More have to go...

BigMart · Post: # 1162755Post **BigMart** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 10:55am

The way I see it...

We need to add a minimum of Three Draft Picks (4 likely)....We have already added two players...Saad, Milera....and if we want to elevate Walsh, we need to open up another space...

That is 6 additions (possibly 7)

With 4 gone....Lynch, McQualter, Gardiner, Baker

There needs to be two (or 3) more delisted

We have Already got
Pick 25
Pick 37
Pick 39??
Pick 58??

if we trade more players for picks...it has to be with a view of upgrading current picks or they will not be used....

so if we let go of, say
Peake or Ray or Dawson or whoever is uncontracted it would need to be for a better pick than the last one we were going to use....

at this stage unless we delist a few, our third pick at 40ish will be our last

thirty-seven!? · Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:04am

Interesting point BigMart.

So the suggestion would be that if we were to trade out another player (I will use Ray as an example), we should accompany him with a pick (e.g. 39), hoping to perhaps get a late 1st round pick for him, rather than a 2nd rounder... Makes sense.

Also, we can actually use one of our three required draft picks to elevate Walsh, meaning we may only need to delist one more (using 39 on Walsh). But the smart thing to do would be to clear out 2 more players, trade 39 with a player for another pick, and use 58 to elevate Walsh... If that makes sense? No point using a 2nd round pick to elevate Walsh when we could instead use a 3rd rounder and get the same player!

Pick 25:
Pick ??:
Pick 37:
Pick 58: Walsh

To get this we would need to delist one more and trade #39 with a player for a higher pick. Makes the most sense IMO...

thirty-seven!? · Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:05am

Or alternatively we could delist/trade one more and maybe exchange our 2 2nd round picks for one higher one...

bergholt · Post: # 1162767Post **bergholt** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:21am

yup, but if necessary we could probably get away with demoting heyne to the rookie list. (effectively cutting him and redrafting.)

savatage · Post: # 1162768Post **savatage** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:22am

bergholt wrote:yup, but if necessary we could probably get away with demoting heyne to the rookie list. (effectively cutting him and redrafting.)

Yep you're right. If this guy didn't have a year left on his contract - he'd be gone.

PJ · Post: # 1162769Post PJ » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:27am

No question - more have to go

Cahill
Heyne
Archer??
Gamble

These guys must be under consideration plus a few higher wages

Gram
Clarke
Ray

Polo maybe but he's good back up in the middle

thirty-seven!? · Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:27am

savatage wrote:
bergholt wrote:yup, but if necessary we could probably get away with demoting heyne to the rookie list. (effectively cutting him and redrafting.)
Yep you're right. If this guy didn't have a year left on his contract - he'd be gone.

Wouldnt be feeling too safe if I was Cahill either....

BigMart · Post: # 1162773Post **BigMart** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:28am

problem with that is that we chance losing walsh to any club if he goes into the ND.....I reckon he would be snapped up well and truly before 58...infact I reckon he would go before 40...

We can just promote him onto our senior list before the draft when we do our list lodgement...as long as we make room...

dragit · Post: # 1162774Post **dragit** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:29am

Gaertner?

BigMart · Post: # 1162783Post **BigMart** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:36am

Cant count Rookies

Gaertner??? not even on rookie list??

Archer is a Rookie..

plugger66 · Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:38am

BigMart wrote:problem with that is that we chance losing walsh to any club if he goes into the ND.....I reckon he would be snapped up well and truly before 58...infact I reckon he would go before 40...

We can just promote him onto our senior list before the draft when we do our list lodgement...as long as we make room...

Only if he wants to be on our list.

noob · Post: # 1162792Post **noob** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:45am

Who's the better player? Smith or Heyne

BigMart · Post: # 1162800Post **BigMart** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 11:57am

How would we know????

They have not even been sighted

As a Junior Heyne was certainly highly rated....but lacked consistency at VFL standard

Smith was a ball winning mid/HB who we tried to turn into the second coming of Clinton Jones....has gone backwards

Smith showed a bit in the NAB cup.....

Both had poor seasons this year.....not developed by the club

thirty-seven!? · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:01pm

BigMart wrote:problem with that is that we chance losing walsh to any club if he goes into the ND.....I reckon he would be snapped up well and truly before 58...infact I reckon he would go before 40...

We can just promote him onto our senior list before the draft when we do our list lodgement...as long as we make room...

No the new rules are that we can use one of our draft selections to elevate a nominated rookie, as we did last year with Simpkin and the year before with Dawson. Doing this also allows us to count it as one of our three minimum selections. No other club is able to pick them as they are not officially part of the draft, but it was one of the new concessions given to clubs in the GC/GWS era. So essentially, if we wanted to upgrade Walsh (and he was happy with it), we can use our last pick in the ND to get him and no other club is able to pick him.

plugger66 · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:01pm

BigMart wrote:How would we know????

They have not even been sighted

As a Junior Heyne was certainly highly rated....but lacked consistency at VFL standard

Smith was a ball winning mid/HB who we tried to turn into the second coming of Clinton Jones....has gone backwards

Smith showed a bit in the NAB cup.....

Both had poor seasons this year.....not developed by the club

We get it. Does your wife call you happy at home?

falka · Post: # 1162813Post **falka** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:02pm

Would we look at promoting Jackson Ferguson or even Curren?

thirty-seven!? · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:04pm

falka wrote:Would we look at promoting Jackson Ferguson or even Curren?

Wouldn't think so. Both are only first year rookies, so we can keep them on the list for a second year if we want. We can always upgrade them within the year if we want or need them to play senior footy. No point delisting a senior player for the sake of these guys being in the senior side when we can essentially just keep them on the rookie list instead.

borderbarry · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:06pm

For sure next year I would think.

InkerSaint · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:13pm

I'd love to see Ferguson upgraded.

SainterK · Post: # 1162824Post **SainterK** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:17pm

InkerSaint wrote:I'd love to see Ferguson upgraded.

Me too.

plugger66 · Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:19pm

SainterK wrote:
InkerSaint wrote:I'd love to see Ferguson upgraded.
Me too.

Way to early. Unless something bad happens though will be a player for sure. Very fast for a tall guy. just need to learn to watch his man.

defacto · Post: # 1162827Post **defacto** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 12:20pm

i think archer, heyne, curren, jackson, andreoli, and 1 picked up in the rookie draft will end up on the rookie list

walsh will be elevated if we can keep him. curren, archer, jackson will all be elevated next year i think.

saintsRrising · Sat 15 Oct 2011 1:18pm

PJ wrote:
No question - more have to go

Cahill
Heyne
Archer??

Archer is a rookie. But yes I assume that Pelchen will give our Rookie list a fair going over.
Walsh elevated.
Ferg kept...or elevated.

Cahill, Heyne and Gamble look the most likely. Our two trades look to have doomed Gamble who did not look good enough anyway.

The other point with gamble is that he lacks versatility.
And pacey options are now available to replace him.

If those 3 go..then that is 7 out.

2 in so far.

Unless we trade the picks we look to have lowish picks in the draft that would be used.

You need depth...and so Polo may be kept.

With Ben now our sole rue ruckman...Pelchen will want a back-up plan in case Ben gets injured. Stanley is not robust enough yet.

I expect a mature age player from a non-AF club to be picked up.

PJ wrote:

These guys must be under consideration plus a few higher wages

Gram
Clarke
Ray

Polo maybe but he's good back up in the middle

Agree on Polo.

The other three would need another club to want them.

With Ray...I must rate him higher than most for I think he is a valuable part of our 22.

saintslegendLH · Sat 15 Oct 2011 2:05pm

saintsRrising wrote:
PJ wrote:
No question - more have to go

Cahill
Heyne
Archer??
Archer is a rookie. But yes I assume that Pelchen will give our Rookie list a fair going over.
Walsh elevated.
Ferg kept...or elevated.

Cahill, Heyne and Gamble look the most likely. Our two trades look to have doomed Gamble who did not look good enough anyway.

The other point with gamble is that he lacks versatility.
And pacey options are now available to replace him.

If those 3 go..then that is 7 out.

2 in so far.

Unless we trade the picks we look to have lowish picks in the draft that would be used.

You need depth...and so Polo may be kept.

With Ben now our sole rue ruckman...Pelchen will want a back-up plan in case Ben gets injured. Stanley is not robust enough yet.

I expect a mature age player from a non-AF club to be picked up.

PJ wrote:

These guys must be under consideration plus a few higher wages

Gram
Clarke
Ray

Polo maybe but he's good back up in the middle
Agree on Polo.

The other three would need another club to want them.

With Ray...I must rate him higher than most for I think he is a valuable part of our 22.

how does gamble lack versatility? he won geelongs vfl best and fairest at hbf. Ross just never gave him the chance to prove himself there at afl level.

bergholt · Post: # 1162888Post **bergholt** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 2:25pm

saintslegendLH wrote:how does gamble lack versatility? he won geelongs vfl best and fairest at hbf. Ross just never gave him the chance to prove himself there at afl level.

how many half-back flankers can you fit into one side?

here's who played there at afl level this year:

blake
clarke
dempster
fisher
geary
gilbert
goddard
gram
gwilt
ray
simpkin

these players could also have legitimately played there:

gamble
johnson
lynch
polo
winmar
ferguson?

half-back flank is the fall-back position - for example, see leon davis. you don't need to be too accountable, you don't have to think too much because the ball comes to you, you've got license to run around a bit without doing too much damage.

there's a limit to the number of players we can have whose best position is half-back flank.