I would love to see Valenti back in the squad, before McKenzie.

Valenti should definitley be the next elevated player, due to his AFL experience last year, and we know Valenti cay play well and perform well.

This is my spin on Valenti, I think Junior will retire at seasons end and Valenti will be brought on the list as a straight replacement,

DB has given Valenti one or two tastes and knows he can bring him up anytime before next season to fill a need and I think he wants to be able to bring in a midfielder who is battle hardened and ready to go rather than a young kid who will be in and out as he will have McKenzie, Blease, Jetta and possibly a new draftee to try and integrate as well....

if McKenzie continues to improve this will be a bonus for DB.

With the emphasis on youth being stressed continually I would have thought Valenti would have been delisted and a new kid brought in if DB thought he couldn't cut it, same with Zomer who is a bit of a project player

Deegirl on Demonology says that Valenti and McKenzie will be elevated and she's virtually never wrong. At the least I'd expect one to be elevated.

I hope we do, nothing better then seeing young players get their chance based on form. But if we do and it is at the expense of the big spence our rucks fall close to the non-existant in 2 weeks time assuming MJ has to gain match fitness for 2-4 weeks with casey. Then we are effectively at the 1/2 way mark. So from a risk management point we are better leaving spence on the list for messen and only elevating another at mid season (if required).

With the LTI rules are we able to elevate another player for messen and then drop them in 2-3weeks if/when MJ is back thus keeping an extra ruck the whole time? or does spencer have to go back as he was the one elevated for mj?

The option of being able to elevate them, if nothing else, will put pressure on our other mids to perform, which can only be a good thing.

Not sure of the financial implications of elevating a rookie, but I've rarely known of a rookie being elevated and not immediatley being selected in the seniors.

This is my spin on Valenti, I think Junior will retire at seasons end and Valenti will be brought on the list as a straight replacement,

DB has given Valenti one or two tastes and knows he can bring him up anytime before next season to fill a need and I think he wants to be able to bring in a midfielder who is battle hardened and ready to go rather than a young kid who will be in and out as he will have McKenzie, Blease, Jetta and possibly a new draftee to try and integrate as well....

if McKenzie continues to improve this will be a bonus for DB.

With the emphasis on youth being stressed continually I would have thought Valenti would have been delisted and a new kid brought in if DB thought he couldn't cut it, same with Zomer who is a bit of a project player

Junior is no longer cutting at AFL level as a player. He has been a great warrior for us but I think he is finished. If Valenti is seen a straight swap then he should not be taken onto the list. Its not good enough.

If MFC were so enamored with Valenti and had identified a need for him. They would have played him. He has got a chance to impress the Footy department but they clearly have reservations

As a rookie and with MFC having 3 LTI candidates then it could elevate Valenti at any time if it was going to play him in the AFL. I think he will get a chance to do this at some stage. If he does not impress in this opportunity, Valenti may be dropped from the list at year end. If does well, he may survive.

Bailey has shown that he has no reservations about playing young plays when he believes there ready. In the 1st round, he played Spencer, Jetta, Cheney, and Bennell. If Blease and Strauss were ready I have no doubt they would be given a run.

Why is there an emphasis on youth??? How many older (+25yo) players do we have that are a) fit B) capable of earning a spot in the team? BTW, Shane Valenti is 22 and has played 10 games. He is neither old nor battle hardened.

But if we do and it is at the expense of the big spence our rucks fall close to the non-existant in 2 weeks time

It's all part of the wider plan.

DB has given Valenti one or two tastes and knows he can bring him up anytime before next season to fill a need and I think he wants to be able to bring in a midfielder who is battle hardened and ready to go rather than a young kid

It says something about our list when a 22-year-old who has played 9 games is perceived as "old and battle-hardened".

It's all part of the wider plan.

the secret 15 to go plan?

but don't tell anyone!

It says something about our list when a 22-year-old who has played 9 games is perceived as "old and battle-hardened".

Valenti is playing week in and week out in the VFL and because most of the clubs are aligned he is coming up against AFL players every week, Ben Cousins and Cotchin last week for instance, he is also in the best each week and kicked a top goal at the weekend.... ie my battle hardened......not bit parts in games not in and out of the side, .what I was actually saying was Bailey will know what he gets from Valenti, so will have no qualms about putting him in the engine room from the get go

at the moment there is no need with McLean, Moloney and McDonald all up and running...but he can also call on him this season if the need arises as in last season where he didn't disgrace himself.....

Great news if true.

Valenti is a very good user of the ball, and often makes good decisions with it. Something that Melbourne is desperately lacking at the moment.

at the moment there is no need with McLean, Moloney and McDonald all up and running...but he can also call on him this season if the need arises as in last season where he didn't disgrace himself.....

Totally agree with this. no point promoting him if he doesn't play. If I had a choice and there was only 1 spot going in the snr team I would prefer to see a bit of struass/grimes off a wing/HB. Its also cheeper for the club as well!

At this point he would have to be a big chance of a snr contract at the end of the season even if he doesn't play a snr game. Its great to see a few of our rookies putting pressure on for snr spots. Breads a healthy culture

Junior is no longer cutting at AFL level as a player. He has been a great warrior for us but I think he is finished.

I think a 32 year old needs more than two games to completely recover his form following injury. A bit early to say whether Macca has one more year left or that's it.

If MFC were so enamored with Valenti and had identified a need for him. They would have played him. He has got a chance to impress the Footy department but they clearly have reservations

The issue with Valenti not seeing a contract that I see has been the MFC judiciously using the Rookie List rule that you can have a bloke for two years before a decision either way has to be made. This is his second year if I am not mistaken. If Valenti was elevated last year we would not have been able to draft one of Jetta or Jurrah.

I don't think it is an indictment on how the MFC see Shane, I think it is how the Dees are looking at list planning. Personally, I think it is very smart. With the shallow drafts coming up, Shane is a better bet than a third round pick, and I think the club is thinking along the same lines.

As a rookie and with MFC having 3 LTI candidates then it could elevate Valenti at any time if it was going to play him in the AFL. I think he will get a chance to do this at some stage. If he does not impress in this opportunity, Valenti may be dropped from the list at year end. If does well, he may survive.

And the LTI candidates were not so clear cut a couple of weeks ago compared to what they are now; Garland and a short term stay for Jamar meant that only Spencer was given the chance. Now with Garland, Blease, and Meesen out for the season there is room for 3 elevations for the entire season.

As a rookie and with MFC having 3 LTI candidates then it could elevate Valenti at any time if it was going to play him in the AFL. I think he will get a chance to do this at some stage. If he does not impress in this opportunity, Valenti may be dropped from the list at year end. If does well, he may survive.

Say what? You continually bemoan how bad our midfield is, yet even if Valenti plays well, you don't believe that he'll survive?

Say what? You continually bemoan how bad our midfield is, yet even if Valenti plays well, you don't believe that he'll survive?

What the same midfield you think is as good as the Swans?? Re-read my post. You are not good at doing that even though you highlighted the sentence.

Say what? You continually bemoan how bad our midfield is, yet even if Valenti plays well, you don't believe that he'll survive?

What the same midfield you think is as good as the Swans?? Re-read my post. You are not good at doing that even though you highlighted the sentence.

I think a 32 year old needs more than two games to completely recover his form following injury. A bit early to say whether Macca has one more year left or that's it.

He is 32, difficulty recovering from injury and struggles with the pace of the game and his form has been line ball for sometime. Hmmmmm <_<

The issue with Valenti not seeing a contract that I see has been the MFC judiciously using the Rookie List rule that you can have a bloke for two years before a decision either way has to be made. This is his second year if I am not mistaken. If Valenti was elevated last year we would not have been able to draft one of Jetta or Jurrah.

I don't think it is an indictment on how the MFC see Shane, I think it is how the Dees are looking at list planning. Personally, I think it is very smart. With the shallow drafts coming up, Shane is a better bet than a third round pick, and I think the club is thinking along the same lines.

The decision was between Bail (#64) and Jurrah. Both high risk and speculative. Both preferred to Valenti. He had 10 games with MFC and the midfield is terrible but he did not get a list berth.

Barry Prendagast said a supporters function recently that he thought 3rd (#35-36) and 4th (#51-52) round picks this year would be an opportunity to pick up a 2nd round pick quality that he feels other will miss. There is no evidence to suggest the Club think that way.

And the LTI candidates were not so clear cut a couple of weeks ago compared to what they are now; Garland and a short term stay for Jamar meant that only Spencer was given the chance. Now with Garland, Blease, and Meesen out for the season there is room for 3 elevations for the entire season.

Spencer takes one spot. I reckon Valenti and McKenzie will get elevated when they get picked for MFC. They have an opportunity to show they have what it takes.

As stupidly simplistic as this may sound, I think we should elevate the player with the most pace b/c that is clearly lacking in our midfield. Who is quicker out of Valenti and McKenzie?? I haven't seen Jordie play.

What the same midfield you think is as good as the Swans?? Re-read my post. You are not good at doing that even though you highlighted the sentence.

I've re-read your post and nothing's changed. You said that he may survive if he plays well. IMO, he should survive if he plays well, particularly when you have said that our midfield is crap.

Get off the fence and say what you've always believed. You don't rate Valenti, and don't believe that he's up to it.

I've re-read your post and nothing's changed. You said that he may survive if he plays well. IMO, he should survive if he plays well, particularly when you have said that our midfield is crap.

Get off the fence and say what you've always believed. You don't rate Valenti, and don't believe that he's up to it.

I wouldn't expected you would be different. You have a narrow linear mindset that does you no favours

Valenti may survive dependent on how many spots we have on our list at the end of the year. What happens to the elder players on our list? What happens with the Bells, Dunn and PJs of this world. I have made that abundantly clear elsewhere that a number of these should go. However there are no Isaac Weetras this year that are red hot certainties to go.

And while I dont rate Valenti I have been open minded to give him the opportunity that if does perform he many survive.

You could learn alot from that approach. But then again you probably wouldnt.

The decision was between Bail (#64) and Jurrah. Both high risk and speculative. Both preferred to Valenti. He had 10 games with MFC and the midfield is terrible but he did not get a list berth.

Barry Prendagast said a supporters function recently that he thought 3rd (#35-36) and 4th (#51-52) round picks this year would be an opportunity to pick up a 2nd round pick quality that he feels other will miss. There is no evidence to suggest the Club think that way.

I think you'll find recruiters saying that ahead of any draft.

I personally don't feel we will go for anyone at 51/52 this year and even 35/36 will be iffy. Remember, they are 4th and 3rd round picks respectively but will be our 5th and 4th player taken in a shallow draft.

We will see...

I think you'll find recruiters saying that ahead of any draft.

I personally don't feel we will go for anyone at 51/52 this year and even 35/36 will be iffy. Remember, they are 4th and 3rd round picks respectively but will be our 5th and 4th player taken in a shallow draft.

We will see...

While you are making uninformed assumptions about the quality of the draft I can see your point of view. i think the point to be made and I have heard this from others who know BP that he does back himself to be able to find the hidden gems. I hope he is right with his prospecting. I think Bennell is a good get at 35. Its too early to assess his other picks. The other issue is that the Club will have to ensure they have delisted/retired enough players.

If we finish last with 4 wins and no else gets a PP then we get picks 1,2,18,34,50 and PSD#1. Six picks. Will we cut 6 players off the list? Spencer will take up one pick. Whats going to be available with the PSD#1? We would take a Scully and Butcher with 1 and 2.

Unless he performs out of his skin, I cant see Valenti securing higher value when he was not considered preferable to Bail at pick #64. His most realistic hope is if MFC dont have a worthy PSD option and they take him at pick 66 and pass on the PSD.

Heard a whisper that Sydney are looking at Valenti as he's a good stoppage player, and is suited to their style of play. Could be a possible trade?

trade???

Are you being serious?

He's still a rookie, will we get much for him?

If we get a midfielder in the draft (who would assumingly fill McDonald's spot if this is his last year) whose spot will Valenti fill? I love the kid and wish he would get more of an opportunity, but given his lack of AFL time I feel his destiny might lie elsewhere.

HA!

The only way this would work is if he played the last six matches, got 30+ possessions in each, playing on Judd, Dal Santo etc etc and restricting each to less than 20.

Even then, would still be hard to mount a case.

Probably wouldnt get to much for him,but if i was him id be keen on it as we dont seem interested in giving him a run.Feel sorry for him as i think he goes ok & would rather him than Dunn.Maybe take a swap for Hall.Even a late pick is worth it if we arnt going to play him