I reckon thats it for us by all reports. Now we have to ask the question who will be delisted to make room for picks?? Interesting indeed.

Edited October 8, 200916 yr by stranga

Honestly, what do Carlton see in Daniel Bell?

The guy is just not up to AFL standard.... if we get pick 100 for him i will be happy.

I'd think he would be delisted if not picked up by Carlton as we need the space for our picks.

More then what they could get with a pick I suppose.

I think something along the lines of upgrading Picks 34 and 50 and Daniel Bell into a top 25 pick would be nice, and likely what we're trying to do.

Carlton reported to be interested in Bell.... why?

I reckon something like this is on the cards. Ratten and Riley would rate Bell from their days at Melbourne. He certainly showed potential .... pace, hard at it, good kick etc. Injuries have definitely held him back - and his decision-making/awareness has not improved. They might hope that he'd read the game better under Carlton's game plan?

Now that Brock has gone, I think we are below the 92.5% salary cap minimum. This makes Ball a real option if he somehow sneaks through.

There's no way I'd look at a 29 year old like Monica Wojinski.

I'm not holding my breath for any action today. But it would be great if we could somehow improve our later picks

Edited October 8, 200916 yr by hoopla

I reckon thats it for us by all reports. Now we have to ask the question who will be delisted to make room for picks?? Interesting indeed.

Unless there is some happenings today, I think Melbourne have been quite disappointing in this years trade period. It was a great opportunity to get rid of some of the dead wood in return for better, realistic draft picks/established players.

A couple of examples;

* Shane Mumford - traded to Sydney for pick 28. 23 year old ruckman who held his own in the premiership team for most of the year. Is almost at the end of his development, therefore will be expected to join the elite ruckman of the league for the next 6-8 years. Ruck is an area where Melbourne are struggling in, so in my opinion, chasing a player like Mumford (ie age, how far he has developed, exposed form) should have been a fairly high priority (isn't that the reason for trade week???). In other posts, I suggested putting up pick 18, in reality, we could have put up pick 34 plus a player. Any of our players that we could have used (eg. Newton, Bartram, Buckley, Bell) wouldn't have hurt the Geelong salary cap, so I think we could have got Mumford for very little outlay.

* Daniel Bell - if it is true that Carlton are interested, and we want to improve our later picks, SURELY we could offer Bell and pick 50 for Carlton pick 27. While Bell is not a superstar, when fit he is an average player. Carlton in my mind would be willing to take a punt by offering up pick 27 (plus gaining a later pick) for him. Will they get someone better than Bell at pick 27 in this years draft? Maybe, maybe not. As I said, it is a punt, but it would be one I'm willing to take.

I'm sure there are other trades that we could have thrown up based on where our list is struggling. Obviously we are picking up more midfielders with our early picks, so if we get Luke Ball in the PSD, I don't think we would need to trade to get any more midfielders. Our defenders are sufficient, which leaves us forwards and rucks. As mentioned above, we missed the opportunity with a ruck prospect, leaving us with a forward. So, this would be;

* Mark Williams - I' buggered if I Can work out what it cost Essendon and what they got in return, but my proposal would be Simon Buckley, Newton plus pick 34. Williams is 26, has played in a premiership, and can run through the midfield.

IF all that went ahead, and including the McLean trade, it means;

Gained - Mumford, Williams, and picks 11 & 27, maybe Ball in the PSD

Loss - McLean, Buckley, Newton, Bell, picks 34 & 50

It would give us 1, 2, 11, 18, 27 in the draft plus a developed ruck, a goal kicking forward/midfielder and Luke Ball.

In brief, I think we could have been a lot more aggressive this trade week than what we were, we had $$$ to spend, but feel that we are putting too much faith in to this "shallow" draft.

Edited October 8, 200916 yr by billy2803

I think we'll make at least a draft pick trade. We have to.

Seeing as we won't use pick 50..

If we go up to a team that has, for example, picks 30, 46 and 68, having used their other picks in trades...

we could offer 34 and 50 in return for 30.

Win-Win.

I've not looked at who has what picks, but there must be some teams in a similar position willing to severely upgrade their last pick in exchange for losing a few spots in the 2nd/3rd round

Unless there is some happenings today, I think Melbourne have been quite disappointing in this years trade period. It was a great opportunity to get rid of some of the dead wood in return for better, realistic draft picks/established players.

A couple of examples;

* Shane Mumford - traded to Sydney for pick 28. 23 year old ruckman who held his own in the premiership team for most of the year. Is almost at the end of his development, therefore will be expected to join the elite ruckman of the league for the next 6-8 years. Ruck is an area where Melbourne are struggling in, so in my opinion, chasing a player like Mumford (ie age, how far he has developed, exposed form) should have been a fairly high priority (isn't that the reason for trade week???). In other posts, I suggested putting up pick 18, in reality, we could have put up pick 34 plus a player. Any of our players that we could have used (eg. Newton, Bartram, Buckley, Bell) wouldn't have hurt the Geelong salary cap, so I think we could have got Mumford for very little outlay.

* Daniel Bell - if it is true that Carlton are interested, and we want to improve our later picks, SURELY we could offer Bell and pick 50 for Carlton pick 27. While Bell is not a superstar, when fit he is an average player. Carlton in my mind would be willing to take a punt by offering up pick 27 (plus gaining a later pick) for him. Will they get someone better than Bell at pick 27 in this years draft? Maybe, maybe not. As I said, it is a punt, but it would be one I'm willing to take.

I'm sure there are other trades that we could have thrown up based on where our list is struggling. Obviously we are picking up more midfielders with our early picks, so if we get Luke Ball in the PSD, I don't think we would need to trade to get any more midfielders. Our defenders are sufficient, which leaves us forwards and rucks. As mentioned above, we missed the opportunity with a ruck prospect, leaving us with a forward. So, this would be;

* Mark Williams - I' buggered if I Can work out what it cost Essendon and what they got in return, but my proposal would be Simon Buckley, Newton plus pick 34. Williams is 26, has played in a premiership, and can run through the midfield.

IF all that went ahead, and including the McLean trade, it means;

Gained - Mumford, Williams, and picks 11 & 27, maybe Ball in the PSD

Loss - McLean, Buckley, Newton, Bell, picks 34 & 50

It would give us 1, 2, 11, 18, 27 in the draft plus a developed ruck, a goal kicking forward/midfielder and Luke Ball.

In brief, I think we could have been a lot more aggressive this trade week than what we were, we had $$$ to spend, but feel that we are putting too much faith in to this "shallow" draft.

Stand back and read what you just wrote -- how one sided the trades are, how much they rely on rumour and innuendo and how much money Sydney gave Mumford... Also consider the fact that having so many early picks at the draft table are in fact a handicap at the trade table, because other clubs fixate on them and them only, not our rejects. Try offering a club pick 34 when its public knowledge we have 1,2,11 & 18. Another club offers 31 but they have already traded their 1st round pick and its the best they have, so it seems fair.

Just... think.

Edited October 9, 200916 yr by Keyser Söze

and you want Mark Williams??? no thanks

Pass. Better off keeping Buckley.

Agreed, Same sort of player only Buckley is much younger. Yes, Buckley has not proven himself and slightly injury prone but given the chance and an extended run I firmly believe he will go past WOJACK.

Neil Balme this morning on SEN said that he's confident Wojcinski (and Stokes) will stay at Geelong.

My problem with all this talk on Ball is that isn't he similar to McLean who we moved onto Carlton? Both hard at it midfielders but maybe a fraction slow for today's game. I thought we were happy with getting rid of McLean as he was seen as similar to Jones, Moloney and to a lesser extent Valenti.

If we get him for nothing in the PSD, then maybe its ok, but personally I dont see the value in him. Is a shame we can't offer up our PSD pick which we would have taken Ball with for a say pick 15-20. At least I am pretty sure we can't do that.

Bulldogs currently have pick 15, 31, 63, 79 and have to use min. 3

We trade 34 & 50 for 31 as an example.

Surely we have to get involved in a trade like this.

Collingwood have pick 30, 62, 78.

Edited October 9, 200916 yr by Keyser Söze

Are you suggesting that the agreement reached only two days ago is about to be reneged upon?

Yes. 1 year deal at the Dee's? Port may offer 3 years + more money and he will want a trade. Bradshaw had just signed with Brisbane but was offered up in the Fev deal. It just guarantees the Dee's dont lose him in the PSD.

Luke Ball in the PSD is the only way i would be happy.

Wojo would give the team experience but i think he is to old. (can't believe i said 29 is too old!!!!)

i agree, ball would be the perfect player in the PSD, how good would it be we lose mclean, get pick 11 for him which is a win, then we get luke ball who replaces mclean,think about it we lose nothing with the mclean trade, because luke replaces him, and even if pick 11 turns to be a dud,then it is no lose, because luke is a better player then mclean will ever be.

My problem with all this talk on Ball is that isn't he similar to McLean who we moved onto Carlton? Both hard at it midfielders but maybe a fraction slow for today's game. I thought we were happy with getting rid of McLean as he was seen as similar to Jones, Moloney and to a lesser extent Valenti.

If we get him for nothing in the PSD, then maybe its ok, but personally I dont see the value in him. Is a shame we can't offer up our PSD pick which we would have taken Ball with for a say pick 15-20. At least I am pretty sure we can't do that.

Firstly we did not get rid of mclean he wanted to leave,so the club would love to have ball, he is a better player then mclean. mclean is not as tough as people think.

Stand back and read what you just wrote -- how one sided the trades are, how much they rely on rumour and innuendo and how much money Sydney gave Mumford... Also consider the fact that having so many early picks at the draft table are in fact a handicap at the trade table, because other clubs fixate on them and them only, not our rejects. Try offering a club pick 34 when its public knowledge we have 1,2,11 & 18. Another club offers 31 but they have already traded their 1st round pick and its the best they have, so it seems fair.

Just... think.

Not sure why you think they are one sided trades.

1. Mumford went for pick 28, I offered 34 and Bartram. Not much difference there, unless you think the Mumford trade that happened was one sided?

2. If Carlton have showed interest in Bell, they obviously rate him to some degree. Giving them Bell and a 4th Round pick for a late 2nd round pick seems reasonably fair to me.

3. Mark Williams, a 26 year old in between player (not a key forward, but not a small forward), for 2 established players + the first pick in the 3rd round. As I said on this one, I'm not sure what to work out it cost Essendon to get him, so give me some slack here!

If you think they are one-sided, that's your opinion. I'm just trying to base trades similar to what actually happened.

For what it's worth, I don't think Melbourne will get Ball in the PSD. I think he will agree to a 3 year deal with the Saints.