I have heard some whispers that Kurt Tippett is infact going to the Gold Coast, all being kept hush at this stage. Adelaide are aware of this, he is currently playing under injury (no surprise here) and this may be the case for much of the year, ie why rest him if he won't be there next year when you can run him into the ground.

But he's contracted?

Yes, yes I would. However, if we only had to trade away PJ & Bell for him, sure (they're a decent chance of getting the chop anyway)!

However, I was assuming Adelaide's recruitment and trading decisions weren't being made by a Melbourne supporter trying to undermine his employer.

In short, I was assuming we'd have to offer up something realistic in terms of draft picks and/or money, both of which I think can be diverted elsewhere for more benefit.

PS. Laycock? Jesus.

We would have to offer something of value, but its too soon in the season to work that one out. He'd be an interesting pickup.

Never say never.

Deevoted we will need to do a backflip on youth at some stage. Whilst next year will most likely be too soon, at some stage we should add some experienced players if they are at the right price. For example Hawthorn got their timing exactly right on Dew. If they waited another year before adding the experience to their youth you could argue that they wouldn't have won the flag.

Just like how the dogs could have done with Barry Hall for the last 2 seasons. Really now they have him the boat may have sailed as Aka, Johno and others slow up.

Have to agree with you there. If we can get 4-5 years out of Thompson and his body is deemed up to scratch then the only question is; what price would we have to pay? You would have to jump at the chance to bring in some more quality if it comes cheaply. We can't keep drafting kids forever, we have a stockpile of them as it is. Whilst 28 isn't the ideal age I believe there is a dearth of talent on our list from the ages of 22-27. This is the area the club should be trying to bring in mature age rookies or players from other AFL clubs that will fit within our on-field structure and list management strategy. At 22-23 an AFL player still has a good 5+ years left in them barring injury, this would mean they would fit into our premiership window comfortably.

If the club can bring in a couple of quality players between the ages of 22-25 we will fast track our development and become finals contenders a lot quicker. We can still keep drafting kids and develop them while adding the odd mature aged player to bolster our best 22. At the moment our two weakest areas to target would be a marking forward and a skilled midfielder. The opportunity to bring in these players may never arrive as they are high in demand, however I definitely think it's worth the club doing their homework to find out if these avenues are possible.

But he's contracted?

Is the contract signed?

Probably. And while that sounds good in theory (elite on-baler for rookie pick), given Jordie's age and clear value on field... you'd be stupid to let him go for a player that'll last 2-3 years.

Not me. At the time, yes, and to have him in the side between then and now would have made a big difference to us on-field... but given how things have turned out, I reckon a fully fit Beamer from here on in was worth the few years of pain we suffered after Thompson was traded... That said, if taking him meant we could have made and won a GF... then obviously I'd change my mind. I don't think he's THAT good though.

As far as now is concerned with muscles... would having him be THAT great? I mean, he's a gun and all. But how many years left will he have? Will he deny a Tapscott/McKenzie... or God forbid a Trengove/Scully a spot in the 22? He's a player you move heaven and earth for if you're within reach of a flag in 2011/12... not 2013. And I reckon most people think 2012 is the earliest we'll start winning more games than we lose. Maybe to teach the kids?

I dunno. At a good price (late second/early third round pick) I'd still be concerned... and for anything more, I'd be annoyed if we took him.

Has anyone actually mentioned that the real reason that he left Melbourne as well as Jolly and Powell was due to our former coach Daniher!!!!!

Scotty would be fantastic to have back remembering that Junior may retire this year and with Bruce on the decline we still need that older head through the midfield.

Scotty Thompson's touches are all quality through the middle and not around the backs & flanks like a Mitchell or a Swan

Beamer will be our next captain and I cannot believe some people would be mentioning him for a trade or delisting when a player like Jones who clearly has been struggling for some time now and still cannot hit a target

More than happy to throw Dunn & Bartram for Thompson

It's a no brainer there!

He won't come back to Melb, and to be honest, we shouldn't take him back!

Why would we?

We have loaded up on players who can use the footy in the previous drafts.......Thompson's disposal is nothing special...and he is no harder at it than Jones or Moloney.

With McKenzie coming through, and players like Blease, Strauss, and Gysberts who we have hardly seen, rounded out by Scully, Trengove, Bail, Grimes etc etc...we don't need him! Our midfield stocks aren't our problem.

He's had his chance to play with us, and he chose to leave........you don't get a second chance.

If he comes back to Melbourne, he'll end up at a Collingwood or Carlton.....not with us....and good luck to him.

I don't want him back in the red and blue.

Scotty Thompson's touches are all quality through the middle and not around the backs & flanks like a Mitchell or a Swan

.... I do not agree with this one arossoukas on both fronts. Thompson gathers touches all over the ground and if he is sitting by himself in the centre of the ground would you want him?

Mitchell and Swan is a bit of a stretch too. Mitchell is a clearance magnet all over the ground. Swan runs end to end harder the 90% of the players on the ground.

No way!

We need a key forward not another midfielder. Our midfield bleeds talent and will be one of the best.

Thompson is too slow and his age and possibly his best football has passed!

Thompson will be at the Gold Coast I would think!

We need to target a forward who can crash packs out of the square and take contested marks! ?????

Or at least develop a player to do this! ?????

Many of us were falling all over ourselves at the prospect of landing Luke Ball (albeit via the Pre-season draft).

Thompson > Ball (IMO)

ST still has plenty to offer at this level. Has been a very good player for several years at the Crows and didn't leave the Dees high and dry when he moved to Adelaide, we were sufficiently compensated.

I'd take him at the right price, don't forget James McDonald can't do it forever, ST would be a good option as a midfield 'General' in the eventual absence of our current skipper.

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with all the suggestions to get Scott Thompson at 28 back (very good footballer, btw).

Thats not 100% accurate ... it all depends if the player has a contract or not ...

Edited April 22, 201015 yr by hangon007

I didn't want Luke Ball and I don't want Scott Thompson.

This isn't a retirement home.

I didn't want Luke Ball and I don't want Scott Thompson.

This isn't a retirement home.

Then you would be wrong on both occasions you goose. It all depends on the "price".

Then you would be wrong on both occasions you goose. It all depends on the "price".

Never wrong.

The price isn't necessarily relevant.

Yes. No deal. Jordie stays for mine.

As my Brother said to me today, pace has always been a bit of an issue with Thompson and that's only going to be exemplified as he gets older. As much as I don't mind the idea, I'm not sure where I see him fitting in.

Edited April 22, 201015 yr by Hannabal

Never wrong.

The price isn't necessarily relevant.

Hahahaha ... yes well. Why does that not surprise me.

Has anyone actually mentioned that the real reason that he left Melbourne as well as Jolly and Powell was due to our former coach Daniher!!!!!

That's not what I heard. It may have made things easier for him to leave (Daniher) but as I understand it was a family thing. Other can feel free to correct. Also, if he had problems with authority with a decent coach, who's to say he won't do the same thing with DB? It's not like he has 10 years ahead of him to sort it out.

Scotty would be fantastic to have back remembering that Junior may retire this year and with Bruce on the decline we still need that older head through the midfield.

That's a good point. Personally though, I think we'll be ok for mature bodies next year, and certainly the year after and onwards. There comes a time when the CURRENT mature bodies become old bodies, and the CURRENT young bodies suddenly become men. We're right on the cusp of that time as it is. Recruiting 28 year olds is what St Kilda/Doggies should do, not a side who's gone through all this pain. It's like we'd be skipping over the best years of a players' career. Thompson aint getting any better, 80% of the demons list are.

Beamer will be our next captain and I cannot believe some people would be mentioning him for a trade or delisting when a player like Jones who clearly has been struggling for some time now and still cannot hit a target

Jones was pretty good on the weekend, and brings more to the side than just kicking accuracy. There's plenty of room for an average kick who knows how and when to use it, and what his weaknesses are. Jones is another who, as he becomes the biggest body on the ground, will start to dominate more and more. Think Beamer the last couple of years who has swelled to a terrifying size.

More than happy to throw Dunn & Bartram for Thompson

There is a very, very good reason why no-one makes this suggestion. It is this. It's stupid. If you want to pick up a player of Thompson's calibre you need to offer more than a couple of guys who've struggled for a regular spot in the worst side of the comp in the last 3 years. Perhaps by seasons' end they might be more highly fancied, but both would have to have Ablett (Bartram) and Goddard (Dunn) type seasons in order for the football world to consider them worth losing quality for. Anything less and they'll be worried about as one-season wonders. Add to this the fact Adelaide will likely want to rebuild through the drafts, and they'll likely be asking for picks, picks and more picks. If we have pick 10,12 or 14 which looks a chance, then we'd be right in the mix. You have to give quality to get quality. People have been asking to trade Dunn, Bartram and Bell for years. There's a reason it never happens chief.

It comes down to fit, and price. I reckon we're a better fit than Gold Coast as we'll have a more mature side (slightly). But in terms of price, we're not going to give up anything of the quality of a 1st rounder, or a Jordie McKenzie, unless we get at least 4 good years from the bloke.

Think about this. Melbourne have one of the better young onballers in their keeping for 4 years. He's injury-prone, but he comes into form for ONE season, and then based on that form asks a hefty price to go to Adelaide. Melbourne are left short changed ONCE (albeit only slighty), and to make matter worse, he decides he wants to come back to see out his career where he started and maybe win a flag, and MFC are forced to part with ANOTHER player who after a couple of seasons is starting to show some serious signs of being a 200 game player.

That means in 2 trades, we lose big-time with Thompson.

Meh. We need KP forwards anyway. Our midfield is starting to look surprisingly holeproof...

That's not what I heard. It may have made things easier for him to leave (Daniher) but as I understand it was a family thing. Other can feel free to correct.

I have it on very good authority that Thompson left because of Daniher.

Hahahaha ... yes well. Why does that not surprise me.

Why bring a player onto your list that you don't intend to play..?

I have it on very good authority that Thompson left because of Daniher.

Bugger me. Then what was all the family gubbins that people spout on here? Was that just a cover?

Why bring a player onto your list that you don't intend to play..?

Where did I say that????? Are you saying Thompson would not get a game for us???

I have it on very good authority that Thompson left because of Daniher.

Interesting. I recall Daniher saying the club didn't want to hold Thompson back from going back home. I guess there was more to it than just that. I'd be interested to know what the issue was... ND's style of coaching, personal issue etc ?

Where did I say that????? Are you saying Thompson would not get a game for us???

You didn't.

But I wouldn't bring him onto the list because I would consider playing him.

We have kids that will soon be better than him and he is on the downward slide.

I don't think in the long run he would help the club, so what's the point?

Interesting. I recall Daniher saying the club didn't want to hold Thompson back from going back home. I guess there was more to it than just that. I'd be interested to know what the issue was... ND's style of coaching, personal issue etc ?

If Hannabal's line is correct - and it's not the first time I've seen this on Demonland - ND was hardly going to say 'Sorry fans, we're losing one of our exciting young mids because he doesn't like/respect me'.

If Hannabal's line is correct - and it's not the first time I've seen this on Demonland - ND was hardly going to say 'Sorry fans, we're losing one of our exciting young mids because he doesn't like/respect me'.

It would've made great news though.

It would've made great news though.

Great's debatable, but it certainly would have been big