-
LIVE: Collingwood v Carlton - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Pies at 71% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
LIVE: Collingwood v Carlton - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Pies at 71% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
List Mgmt. 2025 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals
- Thread starter hairy biker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
BLOODS FOOTY
Rookie
- Feb 8, 2025
- 31
- 46
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I’m much more interested in investing our picks into King, Chamberlain and Carmichael then troubled, high-risk, expensive players from other clubs (Oliver, JUH).
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It’s exactly what we will do.
1. Sell our r1 (wherever it lands) to the highest bidder)
2. Match the bids
This is however dependent on what Chad does
It’s likely to be a dull draft for us - but a good one.
No reaches, just academy picks.
No reaches, just academy picks.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Yep, all our 'work' will be in the trade week with pick swaps, etc. We may flip both our picks this year or trade another asset into this year. Who on earth knows, we will have some guide post Championship's exactly how many points we are likely to need, baring in mind we can go into deficit next year if need be.
Probably have a couple of later/rookie picks, hopefully for a KPD and inside mid.
That is, if we match all 3 expected academy bids.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I'd be shocked if we took more than the 3, it really does depend on the 3 academy boys, I've seen this before. Every year in r5 every academy kid is worth two arms and a leg, but after the Champs it's more one in the top 10, one in the 20-30 range and one a late 3rd or something
Be interesting to see if we pick up McNamara.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Is that the 4th one? Not someone I know a lot about as he's not on the spreadsheet yes bedford the sheet haha. He's a winger right?
Defender but he had a strong game in the midfield. Not particularly tall.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Fair, he's not on my list. All this will depend on just how much of a price the first two academy kids are. I can see the third one being cheaper, small defenders don't go early (well it's rare)
I'd be shocked if we only took 3 in the drafts, because we've only taken that low of a number once in the last decade (plus a few years earlier I checked). And we retained 2 MSD players that year.
In our last 4 for example:
6 new draftees (+ 1 MSD)
3 + 2 MSD
5 + 1 MSD
4 + 1 MSD
Now maybe we take someone at the MSD if we have a pick, and retain them, but that would suggest we'll still pick 4 in the drafts.
And looking at whis out of contract, there's not many choices to let go off
AFL Out of Contract Players in 2025
List of AFL players coming out of contract at the end of 2025.
www.footywire.com
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Going to depend where the bids come. Let’s say for arguments sake they are 10,25, and let’s say 45 for the small defender. In that case we may take a swing on a tall late or an inside midfielder. However if we have to enter deficit we may take the 3 minimum and add an extra rookie or whatever
And on a separate note, there's still a year to play out but our top 3 academy kids don't exactly fill glaring needs. There's 2 that might be undersized forward targets, and King looks most likely to do some inside mid work (though McNamara is apparently a 4th potential option depending on this year).
But whether any fit the bill of a KPF or inside mid by years end is uncertain. These and KPD are our current needs we need to address.
Take 3 academy kids sure, but if we're not addressing list needs, we should take more or potentially not match someone (as much as that has some potential negatives for the academy).
Available list spots won't relate to where we match bids.
We'll have spots or won't, regardless of bids.
It obviously can impact where we have ND picks or maybe an academy kid slips to rookie draft (opening up a ND slot for someone else).
But my post that you replied to didn't care where we address needs, just that we address them.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Issue is that unless we have a prime selection this year there aren’t many to address these needs. Don’t disagree that the main one looks more a second/third tall rather than a key focal point tall it’s actually why I won’t be shocked if the bids come later than many think. Think we just take the 3 academy boys and move on, one replaces Cunningham when he does so that’s a help he doesn’t have long left.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Draft talent first round actress needs after that. We are addressing the small defender need in one of these so that’s one. We addressed the small forward need last year. We can take an inside midfielder late if need be.
There's a year to go, but there's about 9 names there that are a mixture of retirement (Rampe), new guys on rookie deals who would need to show promise to stay (Paton, Leidler), players that might get interest/opportunity elsewhere (Ladhams, Sheldrick) and players that have been around for a while that have either yet to show why they should be retained (consistently) or are good VFL players but haven't really shown that at senior level (Francis, Buller, Mitchell, Kirk).And looking at whis out of contract, there's not many choices to let go off
AFL Out of Contract Players in 2025
List of AFL players coming out of contract at the end of 2025.www.footywire.com
This is also leaving out names like Hamling, Hanily who are currently in the team but could find themselves on the outer at some point based on history.
I think some of these guys have big potential, some have had injuries, and some unknowns might turn out well, so this is just a post to show that there is generally always a group of players that could make way for a new intake.
Last edited:
Based on what I've read, Carmichael is an intercepting/rebounding half back who also gets mentioned as a distributor. A year is a long time, but it would seem like he'll compete with or replace either Blakey/Florent/Bice or Roberts/Lloyd types, not the one-on-one lockdown types like Cunningham.
If Leidler (supposedly a bit of a hybrid rebounder and lockdown type) comes along, as well as all our other options in half back/distribution roles, I wouldn't say Carmichael addresses a need, but if we address them with other picks, then it's all good taking him.
Last edited:
I think if you've got highly talented academy kids up first, then yeah this is the one caveat I would have to drafting needs first. Within reason of course, if we don't see a lot of difference in roles for say King and Chamberlain (it seems like there's a bit at this stage), but they don't really address needs, then we'd have to consider only matching the one we think is best imo.
But I'm not going to get into another broader argument about always picking best available in the first round/pick regardless of role/needs, which only makes sense if you're rebuilding or have no needs.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
We adressed our needs last draft, that was what you call a needs based draft. You may as well shut the academy down if you won't take top 40 ranked players, Cohrane was different was ranked in the 50's and we took a key back straight after. It is a very easy draft this year, match the 3 kids, then lets see how much capital we have, maybe we trade in a selection from next season to take an inside mid or whatever, maybe we take a mature aged selection like Bice. There are options in the mid to later rounds. We likely are not adressing the KPF, unless we go and buy JUH and I hate the idea straight out
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I'd be surprised if Carmichael ends up as a rebpunder/interceptor for starters. He does distribute the ball well from the bits I have seen which isn't a stack, but I would think he's more in line to replace Cumnningham. We can't address every need in one draft you are striving for impossible, no club can do that even Richmond with half the top 20 picks wouldn't have done that.
Before even discussing what needs to address we need to have some vague idea where the bids are coming and that's not till after the national championships. Even Ashcroft wasn't bid till pick 5 or whatever, Levi only went 2 last season too.
We addressed some needs and also some non needs.
I generally agree that we should take highly rated academy kids, but as you'll note if you read my post, it may not make sense to draft two of the same type, that may not even cover needs, if we then don't address needs elsewhere because we don't have the spots.
Again, capital does not relate to the number of players you can take. If you have the list spots, you have the list spots.
Remember, this started with you saying you'd be shocked if we took more than the 3 academy kids, so it would seem you now agree that we might address needs elsewhere in this draft, even if they are late ND picks or rookie, mature agers or not, which is OK and what I was saying in the first place.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I said MIGHT, I wouldn't be shocked if it's just the 3 ND picks being academy kids, then addressing some things later via rookies etc. I'd be happy taking 4 but I would be fine taking the 3 top 45 academy kids and calling it a day. This trade period will be easy and boring, it will be purely about selling our picks to the highest bidder
I also said "might", so not sure what you're talking about there.
You just said you'd be shocked if we took more than 3. But you seem ok with more, so we don't disagree on that at least.
I think we'll have more than 3 spots, even if Chad stays, there'll be others finishing up AFL careers or potentially moving elsewhere, it would be unusual for us not to.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
