Tweet
What is wrong with doing favourable deals. We live in a democratic society where negotiation is part of the deal. The system allows clubs to talk and trade to mutual benefit. If club says; " Sydney have helped us out in an area so we don't wish to put barriers in front of their draft strategy", why is there anything wrong with that. What the AFL is saying is they want clubs to bid for Academy players to make it harder for the northern clubs. Why the need for this aggression. Society works better when people work in harmony. Again symptomatic of our mutated culture in business, dog eat dog crap. The competition will always work better without petty jealousy. We are very good at looking after our own backyard while respecting the other 17 clubs. That is why clubs like dealing with us. The AFL have very little knowledge of genuine leadership whereas many clubs do.
-
Correct me if Im wrong, but it seems to me that the benefit to Melbourne or other clubs by bidding for Academy kids is not that they will get them, as their bids will most likely be matched by their home clubs (so long as they dont bid too highly) Rather, the benefit to them by bidding for Academy kids is that those clubs gain from changing the draft order.
In that respect, it seems to me that its irrelevant as to whether Mills is better than Hopper, others, or vice versa, or the order they would have got picked in a 'normal' draft. The more appropriate way of looking at what number Mills will be bid is by assessing the impact on the ultimate draft order depending on the points impact of changing the order of Academy bids.
i.e. If Melbourne has a better ultimate draft order by bidding Mills before Hopper, or Schahe before Mills, that is what they will do.
So, I dont necessarily agree that Academy kids will be bid in the order of their approximate worth. They will be bid in the order that creates the best draft order outcome for non-Academy clubs.
I guess we'll only know on the night...Comment
-
I agree, particularly Mills, who's photo and profile is nearly always attached to any article regarding academies....I have seen very little info in relation to the other top academy prospects.
The media have made Mills the poster boy...To the ridiculous stage now where he has moved from a 'top 6 or 7 pick' a few months ago, to a 'top 5', then 3rd or 4th pick a few weeks ago...
To now, where he has miraculously moved to 'pick 2' in Toomey's draft, without any footy or testing to justify his rise or others devaluing.Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
update from Kinnear
Draft preview with Kinnear Beatson - November 18, 2015 - sydneyswans.com.au
- - - Updated - - -
fascinating that he thinks we have only 3 picks with no mention of Dunkley
1 Mills
2 in the 50s
3 quite late
Then we have the Rookie Draft
up to 4 selections in the Rookie Draft"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
-
Not sure if I follow you here, the draft picks are just a number, it is the player the clubs gets that is important
To use an example, If the Dees have pick 3 and they bid for Mills because they think he is the third best footballer in the land and if we match it then their pick becomes 4, our next pick gets upgraded to 3 and any other picks we use up for points get placed at the back of the draft. So if the Dees bid for Mills and we match him they get the fourth best player at Pick 4, if they don't bid for him (even if they rate him at #3) then they get the third best player at Pick 3. They get the same player
I can't see any benefit to Melbourne in this really as the players they will get remain unchanged. In fact 16 clubs gets pushed back one place for their first rounder but their later picks get slightly pushed forward.
Academy kids should be bid for their approx. worth because academy clubs always have the option of passing on the match and leaving the bidding club holding the baby. There may be some spurious bids early on but I genuinely think the potential cost is too high - if I was Carlton for example I would not be 100% sure of Mills being matched at #1 given what he will cost us. If he was a Wayne Carey in-the-making CHF sure but a midfielder with some recent injuries opposed to a cherry ripe gun KPD? They'd be mad.
- - - Updated - - -
I'd say that this Beatson taking a worst case scenario, with a bit of luck we'll get a early to mid 40s pick where we could well get some value.
I'd like to see us take Young from Sydney Uni and at least three of the other academy kids for our rookie list.Comment
-
Here's a short piece about some late testing for a handful of players who weren't able to test at the draft camp, including both Mills and Dunkley. It doesn't give full results but does report that both Mills and Dunkley performed well in the agility test.
Weideman, Mills, Dunkley and Rice put through their paces ahead of AFL draft - AFL.com.auComment
-
Yeah, he's either playing a tight poker hand and presenting a scenario that is way off the envisaged mark...
Or he's being open and honest and he expects Mills to be bid on by pick 3 at the latest, and Dunkley isn't on the radar.
Who knows? But I suspect, a week out from the draft, he's keeping his cards close to his chest.Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
Sounds to me its on the money. Mills will be almost certainly bid on at pick 3 which means our next pick will be slid back to the mid 50's due to the points system then we'll have another late one left. Dunkley ain't coming and sounds like the club is resigned to that!Comment
-
Kinnear mentioned 4 rookie selections. I count only 3 vacancies. Has somone else been delisted?We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!Comment
-
Rookie Players - AFL.com.au
I think this is up to date. The intention of a 4th selection is possibly explained by the NSW academy concessions. This article seems to confirm we can still list, subject to certain criteria, academy players as Category B rookies. It is even possible that Foote is still allowed to be categorised as a Cat B rookie in his second year on the list - I am not clear on that point and the article doesn't address it. If he is, we have four spots available on our main rookie list if we go in with a 38-strong senior list. If he isn't, and has to be counted as a Cat A rookie, we have three main spots available but the option of up to two further ex-academy players as Cat B rookies if we wish.Comment
-
Thanks liz for providing that link as it has answered some questions for me.
The first is that any academy kids that nominate for the ND and are not selected can be rookie listed by us before the rookie draft. My reading from Wikipedia, though, suggests that we can only draft directly from the academy as Cat B rookies which is limited to three spots, is this correct?
Is it fair to say that we'd rookie list all four of Baron-Hay (North Shore), Behagg (Manly), Hebron (North Shore) and Wilson (Maroubra) if they are not selected? I guess we'd take the best three as
Given we look like only keeping a list of 38 and that we'll go with the existing 34 with Mills, Naismith upgraded and two other draft picks, one of which may be one of those four listed if we need to match a bid but I have not heard a peep re any interest in our other kids.
We are then left with four rookies (Foote, Newman, Melican plus the Irishman) and we'd list three academy kids as Cat B rookies and one as a Cat A. We'd then have two additional rookie spots - Tom Young from Sydney Uni would be one I'd like us to give an opportunity plus one other.
Not quite sure if I am on the right track here or not...Comment
-
By my calcs we can still take Josh as a F/S and Mills at #3 with no carry over deficit provided he goes at Pick 23 or later, I'd be surprised if we was bid at that early but I reckon we'll get him if he nominates and maybe draft an academy kid with our third pick.
If he doesn't then we get 49 and 55 by my reckoning and there could be a little value thereComment
Comment