Thanks for the votes of confidence guys. His selection betrays a lack of research I have to admit, which I always seem to say when the PSD comes around. I probably like other players better than him, but I need a mid or two right now, so that swayed the choice. But the logic that he was recruited to Richmond for a reason, is a young guy with potential and goes in pretty hard are all things I like (and which were said about another GWS refugee that ended up at Richmond).
If anyone is interested in swapping a forward for my upcoming pick 30, please flick me a message. Flexible on age but I am looking for a best 15 player.
How right you might be, Ant. It is very tempting. I am going to think about Harvey options overnight, JC.
thought Rioli might've gone earlier. Not surprised Bama nabbed him ... If Mt Beauty don't make top 4 minimum this year I will be shocked. But Menadue - yep, gonna be a good un. Nice pick Andy. Thought perhaps I could switch Harvey, contemplate pick 30 and nab Menadue .... alas and alack.
Yup with you there Chris. I'd go one further and lob a pineapple on the Uglies taking out the chalice.
Cannot agree, for mine young Fizzy should be a very short priced favourite. Strong team in 2015 hit by injuries. 2016 gets guys like Luke Parker back and traded well. No interest in draftees as he figures he has a strong chance right now.
Reckon Fitzy's mob and Bama's mob are the two to beat. Bama has had some overdue good luck with player positionings and now has a nice defence (helped by good pick-ups) to go along with everything else.
@Len - with a couple of enquiries received re: pick 30, I just wanted to confirm what the potential implications are for the draft if a trade goes through? Usually trades are subject to a potential veto period and, while I don't see any of the potential trades as being at all controversial, I figure there would be some requirement in that regard?
Yep, I've had some thoughts around this, my thinking is that there is usually at least 1/2 a dozen or so of us online between 8am and 11pm. My suggested approach for this draft would be to give it 4 hours, and if no-one objects it stands, trades outside that time frame would have 4 hours from 8am in the next window. If someone objects @Fitzy will look at it and make a ruling as soon as possible and we move on, if Fitzy's involved in the trade then I will look at it. We've so rarely had any kind of veto discussion I don't think it will be an issue, many trades are unbalanced to suit the desires of a buyer, that doesn't make them manipulative, and the veto rule is mostly there to stop list manipulation (cheating) not protect dickheads like me from a dumb trade... Again, like a number of things around the trade during draft concept, let's fly with this approach and if it fails or we end up with issues we can all discuss properly before the next one. 4 hours should be heaps of time, and not long enough to prevent any kind of draft halt either