2nd round for MFC: 2017 1st round and 2016 #69 which has draft points value and 2017 3rd round. We could always trade into 2017 later rounds next year. Why do it: might get us the ruck/forward with their 2016 2nd round and give us a 1st round pick. Of course we would only do it if we had a target in the 1st round. Doable?

SEN reported that we were interested in him in his draft year. Looks like he plays as a forward, so good to keep competition on the small/medium forwards/onballers for spots. Good to get him and get a slight pick upgrade at the same time. Great time to join MFC, Patty. Welcome aboard!!

I share the nostalgia around Dunn, Grimes et al and how deserving they would be of playing in our resurgent team. But lets not forget they were the players and the leaders in those years of massive, demoralising losses - they must take some considerable share of responsibility for that on-field performance, notwithstanding they worked their butts off. And, if they were still in our team we would not be the resurgent team that we are becoming. The club is gave them every opportunity to make it in the new regime and is giving them every opportunity to find a new club without asking anything in return. There is not more the club can do. I wish those that leaving well but it is time to move on.

It seems the rose coloured glasses of Dunn have come out. I can't see how Dunn had a critical role in the development of Wagner, O.Mac, Frost, White. They rarely played with Dunn and I suspect the coaches would have teamed them up with other senior players at training etc. to learn from players who showed the behaviours the coaches wanted; Dunn wasn't one of them. I hope he enjoys it at the pies and that it is a good move for him.

This is what his manager said yesterday: Pask said there was a lot of interest in Prestia, up to 12 months ago. " If anything, you can applaud Richmond," he said. "They targeted him ... they got him." I suspect Richmond were the only ones still interested this year. It would explains why Dion looked a little glum came up with lame comments as to why 'he chose' Richmond.

2014 doesn't count as 2015 was the first time clubs could trade future picks. So the rolling 4 years are: 2015 to 2018, 2016 to 2019, 2017 to 2020 etc etc So for Geelong there options are 2 1st round picks in 2017, or 2018 or 1 in each of those years to comply with the new interpretation of the rule. In one of those years they will need to trade in a 1st round pick.

They need to use 2 first round picks across 2017/2018 drafts thereby satisfying the 2 first round picks in a rolling 4 year period: 2015 to 2018. That is different to what the AFL issued before this draft - it seems they had not thru what their rules actually meant in practice!!

That must be a joke - Pick 13 is earmarked for Gibbs. And, how could a club even consider #13 for ANB, a player with potential but can't break into the playing 22 on a regular basis. Our best chance of getting Harry Dear is if his Crows contract is not renewed and he becomes a DFA and chooses us. Listening to Mahoney's interview today, Dear isn't the type we are looking for.

I think Newton's fate was sealed before we got Lewis but don't want to update info until these things are said by the club (Ditto Dawes, rookies etc) I was simply answering your question about pick 84 and the number of vacancies we may have.

All those interpretations are correct. Re pick 84 - Newton's future is also in the balance and would can give us another list spot to fill - then we can use #84 at the draft... Another general comment: I am keeping the 2016 Contract thread upto date with all changes re demons. People should look at it before positing scenarios.

Collingwood will not give up 47 +/- high picks for Dunn...they need all the draft points they can get for their father/sons The following comments don't relate to your posts stuie its for the people who put up all sorts of hypothetical pick trades. NOTE: draft points are a sliding scale and read this: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-19/indicative-2016-afl-draft-order ie #28 = 703 points # 47 = 316 points # 57 = 182 points # 59 = 158 points And, hopefully for the last time, a club (with some exceptions) cannot have more draft picks than vacant list spots!! Edit: we can use picks 102 and 120 to upgrade Wagner/Smith.

I hear what everyone is saying about not going to the draft this year which on face value is a fair argument. Getting more young players wasn't why I feel our remaining picks don't give us much to work with. All along, I've thought our biggest need and what I was really hoping for is a backup for Max in this trade period who is ready to play in 2017. I was not expecting using #29 at the draft to deliver this. My remaining hope for a ruck/forward type is someone who becomes a DFA that we can pick up for zip. Will be quite disappointed if we go into 2017 without a real Max backup (and not just Watts or Pedersen who ruck while Max is resting)!

Hibberd + #59 for #29 and #68 As it stands our picks are 57, 59, 84, 102, 120 Can't say that is a good outcome. ok for upgrading rookies but not much else

True. But, our 2016 #26 was pushed out to #29 because of AFL allocated picks. Not many FA's to command similar picks in 2017 or a pp, so if we are just inside the 8 our 2017 2nd rnd pick will still be around pick #29. Just outside the 8 it is even better. MFC have worked very hard to keep # 29 presumably for a reason (other than playing hardball) so I hope they don't give up now. EFC must trade Hibberd out as they do not have the salary cap and next year he will be out of contract so their bargaining power then goes down a bit.