We need to trade/delist 10
In a year thatās possibly a weak draft?
1 Like
A few on drugz around here.
Eh, might as well. Perhaps not 10, but the new rookie rules make it tempting to drop two more than you otherwise might if you think itās a weak draft. We can now go in with 6 rookies and play them all from round 1, so itās two less speculative guys on two year contracts.
Is GCās Trent McKenzie worth a go off half back? 25 yo and gettable?
1 Like
Do you mean delisting players and re-rookieing them? Or just straight rookies? Because either way, I donāt get your reasoning.
With the first, it seems a pretty big kick in the teeth to a player to delist them from the main list and take them as a 5th or 6th rookie. Pretty much saying, heh, we could have kept you on a single year contract and not cost ourselves anything, but we decided it was cheaper to do this, and put you through this uncertainty. Seems pretty cruel and I can imagine it not going over well.
As to the second, rookies are a long shot, and even more so in a shallow draft. Why take extras of them over keeping players with some potential around one year, e.g. Morgan, Jerrett? Sure, theyāre long odds to come good, but probably not less so than a rookie in a shallow draft, and at worse they provide some depth.
1 Like
I mean taking 5th and 6th new rookies instead of late round picks, definitely not re-rookieing players. Often the argument has been keep the Jerrett type because you can give them one year, whereas a draftee has to be given two. That logic no longer applies, or at least kicks in two list spots later now.
On your last point, I disagree that rookies are a longer shot in a shallow draft. Thereās no reason why the quality of the first 40-50 picks would reflect on the quality of the next 40-50 players (or whatever size buckets you want to divide it into). I suspect that debate ends in us arguing over what shallow means and what years were shallow, and what a good strike rate in the rookie draft is, etc, etc.
With the proviso that making finals and performing well (eg making a prelim) would change my opinion, Iād always err on the side of bringing in a new player over keeping a mid-sized player with 6 years on the list who canāt break into the team, no matter how much of a long shot the new player is. The kind of mid/small depth that is on the list solely as depth is, to me, something for grand finalists and wooden spooners.
I donāt feel as strongly about it as the length of this post would suggest, though.
3 Likes
On the second paragraph first - good point. Yep, if (and I donāt know if this is true, Iām making a statement for discussion purposes) picks 30 => 70 were rubbish by normal standards, that doesnāt mean the rookies are any longer shots than normal. Of course, there is a usual reason why clubs donāt take too many of them and use the rookie draft for other purposes as well as pure draftees. Because it is a long shot.
On the third part, that is obviously your opinion. For me, it would depend on the player and the draft, so its difficult to know as an amateur. But Iām not against the concept.
On the first paragraph, I really donāt think in an average draft year weād knock back a ND pick over a pick 50 odd in the rookie draft over the one year. Maybe this year if we donāt want to take 2 year contracts. But I doubt it.
1 Like
Disco needs to earn his jackets this year. Needs some wholesale changes with mids being the absolute priority. The club hasnāt got the cojones to throw the sink at Dusty but he should be number 1 priority
Rockcliffe. Clearances and tackles personified. Make it happen.
3 Likes
So when Dusty goes North of the VIC Border who else do we target?
Played as a tagger last week and cut Gibbs out of the game
Rocky, Kelly, Hopper. Any mid that isnāt a tortoise and can use the ball
Kelly and Rockliff/Hopper different type of players - Kellyoustide and Rocky/Hopper more inside (although Hopper a bit of both). Wouldnāt be too unhappy with Hopper and Zak Jones with cap freed up from Jobeās impending retirement plus Stants would be on good coin also you would thinkā¦
1 Like
Iāve heard we are after Pittard to give McGrath the opportunity to go into the midfield. Not sure why we would want another 33 year old though ( McVeigh would be 33 next year)ā¦
Hopper and Rockliff should be the main targets, going after Kelly would attract too much inflation.
2 Likes
Get ready for us to sit on our hands and go to the draft and continually keep kicking the tin can down the road.
Kelly and Martin should have every sink we have at the TVSC thrown at them and then some.
But it wonāt happen.
Weāll continue to be the leading example of mediocrity in the competition, just as we have for the past 15 years.
3 Likes