AFL (non-Swans) off-season moves - 2022 edition

[i'm-uninformed2]

Thinking about that particular boys club CEO, at the Swans we are so lucky to have a stable club full of quality people.

Who would want to be a Saints, Norf or Essendon supporter right now given the utter shambles they have been, CEO's, football departments, coaches, recruiting, scandals!

Or a GWS or Gold Coast supporter knowing your initial start up concessions have now evaporated and you're destined to be just a feeder club for the Southern states and will always struggle to rise above that deadly mid table vortex despite almost every year having a good draft hand?

Absolutely, and it's why I've always expressed a bucket of admiration and thanks to Richard Colless on this forum for what he set in train 25+ years ago. (Well, that as well as having been lucky enough to become semi-friendly with him back in the days - enough for the odd long lunch; just a top bloke). There's been plenty of people since march forward and contribute to the vision he had for what makes a great club, but boy we were blessed to have him.

[Mountain Man]

My admiration is based on him achieving a smooth succession plan - one of the hardest corporate tasks in my experience: both for him, and for CEO's.

[bloodspirit]

I thought it would make sense for North to take both Wardlaw and Tsatas, because they're good friends to reduce the chance of them leaving (a bit like Rowell & Anderson). However, North are apparently very keen on Sheezel. So now I'm wondering whether they should trade for Essendon's pick 4 and take all three. They need to inject talent into their list ASAP and are better off investing in this draft than next provided there are decent players available and with picks 2,3 & 4 they will get good players.

How they could get the deal done? Would it be worth offering their future first, which could be pick 1, or is that just too much to pay (essentially giving up (potentially) three #1 picks (errghh) for picks 2,3 & 4 this year? Alternatively would Port's future 1st plus pick 23 be enough? I suspect not, not even if they threw in pick 40 as well.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I thought it would make sense for North to take both Wardlaw and Tsatas, because they're good friends to reduce the chance of them leaving (a bit like Rowell & Anderson). However, North are apparently very keen on Sheezel. So now I'm wondering whether they should trade for Essendon's pick 4 and take all three. They need to inject talent into their list ASAP and are better off investing in this draft than next provided there are decent players available and with picks 2,3 & 4 they will get good players.

How they could get the deal done? Would it be worth offering their future first, which could be pick 1, or is that just too much to pay (essentially giving up (potentially) three #1 picks (errghh) for picks 2,3 & 4 this year? Alternatively would Port's future 1st plus pick 23 be enough? I suspect not, not even if they threw in pick 40 as well.

West Coast or Hawthorn will be pick 1 next year

[Markwebbos]

I thought it would make sense for North to take both Wardlaw and Tsatas, because they're good friends to reduce the chance of them leaving (a bit like Rowell & Anderson). However, North are apparently very keen on Sheezel. So now I'm wondering whether they should trade for Essendon's pick 4 and take all three. They need to inject talent into their list ASAP and are better off investing in this draft than next provided there are decent players available and with picks 2,3 & 4 they will get good players.

How they could get the deal done? Would it be worth offering their future first, which could be pick 1, or is that just too much to pay (essentially giving up (potentially) three #1 picks (errghh) for picks 2,3 & 4 this year? Alternatively would Port's future 1st plus pick 23 be enough? I suspect not, not even if they threw in pick 40 as well.

Why would the Bombers take that deal?

Besides I’m optimistic we can prize it from Dodoro’s fingers? Would we give up all our picks for 4?

[bloodspirit]

Why would the Bombers take that deal?

Besides I’m optimistic we can prize it from Dodoro’s fingers? Would we give up all our picks for 4?

If you were the Bombers, would you rather have North's future first or picks 14, 17 & 42? It might depend on the stage of development of your list but I think I'd be more interested in the future first, likely to be a top 3 pick.

[707]

Essendon need a top pick now, not next year. They'll take whoever is left after Norf have their picks.

Doubt we'll get to do anything with 14 & 17 other than use them ourselves.

[Aprilbr]

Essendon need a top pick now, not next year. They'll take whoever is left after Norf have their picks.

Doubt we'll get to do anything with 14 & 17 other than use them ourselves.

Agreed, I think that other clubs want to have lower picks but those with them are quite reluctant to give them up in a draft that apparently lacks depth.

[gloveski]

I thought it would make sense for North to take both Wardlaw and Tsatas, because they're good friends to reduce the chance of them leaving (a bit like Rowell & Anderson). However, North are apparently very keen on Sheezel. So now I'm wondering whether they should trade for Essendon's pick 4 and take all three. They need to inject talent into their list ASAP and are better off investing in this draft than next provided there are decent players available and with picks 2,3 & 4 they will get good players.

How they could get the deal done? Would it be worth offering their future first, which could be pick 1, or is that just too much to pay (essentially giving up (potentially) three #1 picks (errghh) for picks 2,3 & 4 this year? Alternatively would Port's future 1st plus pick 23 be enough? I suspect not, not even if they threw in pick 40 as well.

Don’t think North would trade their future first . If they finish bottom next year Harley Reid looks a likely No1 pick the kids a jet .
Would be even a chance to be No1 in this draft if he was eligible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Draft day . . . are we there yet?

[bloodspirit]

Eddie Everywhere has been made a life member of the AFL for "Special Services to the Game", along with the players that have played 300 games, Bruce McAvaney and Lisa Hardeman: Premiership heroes, broadcasting royalty as AFL reveals eight new life members (foxsports.com.au).

[dejavoodoo44]

The AFL site is reporting that Ginnivan has been suspended for the first two rounds, after footage of his illicit drug use was distributed.

I suspect that many Australians are having similar thoughts as me.

Nelson Muntz - Ha Ha - YouTube

[stevoswan]

The AFL site is reporting that Ginnivan has been suspended for the first two rounds, after footage of his illicit drug use was distributed.

I suspect that many Australians are having similar thoughts as me.

Nelson Muntz - Ha Ha - YouTube

Just saw that and those were my exact thoughts.....oh how I laughed....and rolled my eyes.

[bloodspirit]

The AFL site is reporting that Ginnivan has been suspended for the first two rounds, after footage of his illicit drug use was distributed.

I suspect that many Australians are having similar thoughts as me.

Nelson Muntz - Ha Ha - YouTube

I absolutely am not having similar thoughts and am disappointed you are deja. Am I mistaking you for another poster when I'm thinking you have often spoken about your own drug use? If so, I immediately apologise.

Even still , laughing at the misfortune of others is ugly. And I happen to really rate and not dislike Ginnivan. I think he's a great talent and I don't hate him for drawing high free kicks. And otherwise he's just a typical young lad. Not all young lads take drugs but they're all on a learning curve and probably making some regrettable choices. (I was probably exceptional myself in that I didn't get myself into much trouble or do much dumb stuff as a youngster - but I did try drugs a couple of times out of curiosity - and I certainly don't count myself as any better than a kid like Ginnivan because of it.)

[dejavoodoo44]

I absolutely am not having similar thoughts and am disappointed you are deja. Am I mistaking you for another poster when I'm thinking you have often spoken about your own drug use? If so, I immediately apologise.

Even still , laughing at the misfortune of others is ugly. And I happen to really rate and not dislike Ginnivan. I think he's a great talent and I don't hate him for drawing high free kicks. And otherwise he's just a typical young lad. Not all young lads take drugs but they're all on a learning curve and probably making some regrettable choices. (I was probably exceptional myself in that I didn't get myself into much trouble or do much dumb stuff as a youngster - but I did try drugs a couple of times out of curiosity - and I certainly don't count myself as any better than a kid like Ginnivan because of it.)

Mmm, I suspect that you are mistaking me for another user, as I don't really recall mentioning my own personal drug use. But I might as well briefly clarify my own attitude to drugs. Unless you count alcohol and caffeine as drugs, my own drug use is very minimal, these days. However, I do consider the criminalisation of drugs to be a relentless policy nightmare.
So, I'm not going at Ginnivan as some sort of anti-drug zealot. In fact, I haven't even bothered looking up what he's supposed to have taken, as I suspect he was just having a bit of fun on a night out, rather than suffering from some sort of troubling addiction.
However, I do consider him to be a flagrant cheat, with his constantly dramatic feigning of high contact, when there's been little or no high contact. So, therefore, I do find it amusing, that he's now being punished for some poor behaviour, rather being constantly rewarded for his poor onfield behaviour.