So the same as if we had traded Bolton and Baker to Freo for picks 10, 11 and 18, which most people seemed satisfied with. Just the future 3rd being the difference.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
2024 Draft Thread
- Thread starter Mr T.
- Start date
Everyone saying the Blues keen on FOS due to his family links with Sam Walsh.
I've heard they are red hot on Sid Draper at pick 3.
Gives their midfield an instant hit, ready made midfielder, with traits their midfield lacks.
I've heard they are red hot on Sid Draper at pick 3.
Gives their midfield an instant hit, ready made midfielder, with traits their midfield lacks.
I agree, like us and many other midfields in the comp, they're too slow. They need athleticism in their side, especially in the midfield IMO.
That is logical, Ripple. The other story was romantic and that kind is never true.
If that is the case I wonder if Richmond could trade into Adelaide's pick 4.
Could do that without losing pick 6/or just trade up from 6 to 4 on draft night.
Last edited:
In the context that there's no 5-6 on offer, it's a very good deal.
Wouldnt be surprised Cartoon have got someone in mind for sure theyre just playing game of bluff
Bolton deal could get us Armstrong, Berry and JWhitlock.
I’ll take that.
If Richmond takes all eight picks those players will all come out of contract at the same time at the end of 2027 — in the months before Tasmania comes into the league.
It would create an inflationary effect given top 25 picks are often paid as much as $500,000 in their fourth seasons so spreading out those picks over two seasons would put less pressure on the salary cap.
It would create an inflationary effect given top 25 picks are often paid as much as $500,000 in their fourth seasons so spreading out those picks over two seasons would put less pressure on the salary cap.
Not if we extend several of them before the 2027 season. Plus isnt it just first round picks that get 3 years?
As has been mentioned several times, you can extend any time you like. After round 6 in fact. They won't all be falling due at the same time. And minimum lengths exist between picks 1-20 (3 years) and 21-40 (2 years) as well.
Won't be an issue.
Yes but if we do pick 8 players, (which i don't think we will), they will all be stars
and we will voluntarily extend them after two
There's your problem right there.I just copied the excerpt from today's Jon Ralph article
Creeping into a space rightly occupied by much smarter PRE minds that mine ...
Can we get pick #2 without giving up pick #6? Logic says no, particularly if the Kangas are set on Tauru.
But is there a world where it may be possible, if that world includes the chance of Tauru or Armstrong falling to #10?
Let's say our shiny new pick #10 is the bedrock of a deal for pick #2.
Hypothetically, without any other changes, the draft order looks like this:
Pick #1 Richmond (Lalor)
Pick #2 Richmond (O'Sullivan)
Pick #3 Carlton (Draper)
Pick #4 Adelaide (Smith)
Pick #5 Melbourne (Armstrong)
Pick #6 Richmond (Langford)
Pick #7 St Kilda (Reid)
Pick #8 St Kilda (Lindsay)
Pick #9 Melbourne (Smillie)
Pick #10 North Melbourne (Tauru)
The obvious club that could ruin this is St Kilda. Losing Battle might mean they couldn't pass on Tauru if he was available.
Other than a possible selection by the Saints, I can see either Armstrong or Tauru slipping through to pick #10.
PS: I've excluded Trainor for now ... I think the risk is too great for a club to take him until at least into the 20s.
Can we get pick #2 without giving up pick #6? Logic says no, particularly if the Kangas are set on Tauru.
But is there a world where it may be possible, if that world includes the chance of Tauru or Armstrong falling to #10?
Let's say our shiny new pick #10 is the bedrock of a deal for pick #2.
Hypothetically, without any other changes, the draft order looks like this:
Pick #1 Richmond (Lalor)
Pick #2 Richmond (O'Sullivan)
Pick #3 Carlton (Draper)
Pick #4 Adelaide (Smith)
Pick #5 Melbourne (Armstrong)
Pick #6 Richmond (Langford)
Pick #7 St Kilda (Reid)
Pick #8 St Kilda (Lindsay)
Pick #9 Melbourne (Smillie)
Pick #10 North Melbourne (Tauru)
The obvious club that could ruin this is St Kilda. Losing Battle might mean they couldn't pass on Tauru if he was available.
Other than a possible selection by the Saints, I can see either Armstrong or Tauru slipping through to pick #10.
PS: I've excluded Trainor for now ... I think the risk is too great for a club to take him until at least into the 20s.
Unless if Tassie recruiters get in their ears early and tell them not to re-sign new contracts
I think the fact Tauru appears to have overtaken Armstrong nixes your hopefulness.
Just my opinion, but I reckon 8 is the minimum we need to be drafting this year to start the rebuild. The kids that furnish early will get extensions n pay rises, those that furnish a bit slower will get staggered increases as they come up to speed.Yes but if we do pick 8 players, (which i don't think we will), they will all be stars
Reckon we're gunna struggle big time to get anywhere near the cap minimum for the next few years anyway, even as we upgrade the kids contracts.
Dusty, Shai, Sausage, Bakes, Grub, Foosh, Fridge all off the payroll for next season and then there'll be Prestygiaocomo, Lynchman n Kmac coming off the payroll for season 2026. Gotta be roughly $6 mill coming off the books over the 2 years n only about $1.5 mill going back on for the kids. AFLHQ gunna go purple when they see our numbers. Pretty sure I read somewhere that if there's any shortfall on cap payments the AFL take that shortfall off the club n hand it to the AFLPA for them to distribute to the underpaid players via an equalisation formula.
