Of our current rookies, I don't think Zomer or Valenti would bother other clubs unduly, but Spencer surely will. If, perforce, we have to elevate Spencer, we must find four free spots on our list at the end of next year.

I'm not sure why we need to find 4 spots to keep spencer if he develops as expected this year. 2 reasons..

1/ There will be players who step up next year and players who don't. This will open the door at the trade table, we may trade a player and a pick for a better pick.

2/ There are still a few players are in or approaching the twilight who may retire or be delisted.

So based on this I can't see an issue

My Crystal Ball........... (Not all will happen just the ones i'm going to watch carefully this year)

21 Daniel Bell - trade bait / Delist

14 Lynden Dunn - Needs to re-invent himself or trade potential

23 James McDonald - Possible retirement

26 John Meesen - Delist

29 Michael Newton - May not be a required player past 09 is Jurrah comes on

15 Ricky Petterd - Possible trade

27 Jared Rivers - Possible trade

24 Russell Robertson - retirement (if body is not up to it)

I'm not sure why we need to find 4 spots to keep spencer if he develops as expected this year.

Monty, my question relates to a throwaway comment that I thought I heard about the conditions appled to third year rookies. I would like that explained; if I heard what I thought I heard, we cannot automatically make someonre a third year rookie. If that is true, I would want the club to lock up Spencer.

1/ There will be players who step up next year and players who don't. This will open the door at the trade table, we may trade a player and a pick for a better pick.

I would have thought this year showed that the trade table is an extremely limited outlet with few options to rely on.

2/ There are still a few players are in or approaching the twilight who may retire or be delisted.

So based on this I can't see an issue

My Crystal Ball........... (Not all will happen just the ones i'm going to watch carefully this year)

21 Daniel Bell - trade bait / Delist

14 Lynden Dunn - Needs to re-invent himself or trade potential

23 James McDonald - Possible retirement

26 John Meesen - Delist

29 Michael Newton - May not be a required player past 09 is Jurrah comes on

15 Ricky Petterd - Possible trade

27 Jared Rivers - Possible trade

24 Russell Robertson - retirement (if body is not up to it)

Only Meesen would compete against Spencer. I dont see the logic of losing a midfielder and taking up a ruckman.

Besides as said Fan said Bell, Newton and Meesen are contracted in 2010.

The issue with Spencer is if whether we keep Jamar and PJ at the end of 2009.

I would have thought this year showed that the trade table is an extremely limited outlet with few options to rely on.

Only Meesen would compete against Spencer. I dont see the logic of losing a midfielder and taking up a ruckman.

Besides as said Fan said Bell, Newton and Meesen are contracted in 2010.

The issue with Spencer is if whether we keep Jamar and PJ at the end of 2009.

Rivers and Petterd as trade bait?...i guess Brock Mclean will be gone soon too? laughable. For anyone that knows anything about football, Rivers' value to the demons exceeds his trade value. Same with Petterd.

For me its make or break year for the following

Meesen

Bell

Dunn

Bartram

Newton

Of which three are contracted. In which case it appears that we will be unlikely to have the turnover that we have had in the last couple of years. With the possibility of a couple of retirements we may not be big players in the 2009 drafts. Still 12 months is a long time in footy and players who I thought were not going to make it will and vice versa.

With the possibility of a couple of retirements we may not be big players in the 2009 drafts.

Agree. I can see Junior, Robbo and Whelan possibly retiring next year and maybe one or two players being delisted or traded. That would give us maybe 5 picks and with possibly Spencer being elevated only 4 picks.

We have a young list now and that makes it harder to change a list dramatically as players are given time to develop.

Rivers and Petterd as trade bait?...i guess Brock Mclean will be gone soon too? laughable. For anyone that knows anything about football, Rivers' value to the demons exceeds his trade value. Same with Petterd.

For anyone that knows anything about football - And Freak your credentials are..........? I'm sorry what part of the MFC football operations department are you currently employed? Maybe argue facts then taking shots at others who have asked questions. :angry:

I think freak you may have missed the point somewhat - "My Crystal Ball........... (Not all will happen just the ones i'm going to watch carefully this year)" - i.e., maybe only a couple from the whole list could go. But to justify Petterd and Rivers places on my list pls see the below. For what it is worth due to list balance either of these 2 could be behind say Newton due to list balance at the end of 09.

Personally I would hate to see either of these 2 go for the same reason as you have stated - both their value (assuming full output) to the demons exceeds their trade value.

However ignoring my personal emotional attach to the club and the players one needs to be looking at the facts only and for the future first......

We have a loaded backline of mid bodied talls with more younger backs coming through (Martin and Frawley to add to Warnock and Garland). I have always rated rivers one of our top players on the list but the fact is he has hardly played a consistant period in 3yrs. If this becomes 4yrs questions have to be asked by the club what is the value added for the price he would be costing us?. Petterd is in a similar boat for mine. If he doesn't come on this year he could be in trouble. We topped up on 3-4 players of similar type in the draft and a couple of these are gems on paper. Therefore if he has another year like 08 I believe he is in trouble. I do acknowledge that there are probably up to 6 players ahead of these 2 re delist/trade, but you can't trade rubbish and the last 2 years have shown you have to give something to get something. Petterd has had 1 x 1/2 season where he was very good, nothing since then likewise rivers has done very little for 3 yrs.

Therefore if a few of the others that were mentioned have very good years (Newton, Meesen, Dunn, Bell) and either of rivers or petterd have average/poor years the club would look at their futures very closely.

Why is brad greens name always mentioned at trade week. I would argue over the last few years he has added more then just about anybody else at the club and yet his name is always linked with trade - Why? - Value!

I'm just looking at the current facts rather then prev accolades that the players have achieved. You can't help bad luck/injuries but our football club needs to be tough and I get the feeling at the end of 09 there could be a suprise coming for a few players. If your not cutting it or developing as you should your time could soon be over at the MFC. Especially if we finish in the bottom few. Like I stated at the beginning I would hate to see either of these 2 go but the reality could be different.

Rivers and Petterd as trade bait?...i guess Brock Mclean will be gone soon too? laughable. For anyone that knows anything about football, Rivers' value to the demons exceeds his trade value. Same with Petterd.

Given their really is on concrete trading platform anymore, Petterd and Rivers are more valuable to MFC. However, Rivers injury history and lack of football over the past two years would destroy his market value in a better trading environment. Petterd needs to perform this season to back up the hype over his potential notwithstanding his residual issues over his collapsed lung.

Why is brad greens name always mentioned at trade week. I would argue over the last few years he has added more then just about anybody else at the club and yet his name is always linked with trade - Why? - Value!

Green and his manager actually looked for a trade to another Club this year. No Club came up with a contract. - Why? Little interest and no trade value

I'm just looking at the current facts rather then prev accolades that the players have achieved.

Your crystal ball seemed to miss a few facts in respect of the disposition of the players it listed.

You can't help bad luck/injuries but our football club needs to be tough and I get the feeling at the end of 09 there could be a suprise coming for a few players. If your not cutting it or developing as you should your time could soon be over at the MFC. Especially if we finish in the bottom few. Like I stated at the beginning I would hate to see either of these 2 go but the reality could be different.

What do you think the Club has done over the past 2 years? We moved on a swag of ND's depth players, retired off Neitz, White and Yze. Got rid of cultural misfits like TJ and Carroll. That almost half the list in 2 years.

Hardly any surprises to the players. The messages of the past two years should be well known to each of them.

What do you think the Club has done over the past 2 years? We moved on a swag of ND's depth players, retired off Neitz, White and Yze. Got rid of cultural misfits like TJ and Carroll. That almost half the list in 2 years.

Hardly any surprises to the players. The messages of the past two years should be well known to each of them.

Well said, Rhino.

What do you think the Club has done over the past 2 years? We moved on a swag of ND's depth players, retired off Neitz, White and Yze. Got rid of cultural misfits like TJ and Carroll. That almost half the list in 2 years.

Hardly any surprises to the players. The messages of the past two years should be well known to each of them.

I think we are here on the same wavelength, and more to the point this trend should and will continue. If you don't cut it the club will move you on.

I do agree with you re lessened trade potential but if they are fit but fail to have the impact they should, you never know what might happen. The club would be better to try to trade behind closed doors then wind up just delisting for nothing a year or 2 later.

With GC coming in I think the trade period climate may change in the coming years as there may be suddenly be a market for avg/good players being recycled not just for GC but other clubs that have lost their uncontracted players to GC. This will be the challenge for every club in the next 12-18mths to sure up all required players so that GC cannot touch these players. (Thats assuming GC goes ahead, or// suddenly become a TAS side)

Or am I loosing touch with reality and talking nonsense??

With GC coming in I think the trade period climate may change in the coming years as there may be suddenly be a market for avg/good players being recycled not just for GC but other clubs that have lost their uncontracted players to GC. This will be the challenge for every club in the next 12-18mths to sure up all required players so that GC cannot touch these players. (Thats assuming GC goes ahead, or// suddenly become a TAS side)

Or am I loosing touch with reality and talking nonsense??

Possibly.

The trade potential for players that cant cut it in bottom dwelling clubs like MFC or cannot get on the field consistently due to sustained fitness concerns is zero. The introduction of GC wont change a thing. They wont buy crud.

The club would be better to try to trade behind closed doors then wind up just delisting for nothing a year or 2 later.

No kidding!!! Do you think the Club realises this?

The trade potential for players that cant cut it in bottom dwelling clubs like MFC or cannot get on the field consistently due to sustained fitness concerns is zero. The introduction of GC wont change a thing. They wont buy crud.

OK, so then if other sides wont buy "crud" why then should the MFC keep "crud" on our list? I think this re-inforces my original posting - Potential trade bait (doesn't mean we will get anything) - Keeping in mind I think we all hope that the 2 in question will rise to the challenge in 09, but if not I think we are going down the same path - the time to move them on is drawing closer if they cannot become regular contributors in 09.

OK, so then if other sides wont buy "crud" why then should the MFC keep "crud" on our list? I think this re-inforces my original posting - Potential trade bait (doesn't mean we will get anything)

You're arguing in circles: "crud" by definition has no value (especially for a bottom-placed side), but if they're potential trade-bait then they have a value (even if minimal) and they're not "crud". Someone's got to want them.

Recent history shows that our "crud" has no trade value at all e.g. Ferguson, Ward, Godfrey, Carroll, Bode, CJ. Even our "expired" players like White and Yze have been shown to be "crud" at the end of their careers.

You're arguing in circles: "crud" by definition has no value (especially for a bottom-placed side), but if they're potential trade-bait then they have a value (even if minimal) and they're not "crud". Someone's got to want them.

Recent history shows that our "crud" has no trade value at all e.g. Ferguson, Ward, Godfrey, Carroll, Bode, CJ. Even our "expired" players like White and Yze have been shown to be "crud" at the end of their careers.

Lets not start the white debate again........

ward, godfrey, carroll were all old/almost/were expired players. Thats why there was no interest in them.

Pettard and Rivers have age on their side therefore become more attractive if a trade is on the table. If a player does not fit into the direction of the club and the list (not nessicarly being "crud") then surely the younger they are the better deal you will get for them.

I really believe being proactive in these circles is a must otherwise they wind up going past their expiry date as per the above in a vain hope of fluking a finals campain. We are re-building therefore if they are not 100% up to what we require we should be proactive. If they are well and good.

Theres no point discussing futures of finge like bode for instance as there is no value to anyone, so failing Pettard and Rivers, who else at this stage should we be looking at for next years trade period?

De-listing players is the worst thing that can happen in the next 2-3 years as we have a young developing list that will draw interest, so by suggesting the 2 that I have would potentially put us in a stronger position to make an attack on a flag.

De-listing players is the worst thing that can happen in the next 2-3 years as we have a young developing list that will draw interest, so by suggesting the 2 that I have would potentially put us in a stronger position to make an attack on a flag.

Firstly, the names I mentioned (with the exception of CJ for whom we could not organise a trade and whose contract had expired) all nominated for the ND or PSD after we de-listed them, and none were taken up by other clubs, so it vindicates our de-listings in a sense.

Recruiting and list management is about continually ordering and evaluating our list with the idea of "dropping players off the bottom" and bringing players in with more perceived potential. We will find out at the end of 2009 who the next candidates will be, and that will be influenced by (among other things) performance, attitude, needs, draft picks, injury record, etc. etc.

I happen to think we've pretty much "maxed out" our list turnover in the last two years, and I don't know what more we could have done given players' performance, culture, attitudes, contract expiry and lack of trade interest from other clubs.

Firstly, the names I mentioned (with the exception of CJ for whom we could not organise a trade and whose contract had expired) all nominated for the ND or PSD after we de-listed them, and none were taken up by other clubs, so it vindicates our de-listings in a sense.

Recruiting and list management is about continually ordering and evaluating our list with the idea of "dropping players off the bottom" and bringing players in with more perceived potential. We will find out at the end of 2009 who the next candidates will be, and that will be influenced by (among other things) performance, attitude, needs, draft picks, injury record, etc. etc.

I happen to think we've pretty much "maxed out" our list turnover in the last two years, and I don't know what more we could have done given players' performance, culture, attitudes, contract expiry and lack of trade interest from other clubs.

Correct. Good Post.

Putting the trading/list turnover aside for a minute....

Dunny. I really rated him in the earlier time at the club but he seems to attract critisim from fans at the game when he was in the middle last year. So here's my overview of where he is at.

Was his role in the middle due to our lists limitations over the last couple of years plus injuries? at the start of 08 we had nietz, robbo, miller, bate, newton etc and our forward stocks looked good. Therefore it seems likely that the decision was made to expand dunn as he seemed to be a 1 trick player - lead up and mark. Therefore it seems likely that if the club sees a big future for dunn he was played out of position in the middle due to bartrams injury. Bartram can do a stopping role as well as anybody. Now that he has some miles in his legs again i think this is a chance to happen thus freeing dunn for a forward role again in 09.

He has the skill, the body size and the miles in the legs + is only young. I have more hope with Dunn cutting it as KPF then Newton at this stage. I think Dunn is now a forward who may have a few new tricks up his sleeve. Was his run in the middle "training" to become an elite forward target - similar to O'keefs role at sydney? he had an ability to go with the very best in the league so surely during this time he has developed a few tricks for himself? Similar to millers role in the backline over the last few years. At times miller struggled down back but last year looked the better for the time spent in the back while being up forward? Likewise with dunn, did struggle at times but I have a feeling a regular run in the forward line may just be around the corner for him again and with fingers crossed may make an impact as a KPP for us in 09. If he fails to do this he may struggle for a Snr game in 09 and who knows where that may leave him!

Pettard and Rivers have age on their side therefore become more attractive if a trade is on the table. If a player does not fit into the direction of the club and the list (not nessicarly being "crud") then surely the younger they are the better deal you will get for them.

If a player cannot break into a bottom dwelling side or has chronic injuries then age is irrelevant. They are worthless on the trade table.

I really believe being proactive in these circles is a must otherwise they wind up going past their expiry date as per the above in a vain hope of fluking a finals campain. We are re-building therefore if they are not 100% up to what we require we should be proactive. If they are well and good.

I think you are arguing a given there. I dont think any Club would think otherwise

Theres no point discussing futures of finge like bode for instance as there is no value to anyone, so failing Pettard and Rivers, who else at this stage should we be looking at for next years trade period?

Have you looked closely at what has happened at the trade table over recent years? Can you work out why Hamish McIntosh and Ryan O'Keeffe could not secure new clubs through trading.

Trading has always been vastly overrated and this year (without the hoopla of a Judd one off), trading was shown to be a dry well. Given you recognise that MFC is down with a young list that has potential, it is unlikely we will have either tradeable surplus or marketable players to go to the trade table with that would extract worthwhile draft picks.

De-listing players is the worst thing that can happen in the next 2-3 years as we have a young developing list that will draw interest, so by suggesting the 2 that I have would potentially put us in a stronger position to make an attack on a flag.

Rubbish. Its the only way of getting rid of dead wood at the bottom of your list. Should we have kept Weetra and Neville????

Given where our list is, Rivers fit and in form and Petterd playing to his potential are important to MFC and definite keeps. If either are not, why would any other Club bother stumping up any pick with value for either. Neither Rivers or Petterd are likely to garner draft picks that reflect a value to MFC that is going to be greater than keeping them.

There is a perennial push by many to make Dunn a KPP. There is a major problem with this. From my observation Dunn is all at sea when the footy is in the air. His marking attempts are clumsy and ill-timed. I cannot recall Dunn taking one strong or contested mark. This is generally not something that can be fixed. Most of his goals early on where where kicked from receives or crumbs from around the edge of the arc if memory serves me correctly.

Natural KPPs have an ability to judge the ball in the air and courage to stand up straight in the contest. Dunn has not shown these abilities. He has reasonable pace and skills and good endurance. I think Dunn needs to find a niche, other than tagging to maintain his place in the 22.

Likewise with dunn, did struggle at times but I have a feeling a regular run in the forward line may just be around the corner for him again and with fingers crossed may make an impact as a KPP for us in 09. If he fails to do this he may struggle for a Snr game in 09 and who knows where that may leave him!

Dunn's run in the midfield in a tagging/ checking role was as much to instill the required vigour in him for the contested ball and to be accountable for defensive pressure. It also allowed him to develop the capacity to win more of his ball.

At the moment, Dunn is at the cross roads at establishing himself as an AFL football. He has yet to show that he can make a role his own at AFL level. He may be a forward flank option or may be continued in the midfield. Whichever way he needs to really grab the opportunity this year with both hands. Bulking up on bench presses can not hide his shortcomings elsewhere.

As our midfield improves over the next couple of seasons I just can't see Dunn holding his spot. Sure he's an ok tagger but in a good team a tagger needs to also win the footy and use it well.

He's very lucky to be still on the list.

I see Dunny as stuffed also. If the job of a midfield (among others) is to be an attacking force, then Dunny is in really strife. We desperately need skilled blokes winning the footy and hitting targets. Dunny does neither particularly well so far. Using him instead of a bloke who might learn to win his own footy and hit targets is robbing peter to pay paul, i.e., self sabotage.

I think he can play a defensive role in the forward line on the attacking half-back e.g. Hodge. He has good enough skills to hurt also.

No use having good skills if you can't get the footy.