I can't see us being overly active in trade week. If we're going to be moving up draft spots, teams aren't going to want our phlegm in return. A possibility if we were only looking to use 1, 2, 18 34 and PSD1, would be to trade 34 and 50 for 30 or something similar, to a team who wants to use a pick that late. It's not a massive return, but it could make a little something out of nothing for us. We end up with 1, 2, 18, 30 and PSD 1, while the other team ends up with 14, 34, 46 and 50 instead of 14, 30, 46 and 62. Just a hypothetical though. I've no idea who will even have those picks, likely the Dogs or Crows.

Alright, so we're all going on about how shallow the draft is and how we probably won't use our fifth pick (in the 50s). Why the heck would another team give us their second best pick in a shallow draft, for a pick in the 50s? It doesn't make sense.

On another note, I know a couple of people have criticised our lop sided trade ideas, but sheesh, this thread seems to be a hot pool for completely unrealistic trade hypotheticals. No one would ever take Bell and/or Newton. It's becoming increasingly frustrating, reading these threads and coming across ridiculous trade ideas. I'm sorry to vent, but it's beginning to give me the shits.

Alright, so we're all going on about how shallow the draft is and how we probably won't use our fifth pick (in the 50s). Why the heck would another team give us their second best pick in a shallow draft, for a pick in the 50s? It doesn't make sense.

On another note, I know a couple of people have criticised our lop sided trade ideas, but sheesh, this thread seems to be a hot pool for completely unrealistic trade hypotheticals. No one would ever take Bell and/or Newton. It's becoming increasingly frustrating, reading these threads and coming across ridiculous trade ideas. I'm sorry to vent, but it's beginning to give me the shits.

Don't take this as gospel. But I heard Greg Denham on SEN this morning talking about the likes of some of the top sides perhaps shopping around with their first pick, because of the compromised drafts the current 16 teams will face for the next 3-5 years.

Not sure about it myself or Greg, but I thought I'd post it.

And by shopping around you mean trading their first round picks for established talent, HT? I suppose it makes a tiny bit of sense, with the compromised drafts coming up and the shallowness of this draft.

And by shopping around you mean trading their first round picks for established talent, HT? I suppose it makes a tiny bit of sense, with the compromised drafts coming up and the shallowness of this draft.

Correct. I don't think we'd have anyone at Mfc, apart from our "untouchables", that would net a 1st round pick. Do you think the same?

And by shopping around you mean trading their first round picks for established talent, HT? I suppose it makes a tiny bit of sense, with the compromised drafts coming up and the shallowness of this draft.

I would think Carlton, Collingwood, Brisbane and the Dogs would definitely look at opportunities to allow them to take the next step before the window of opportunity for a flag passes for them.

The thing for me about all this is that once you get a couple of teams entering the market there can be a bit of a knock on effect. Not all deals are straight forward.. We have seen in the past convoluted deals encompassing 3 teams and various players and picks doing the musical chairs This year and I suggest next years rtrade weeks will be brought more sharply into focus as avenues of topping up for 'certain' teams. Some teams may release bone-fide players back into the market place in order to get some rare youth stocks on their books. GC and WS will have an intersting effect I predict.

Correct. I don't think we'd have anyone at Mfc, apart from our "untouchables", that would net a 1st round pick. Do you think the same?

Yeah, I agree with you, HT. Even some of our "untouchables" wouldn't net a first round pick. This whole trade/draft period promises to be fascinating.

Who voted for Garland?!

only 6 for Dunn? and no Bate

My line of thinking is that we are going to have to make some hard decisions on a few players future either at the end of this season or next.

In terms of replacing a player on the list, this is the year to do it. This draft may be weak, but the next 2 or 3 will be substantially weaker.

Ideally we'd want to make use of 5 or 6 draft picks THIS year and as few as possible in the next 2-3.

No?

Im inclined to think we'll delist 6...possibly seven. makes way for 4 ( poss 5 , but doubtful given depth ) in draft... possibly a pickup in the PSD..and one or 2 rookies depending on PSD.

I agree. Six, possibly seven.

only 6 for Dunn? and no Bate

Why would you trade/delist Bate? He is the only forward who has kept our forward line respectable all year.

I thought Bail should have been there as a possible delist. He's a low draft pick that hasn't done a lot we could then rookie him.

I would expect Bail is a bit of a project with Bailey affording him the second year to really show something ( if he has it )

I thought Bail should have been there as a possible delist. He's a low draft pick that hasn't done a lot we could then rookie him.

Maybe elevate Spencer in the meantime.

well thats a definite for Whelan and Wheatley

Wheatley and Whelan to retire at seasons end

Two servants on their way ( god luck ) So that frees up two spots as definite If they made a song and dance about the #4 Jumper there ought to pomp and ceromony when Ronald Dale presents his #31 to the next great thing ( Im guessing a midfielder)

I thought Bail should have been there as a possible delist. He's a low draft pick that hasn't done a lot we could then rookie him.

I would expect Bail is a bit of a project with Bailey affording him the second year to really show something ( if he has it )

Bail, like all first time draft recruits is on a 2 year contract. He has served one year and has another to go next year.

Bail, like all first time draft recruits is on a 2 year contract. He has served one year and has another to go next year.

I think Gourdis from Richmond only got 1 year and then got rookied and some Essendon player got sacked after only one year. So I think my suggestion can happen.

well thats a definite for Whelan and Wheatley

Wheatley and Whelan to retire at seasons end

Two servants on their way ( god luck )

Well done Wheels, so proud of you as our little indigenous hardman backpocket player.

Matthew Whelan said, ‘I’m proud of what I have been able to achieve over time my time, including becoming the longest serving indigenous player at the Melbourne Football Club.

‘My early mentors are very special to me and I’d like to thank Jeff Farmer and Scott Chisholm for showing me the ropes when I first arrived in Melbourne in 1999.

‘I know the Club is heading in the right direction and it’s going to be great to watch the next crop of young, indigenous players in Liam, Neville, Jamie, Austin and Aaron blossom over their journey'.

Well done to Wheaters, a great servant to the club over a long journey.

A great clubman, gave all quietly, & chased.

Maybe elevate Spencer in the meantime.

I think we have to elavate Spencer or risk losing him cause I haven't seen anything that indicates that he could be a third year rookie.

I think only international rookies can have a third year like former lion now saint Begley.

Suckling from Hawthorn got delisted after 2 years and then rerookied. If we done that then I would think that some club would pick him up either late in the draft or in the PSD due to the lack of ruckman out there. Do we run the risk?

I think Gourdis from Richmond only got 1 year and then got rookied and some Essendon player got sacked after only one year. So I think my suggestion can happen.

Gourdis was a PSD pick that was overlooked from the main draft so I dont think the 2 rule apply.

Why did the Essendon player get sacked? Breach of contract? Discipline?

There are ramifications about paying out contracts. Think harder about it.

Spencer will be elevated on to the list for next year.

Exactly.

You need seven players off the list.

You wont get a serious trade for PJ Bell or Juice.

Buckley is out of contract.

And I would rather have Buckley on the list than Valenti by the length of a racecourse straight.

yes and your racehorsewill run 800 me tres and then put up the white flag Valenti would be in my first 6 picked every weeksbecause he willhave a crack

It's hard to choose cause our list management is a mess.

Bruce will replace Robbo on the veteran's list.

McDonald's spot doesn't matter cause only a rookie can take his spot because no one else is eligable for the veteran's list.

Whelan and Wheatley have retired. So that free's up 3 spots pick 1,2 and 18.

We still have to make way for pick 34 and the elevation of Spencer. On form I would delist Newton and Miller.

I doubt we would choose pick 50 due to the lack of depth in the draft and unless their is a reasonable AFL player wanting to go home then I don't think we will pick up anyone from the PSD either if we did I would delist P.J.

Hopefully we delist players on a form basis instead of delisting players that are out of contract at the wrong time.

So I'm predicting that we will have 4 picks in the draft and and 4 new rookies. Valenti and Zomer won't get elevated.

It's hard to choose cause our list management is a mess.

and unless their is a reasonable AFL player wanting to go home then I don't think we will pick up anyone from the PSD either if we did I would delist P.J.

Back it in, we will use pick 1 in the PSD if we have it.

Who voted for Garland?!

and stef?? tch tch

retire/delist 5: wheats-wheels-robbo- we know, plus newts an macca

promote 1: valenti

Recruit 4: scully-trengove-?-?

sweet!

And since we just witnessed SLYvia come-of-age, and taking into consideration the time its taken to happen, can we get off Bate (who's last half of the season has been f*cking sensational) and Dunns asses for a while??

Remember they're a full 2 yrs behind Colin SLYvia in terms of time at the dees..