On another matter with GC17 coming in ... what draft strategy should clubs use going forward. Should clubs try and fill holes in lists or try and become dominant in one area of the field ie. Midfield. Why I say that is that GC17 is going to get most talent over next 2 or 3 years, existing clubs will have there squads quality trimmed down in almost all areas as delistings and retirements occur...so every club is going to have issues- but what happens if for instance a club this year trys to create a dominant area- midfield for example...where it can run say 10 blokes through the middle. If we tanked this year- and ended up with 3 19 20 ... and say we traded out Axel for a pick (I use this as an example because Sydney I have been told are extremely keen on Foley) so say we trade Foley for say pick 5 or 6 - Sydney look as though they are going to finish low this year. Say we also trade out Thursfield for an early pick - would we be better off adding 3 quality midfielders with these picks and trying to pick up a key forward at pick 19 ... then another midfielder at 20 and then from that point pick for list requirements. Would adding 3 maybe 4 quality mids create the super midfield that could carry us beyond the GC17 draft destruction- or should we just pick for list requirements at the start.
Always go for best available with early picks Ramps. If that's mids then so be it but we would be mad to overlook a top 5 pick power key forward when we obviously need one (preferably two). Premiership sides have a quality spine. Look at the Doggies. Super midfield with 12-14 guys able to rotate through it but will they win a flag without a key forward? Doubt it.
As for GC17 they won't be getting the best talent over 2-3 years. It'll be only one year - 2010. Virtually the best of the 2010 crop will be used to supply the youth for GC17 - the eligible 17 year olds this year (who would've been 18 y.o. in the 2010 draft) plus the actual 2010 draft. Western Sydney will be allocated two drafts on the other hand - 2011 and 2012 - so they'll deny GC17 of the best kids from those drafts.
In terms of a strategy to handle the 2010-12 drafts, IMO clubs will need to trade for GC17 and WS first round picks to trade their way back into the first round so they have access still to one of the top kids. GC17 will need to find a number of mature experienced players otherwise they'll be totally non-competitive with a team of U20s. The AFL will give them 16 uncontracted players from the 16 exisiting clubs and compensate each exisiting club relative to the player lost by some magical formula. Presumably that will involve some compensatory pick. IIRC these picks will be "futures" picks so they can be held off until future drafts at the club's discretion. On top of that GC17 will need more than just those 16 uncontracted experienced players so there may still be further room in next year's trade period to gain another early pick off GC17. If we struggle next year and finish bottom 4 then we'll have still end up with a top 10 pick anyway (either pick 4, 6, 8, 10). Then you'll be trading for another early pick.
As for Foley - he's only 23. Our current cubs won't peak until 2012-13 so by then Tucky will be 30+ y.o. Trading Foley would effectively mean in the next 3-4 years we lose 2 inside mids (3 if you count a injury-crippled Cogs
). Not to mention Cuz will be retired by then also. Yes we can draft younger (inside) mids in that time but we'll be just replacing those we have rather than adding to our midfield. IMO we should be adding quality to our current mids so Foley drops down to a second tier mid rather than a starting mid. That way we build up quality and depth at the same time rather than just replacing Foley with a better mid. If we were to trade a mid I would rather trade Tucky for a decent pick because he'll be 30+ in 3-4 years time when the rest of the list is peaking. Having said that I don't see either Foley or Tucky being traded when we have so many list cloggers to offload this year and the next.
