Tweet
Swans/Hawks take advantage of rule tweak to pre-list players
-
-
It would seem reasonable that the Victorians would be rated more highly if they got to play this year. I noted that Victorian Nik Cox, who has gotten some coverage here, has been moving up the draft ladder with many pundits thinking that he may even get into the top 10. If you add this to your comments, would that mean that in a normal year, Nik Cox would likely be rated higher than McDonnald, Thilthorpe and DGB?
For a club wanting a KPP, can a sharp recruiter piece this thing together and change the player rankings to properly reflect the lack of a Victorian competition into consideration?
One example could be Jy Simpkin dropping in the rankings after missing most of the 2016 season, getting picked up at #12, just behind Florent. Simpkin went into 2016 as a top 5 prospect. He's looking more deserving now of that ranking than where he actually got drafted.
A lot of recruiters, and especially KB, place a lot of emphasis on improvement during the draft year as a marker of a player's trajectory, and surely contributed to us taking Florent over Simpkin.
Still, Cal Twomey is placing JUH as the best player in the draft, even without playing this season, and Hollands is also up there, dropping more because of his ACL than lack of play.
It will be interesting to see if some of the Vic players move up the ranking as we get closer to the draft.Comment
-
Age reporting Swans say they will bid on western bullies “academy” boy if he’s still there at 3.
(Obviously a ploy to push Campbell lower and cost less points)Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.Comment
-
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
Sydney picks: 3, 34, 37, 43, 48, 60, 82.
Bulldogs picks: 29, 33, 41, 42, 52, 54, 90 (2489 points)
(A rough calculation, could be a bit wrong):
Match pick 1 (2400.0): 29, 33, 41, 42, 52 are used up, pick 54 becomes pick 65. Sydney picks become 32, 35, 39, 44, 55, 77.
Match pick 2 (2013.6): 29, 33, 41 are used up, 42 drops to pick 73. 52 remains unchanged. Sydney picks become 32, 35, 39, 44, 56, 78.
Match pick 3 (1787.2): 29, 33, 41 are used up, 42 drops to pick 53. 52 remains unchanged. Sydney picks become 32, 35, 39, 44, 57, 78.
Match pick 4 (1627.2): 29, 33, 41 are used up. 42, 52 remain unchanged. Sydney picks become 32, 35, 40, 45, 57, 78.
Sydney has two picks in the 40s (43, 48) that are after one of the Bulldogs' picks (42). Pick 42 would be demoted if Sydney bid at pick 3 but would not be if Sydney did not bid.
Therefore, Sydney must bid on JUH at pick 3 if he's still there, simply to improve the value of Sydney's draft points."Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
It is really hard to say. From reading a couple of draft watcher "power rankings" from the beginning of the year (I can't find Cal Twomey's March version if there was one), Nick Cox didn't even appear. So without the benefit of playing he has gone from not mentioned to top 10.
Knightmare (Chris Doerre) had Will Phillips and Finlay McRae ranked above Hollands. None of them have played and he now has them well apart.
It's all a bit crazy. What we do know is that McDonald and DGB have performed this year at a very high level in good competition and so even though they may not eventually be the "best" pick, they are pretty safe at this spot. Undoubtably, there will be several busts and several bargains. I personally think we are very fortunate to have access to two kids who we know lots about and are ultra talented.Comment
-
KB has already said that he thinks JUH is the best player in the draft, so aside from everything else, we would definitely bid on him.
You've gone to a lot of trouble there in a very worthwhile exercise. Just from doing the JUH bidding you've shown that our points value will increase substantially. I haven't bothered doing the exact points differential, but it looks around 250 extra points just from the JUH bid match. That will be the extra points just at the time of the Campbell bid.
Between Campbell and Gulden there should be several other bids matched leaving giving our remaining picks another boost in value. And the Campbell matched bid will itself push up the position of our remaining picks.
I think you've taken any residual concerns about our ability to match the bids for the academy boys without going into deficit. There would have to be some truly malicious bidding for our matching to result in a deficit.Last edited by Ludwig; 1 December 2020, 06:15 PM.Comment
-
-
Great to have Fox back!Comment
-
Just read Hollands not expected to play til June next year, will end up at BombersComment
-
Pardon my ignorance, but does anyone know the main differences now between a senior list and a category A rookie list spot? I gather there are salary cap concessions for the rookie list for the club ($80k of their salary doesn't count against the cap), and it seems these players don't have to be elevated to the senior list to play.
It looks like there's no cap on how much a player can earn as a category A rookie- is there a cap on how many years they can be contracted for?I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his timeComment
-
Well it all depends on whether you are looking at the rules today, or the changed on the fly rules of next week, or the changed on the fly rules before next season!
Basically NOW there is no difference between the two lists except for TPP purposes where $80k of the contract of a rookie listed player is not counted in the TPP.
Drafting players onto the rookie list is on a one year contract, through the ND it's a two year contract. All the other rules about how many years you can be a rookie are now very blurred.
Just up on the AFL website is Twomey's Top 30, not a Phantom Draft but his list in order of the top 30 talents. It's a good read given his thoughts on which clubs are interested in players and likely draft range for each.Last edited by 707; 2 December 2020, 07:16 AM.Comment
Comment