2024 Draft Thread.

[Mat Mann]

Draft Period, November 20–21

• Round 1 of the National Draft: Wednesday, November 20
• Round 2–end of the National Draft: Thursday, November 21
• Rookie Promotions: Thursday, November 21, after the National Draft
• Delisted Free Agency Period (3): Thursday, November 21, after the National Draft
• List Lodgement 3*: Friday, November 22, 10am (optional; required for those participating in the PSD)
• Pre-Season Draft: Friday, November 22, 3pm
• Rookie Draft: Friday, November 22, 3.20pm

 

[austinnn]

Whichever of the top mids slides at 7. Elite accumulator with burst ideally.

Ditto with 8, unless we can get two 15-25 picks for it, if so grab Hynes and best ruck available.

Get Peckett, Hoffman and Cole.

Those are my only demands.

 

[TheJackal]

Don't mind it.

I really want both Lindsay and Hynes, but can't have them all I guess.

If we had 2 gun mids at 8+9, plus Peckett, I'd prefer we target a key forward, key back or ruck with our 3rd overall pick.

I like the look of Matt Whitlock and James Barratt. Barratt kicked 18.18 in his first 6 games before he was switched to defence, Matt Whitlock has kicked 27.20 while switching between the back and forward line.

I haven't seen Alex Dodson play, but his numbers are impressive. I still think Trainor is a very special talent though, it all depends on where we rate them all. But if only Smillie, Langford & Trainor are left then I'd probably take Trainor with one of our 2 firsts.

 

[joydivision22]

This draft is even. Pick 3 isn’t getting a much better player than where ours sit. I’m not trading in. I reckon this is a draft where good players will come in the 20s. You want more fingers in this pie not less.

Without pouring over previous discussions, I made the same arguments for trading up to select Callaghan a couple of years ago. Fairly sure you agreed with me but doesnt matter

Granted we made out amazingly with NWM but funny to see people begging to hand over 7+8 for Callaghan now if we could in a trade.

You say this years top 10 is much more even but if we could convince NM to trade us pick 2 and take O'Sullivan/Smith/Draper and just move our second pick back from 8 to 22 surely you would be in favour of that

 

[HeavenlySources]

Without pouring over previous discussions, I made the same arguments for trading up to select Callaghan a couple of years ago. Fairly sure you agreed with me but doesnt matter

Granted we made out amazingly with NWM but funny to see people begging to hand over 7+8 for Callaghan now if we could in a trade.

You say this years top 10 is much more even but if we could convince NM to trade us pick 2 and take O'Sullivan/Smith/Draper and just move our second pick back from 8 to 22 surely you would be in favour of that

Great point, if it’s so even and good players will come from the 20s why not do this? 2 gives you the selection at the FOS/Jagga Smith stand outs and 22 lets Dalrymple go to work on his specialty

 

[joydivision22]

Great point, if it’s so even and good players will come from the 20s why not do this? 2 gives you the selection at the FOS/Jagga Smith stand outs and 22 lets Dalrymple go to work on his specialty

We tried a couple of years ago to package clark with no.9 to trade for north's pick 3 which i was really encouraged by. We made out like bandits with Phillipou with our pick but Wardlaw looks just as promising.

I reckon if drafted Draper/Smith (2), Hynes (22), J. Whitlock/Whoever (24), along with Peckett, Cole, Hoffman, people would be wetting themseves.

 

[Saintscomemarchingin]

We tried a couple of years ago to package clark with no.9 to trade for north's pick 3 which i was really encouraged by. We made out like bandits with Phillipou with our pick but Wardlaw looks just as promising.

I reckon if drafted Draper/Smith (2), Hynes (22), J. Whitlock/Whoever (24), along with Peckett, Cole, Hoffman, people would be wetting themseves.

Could be overrating Cole, but he does sit at a needs basis.

 

[goodie23]

Could be overrating Cole, but he does sit at a needs basis.

Van Es being delisted makes recruiting Cole a certainty.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Could be overrating Cole, but he does sit at a needs basis.

I agree we should take Cole as an NGA, but don't hold your breath ,talls take time, and talls taken as development projects take longer.

 

[Mighty_sainter]

Van Es being delisted makes recruiting Cole a certainty.

Doesn’t make him a certainty to be a good afl player. Has a lot a lot of work to do and will take years imo

 

[Mighty_sainter]

I'd also massively reach to get Hynes. Averaging 24 disposals and 1½ goals a game. We need a mid that kicks regular goals.

He plays predominantly forward. That’s probably where he will be at the next level sorta like Jake stringer. Hasn’t got much midfield craft but is good for attending centre bounces and drifting forward. Plenty of power and speed tho

 

[dougiemac]

Are we jumping the gun in assuming we'll get pick 8? I do not trust the AFL to not screw us. They have form.

 

[Verdun]

Are we jumping the gun in assuming we'll get pick 8? I do not trust the AFL to not screw us. They have form.

Yep I am getting nervous re the compo pick for Battle.

Hawks supporters saying that their offer is lower than our counter off and that is what will be factored in.

damn long wait for it to be announced!

 

[CursingFijian]

Yep I am getting nervous re the compo pick for Battle.

Hawks supporters saying that their offer is lower than our counter off and that is what will be factored in.

damn long wait for it to be announced!

This leads in to the question of what is the most important factor in the FA compensation algorithm? A) The offer by the club losing the player or B) the offer by the club acquiring the player? Surely it's A.

 

[Verdun]

This leads in to the question of what is the most important factor in the FA compensation algorithm? A) The offer by the club losing the player or B) the offer by the club acquiring the player? Surely it's A.

Would think so but there is not exactly a transparent process in place.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Without pouring over previous discussions, I made the same arguments for trading up to select Callaghan a couple of years ago. Fairly sure you agreed with me but doesnt matter

Granted we made out amazingly with NWM but funny to see people begging to hand over 7+8 for Callaghan now if we could in a trade.

You say this years top 10 is much more even but if we could convince NM to trade us pick 2 and take O'Sullivan/Smith/Draper and just move our second pick back from 8 to 22 surely you would be in favour of that

There's no clear top 3 that makes it worthwhile. The supposed top group is 7 deep and being in a position to get one of them and first crack at the next group is a good mix of conservatism then speculation.
That said, l feel like we're all setting ourselves up for a fall when the league give us band 2 compo.

 

[gringo2011]

90% you'd just have to take both.
It's one thing having a big bodied mid. It's another thing having 3 of the buggers.

I reckon you can have too many big lumbering types. Can probably only play one full time. Lalor would end up Jake Stringer.

 

[HeavenlySources]

There's no clear top 3 that makes it worthwhile. The supposed top group is 7 deep and being in a position to get one of them and first crack at the next group is a good mix of conservatism then speculation.
That said, l feel like we're all setting ourselves up for a fall when the league give us band 2 compo.

Disagree, FOS, Smith and Draper are all considered consensus top 3 almost everywhere on latest reports and analysis.

We will get band 1, it's not that difficult to work out, It's actually a misconception that it's completley discretionary. Listen to recent interviews with Laura Kane and Andre Dillion on AFL.com. Criteria is:

• Their average guaranteed contract value
• What percentile of the AFL contracts theirs falls into (top 5% getting maximum points)
• Age - with 25-year-old's getting most value
• Contract Length - with 5 years getting maximum points.

1) Gauranteed average earnings of 880-920k (front-ended) reported

2) Roughly 650-800 AFL listed players (unsure if rookie listed counts toward this) means he would need to be paid in the top 30 - 40 players. With the top 30 reportedly begining in the range of $800-900k.

3) Josh Battle will be 25-26 depending on when the date they use is meaning he will get maximum or as close to maximum points for age.

4) The contract length is reportedly 6 years (5+1 trigger to boost the average earnings) 5 years recieves the maximum points value.

Sure you can say this is all based on media reports however, think about who is feeding that information to the media. Likely the player manager who St Kilda and Hawthorn would have worked this all out. If Hawthorn were playing funny buggers then we called there bluff with Josh and his manager's help when we submitted the last offer.

Given that Josh meets the maximum in almost all criteria the AFL would have to bend over backwards to justify to the club why they are NOT giving band 1 compensation. After all the heat Bassat has been giving them I can't see it happening.

 

[gringo2011]

Ough is pronounced owwwww

Yeah, Jack-o.

 

[ScrappyDo]

This leads in to the question of what is the most important factor in the FA compensation algorithm? A) The offer by the club losing the player or B) the offer by the club acquiring the player? Surely it's A.

It's B.
AFL discretion is the primary factor but contract value facilitates the level of conversion.
Those in favour will argue that we've been down for nearly 15 years and need to make good before Tasie come in, whilst those against will argue we've made finals twice in the last 5 years.

 

[gringo2011]

Without pouring over previous discussions, I made the same arguments for trading up to select Callaghan a couple of years ago. Fairly sure you agreed with me but doesnt matter

Granted we made out amazingly with NWM but funny to see people begging to hand over 7+8 for Callaghan now if we could in a trade.

You say this years top 10 is much more even but if we could convince NM to trade us pick 2 and take O'Sullivan/Smith/Draper and just move our second pick back from 8 to 22 surely you would be in favour of that

Some drafts have a stronger front end. You have to go draft by draft. I think 7 and 8 give us a real chance at two top level players. That Clark Coffield draft could have set us up if Trout and Libba had hit the right players. Dalrymple is a guy with a good record and he should get a chance to find us some guns with good picks.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Disagree, FOS, Smith and Draper are all considered consensus top 3 almost everywhere on latest reports and analysis.

We will get band 1, it's not that difficult to work out:

• Their average guaranteed contract value
• What percentile of the AFL contracts theirs falls into (top 5% getting maximum points)
• Age - with 25-year-old's getting most value
• Contract Length - with 5 years getting maximum points.

1) Gauranteed average earnings of 880-920k (front-ended) reported

2) Roughly 650-800 AFL listed players (unsure if rookie listed counts toward this) means he would need to be paid in the top 30 - 40 players. With the top 30 reportedly in the range of $800-900k.

3) Josh Battle will be 25-26 depending on when the date they use is meaning he will get maximum or as close to maximum points for age.

4) The contract length is reportedly 6 years (5+1 trigger to boost the average earnings) 5 years recieves the maximum points value.

Sure you can say this is all based on media reports however, think about who is feeding that information to the media. Likely the player manager who St Kilda and Hawthorn would have worked this all out. If Hawthorn were playing funny buggers then we called there bluff with Josh and his manager's help when we submitted the last offer.

Given that Josh meets the maximum in almost all criteria the AFL would have to bend over backwards to justify to the club why they are NOT giving band 1 compensation. After all the heat Bassat has been giving them I can't see it happening.

Agree that we probably should get band 1. There's also the reality that we cop any 1st implementation of a new policy that makes life harder because we are a punching bag. When has the league failed to disappoint?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's B.
AFL discretion is the primary factor but contract value facilitates the level of conversion.
Those in favour will argue that we've been down for nearly 15 years and need to make good before Tasie come in, whilst those against will argue we've made finals twice in the last 5 years.

I don't believe there is a single solitary case where the AFL discretion is the "primary" factor.
Its money ( new salary as you stated )/player age/Contract length.
However in a case like this one, where its going to be close to the edge, there could be some subjective interpretation that tips it one way or another.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Disagree, FOS, Smith and Draper are all considered consensus top 3 almost everywhere on latest reports and analysis.

We will get band 1, it's not that difficult to work out, It's actually a misconception that it's completley discretionary. Listen to recent interviews with Laura Kane and Andre Dillion on AFL.com. Criteria is:

• Their average guaranteed contract value
• What percentile of the AFL contracts theirs falls into (top 5% getting maximum points)
• Age - with 25-year-old's getting most value
• Contract Length - with 5 years getting maximum points.

1) Gauranteed average earnings of 880-920k (front-ended) reported

2) Roughly 650-800 AFL listed players (unsure if rookie listed counts toward this) means he would need to be paid in the top 30 - 40 players. With the top 30 reportedly begining in the range of $800-900k.

3) Josh Battle will be 25-26 depending on when the date they use is meaning he will get maximum or as close to maximum points for age.

4) The contract length is reportedly 6 years (5+1 trigger to boost the average earnings) 5 years recieves the maximum points value.

Sure you can say this is all based on media reports however, think about who is feeding that information to the media. Likely the player manager who St Kilda and Hawthorn would have worked this all out. If Hawthorn were playing funny buggers then we called there bluff with Josh and his manager's help when we submitted the last offer.

Given that Josh meets the maximum in almost all criteria the AFL would have to bend over backwards to justify to the club why they are NOT giving band 1 compensation. After all the heat Bassat has been giving them I can't see it happening.

Amazing how many people think the AFL is having little arguments about how good Harry McKay is and which draft pick he "deserves". Most of it is pretty clinical within the framework you stated.

 

[ScrappyDo]

I reckon you can have too many big lumbering types. Can probably only play one full time. Lalor would end up Jake Stringer.

Lumbering is never good and none of those in the conversation could be described as such.
So ling as they are nimble with quick hands they can aford not to be fast across the ground.
Anyways that's why l really like Lindsey for us. Gives me Butters vibes.

 

[ScrappyDo]

I don't believe there is a single solitary case where the AFL discretion is the "primary" factor.
Its money ( new salary as you stated )/player age/Contract length.
However in a case like this one, where its going to be close to the edge, there could be some subjective interpretation that tips it one way or another.

It's the difference between picks 8 and 20. Aside from us noone would blink at either outcome so the primary factor in this case is discretion.
Were contract value at $1.3M there would not be any discussion about band 2.