Delist:

Bell- Had enough chances. Others are ahead of him.

PJ- He will go to make way for Spencer as the back up with Gawn the project.

Netwon- Hack.

Meeson- Useless.

Healy- Had time, hasn't developed.

Borderline- Maric. I think his future will actually hinge two things:

1) If Petterd goes he may retain a place on the list.

2) If Bruce retires he may also retain his place. (Don't think McDonald will retire).

If neither of these happen then he will be gone.

This should see McKenzie elevated and whether Spencer is retained as a rookie or on the main list will have to wait and see. (If he is still eligible for the rookie list???)

Dunn will remain. At the very least he will remain to cover gaps if there are injuries.

Bail. Reckon this kid can play and was stiff to get the fractured cheek. Melbourne will give him a chance.

Strauss. He was bad on the weekend but also reckon Melbourne will persist.

Miller- the great unknown. Do they keep him as backup given the young, under-developed forwards we have- i think so. as a back up.

.......................................................................

Given PJ should go also assists Spencer as aside from Gawn, there are no other ruckman on the list to back up Jamar(Excluding Dunn, Miller, Sylvia).

........ and Martin, who has a long, long way to go, but is still well ahead of PJ IMO, based on his relative youth and far greater versatility.

Bail. Reckon this kid can play and was stiff to get the fractured cheek. Melbourne will give him a chance.

Bail shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

Bail shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

Agreed.

Spencer is 20 year old who can actually ruck and compete physically in contests. He has all the basic attributes for centre ruckwork and he can potentially build into an AFL ruck within 2 to 3 years. PJ is big. However, he cant ruck, cant play forward, is poor above his shoulders. He has been on our list for 5 years and in the AFL for 7 years. What you see is what you get? A player who plays a foot shorter than he is. He has to go.

Given PJ should go also assists Spencer as aside from Gawn, there are no other ruckman on the list to back up Jamar(Excluding Dunn, Miller, Sylvia).

Unless we are expecting to trade for a young AFL ruck with a few years on the clock, I cant see the logic of cutting PJ and Spencer.

With the demise of Kreuzer, IMO, we don't have to, necessarily DO the Rucks this year, but If we wanted to, could wait till next season.

Meeson Will go, so there's potential for a rookie.

But with the Kreuzer thing, it may also make PJ more attractive to those clubs struggling in this area.

PJ could be a useful backup to the Russian in case of injury. He can at least compete @ a resonable level & we saw when he had a run of games he had good form.

Edited June 21, 201015 yr by dee-luded

PJ could be a useful backup to the Russian in case of injury. He can at least compete @ a resonable level & we saw when he had a run of games he had good form.

Has PJ been a useful backup to Jamar so far this year?

And even the crappest of players at AFL level have a good run of form every now and again - that's how they got to AFL level in the first place. PJ is no exception. Heck, even Luke Williams managed a two year contract after a purple patch, which was duly spent at Sandringham. PJ is a garbage footballer and if he's still on the list at year's end then there's something terribly wrong.

Has PJ been a useful backup to Jamar so far this year?

And even the crappest of players at AFL level have a good run of form every now and again - that's how they got to AFL level in the first place. PJ is no exception. Heck, even Luke Williams managed a two year contract after a purple patch, which was duly spent at Sandringham. PJ is a garbage footballer and if he's still on the list at year's end then there's something terribly wrong.

Not at all. I think you know exactly what I mean. He played very well last year when the Russian was out with his foot issue, so PJ got a run of games into him & struck form.

Now, If you'd read my other posts I've written,l about PJ, you'd see that I was hoping to maybe recruit either a good up 'N' coming ruck (Hampson), or trade PJ,,, perhaps to a side like the Hawks who are desperate for a backup ruck to help with their open window.

Either way, I'm satisfied with our possible outcomes in this area. I think Spencer will be a more than adequate Ruck, given some time & competition.

Still I can see that both potentially could be of trade value, depending on how Harrington wants to roll the dice.

I love it when you come out & show your true colours & what you think of our players.

He played very well last year when the Russian was out with his foot issue, so PJ got a run of games into him & struck form.

PJ was terrible last year. He had his big chance to perform on the big stage and was not up to it. He gave a further encore this year.

or trade PJ,,, perhaps to a side like the Hawks who are desperate for a backup ruck to help with their open window.

They'd do better jumping out of that window if they are that desperate.

If we get any trade offer for PJ....we take it. We wont. Other teams just aren't that stupid.

PJ - Delist

Bell - Delist

Miller - Delist

McDonald - I suspect will retire

Petterd - I suspect wll be GC17 bound

ROOKIES:

McKenzie - Promote

Spencer - Promote

Healy - Delist

Hughes - Delist

Meesen - Delist

Newton - Delist

This allows Melbourne to draft 3 players in the national draft and 6 rookies in the rookie draft.

TRADE BAIT:

Rivers

Purely as a preliminary glance at our situation I think this is all pretty close to the mark.

Spencer was always a project player (in the words of the club) and to put him on the senior list is a big move but given we can't keep him on the rookie list (or can we?) he is worth continuing for now.

I think the horse has truely bolted with respect to trading Rivers though - for anything remotely significant at least. I'm not sure we are in the market for very late picks in this point in time having flooded our list with kids. Not sure what calibre of player he would get in a swap.

JMac I think is having one last roll of the dice before bowing out but you never know I guess.

Rhino's idea of Maric to the rookie list is not a bad one if he is contracted and not looking at making in-roads. It is still a pretty big move though so obviously where the club sees him is pivotal. It will be interesting what sort of moves the club makes to create flexibility, last year their list management was quite good.

Bell, PJ and Miller are certainties to be delisted. Assuming we promote McKenzie (certain) and Spencer (probable), we need at least another 2 spots opened up on the list, and I don't think we have any players moving to veteran status.

Possible players to be either delisted or moved to the rookie list are Maric, McNamara and Cheney. Whilst I rate McNamara, it doesn't seem that FD does, and if push comes to shove the spot on the list might be needed more than TMac. Maric will not be on the senior list next year, but since I think he's contracted he'll do a Meesen and end up on the rookie list. Cheney would be the next player in danger I think but should be right to keep his spot.

Blease and Strauss haven't set the world on fire either but neither have had enough of a chance to prove themselves either way (in Blease's case not even at Casey).

Dunn's future lies solely as a forward, not a midfield tagger. We need to recognise that and move on. A defensive forward is as far as I'll go with him. I think he'll retain his spot on the list, but he will not be there when we lift the premiership cup, so until then he's just warming a seat, which makes me question whether we should be keeping him, especially if someone like McNamara or Cheney is forced off whilst we keep Dunn.

Bail is more than safe. He should hopefully crack back into the senior team this year.

Not many mentions of Martin here, but I think he gives decent depth and has more than enough talent to hold his spot.

Bruce will stay, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if he is 'pushed' into retirment. Or maybe I'm just hoping.

Healey, Hughes, Meesen and Newton will all be cut from the rookie list.

Edited June 21, 201015 yr by titan_uranus

I think 5 delistings is an ambitious target given the youth and freshness of our list.

Bell & PJ are the consensus delistings. I can't see anything changing that.

I would agree that McKenzie & Spencer will occupy the spots opened up here.

From this point we come down to making decisions regarding whether the player potentially being delisted is of more value to the team than the correlating draft pick they will open up. It might help to consider it like a trade.

Brad Miller for 1st rounder - roughly pick 8-13. I love Brad, but nobody in their right mind doesn't see the value in that. It's unfortunate for him.

Tommy McNamara was recontracted last year for an unspecified period along with Bartram. I am speculating that these players were put on 1 year contracts with a 2nd year activated by meeting performance targets, ie. senior games played. Bartram would have activated his 2nd year but things don't look so good for Tommy. This brings us to the question:

Tom McNamara for 2nd rounder - pick 27-30. On the surface it seems another easy call, but I don't know what kind of players are shaping to be available at this stage of this draft so it will be a decision that would require a fair bit of analysis.

According to the records the only other questionable ones like Cheney, Maric, Martin & Dunn are contracted to 2011. I'm not sure whether the 'delist and rookie' trick used with great success on Newton & Meesen last year is so simple it can just be freely applied to any of these players, and we know the club isn't going to just cut players loose under contract.

The dark horse here is the impact of GC which could make our decision for us by luring any of a number of players we would otherwise recontract like Rivers, Bail, Garland, Petterd, etc

Yep.

Delist: Bell, PJ & Miller.

Promote: McKenzie & Spencer.

Rest of the rookies released.

Depending on depth of talent available in the draft move Maric, McNamara &/or Cheney to rookie list.

(I predict the latter 2).

I can't see Brad Miller netting us a first round pick. Maybe 3rd or 4th. Probably not. I doubt another club would take him.

I'd really like to see Junior play next year - his current form warrants it (as it's up there with his B&F winning years) and he's an excellent leader. And Dunn, to my mind, is a required player.

Strauss is the one that interests me. I had thought we'd take Zaharakis with pick 19, yet we selected Strauss. How's he going? Is the club happy with his progress?

Strauss interests me also. At the moment he looks to be a one trick pony. Good skills but little else. I hope he is able to develop the defensive and ball winning side of his game. Beams and Hannebry were also available at that stage of the draft so I hope he proves us wrong.

The thing that surprises me about Cheney is that the club knew what they were getting when they drafted him. Did they think he would magically grow 5cm or gain a yard of pace? I personally think he has the potential to play well at AFL level but it seems the coaching staff dont think so.

Edited June 21, 201015 yr by stranga

Brad Miller for 1st rounder - roughly pick 8-13. I love Brad, but nobody in their right mind doesn't see the value in that. It's unfortunate for him.

Nobody...except for 16 other clubs. We'd be lucky to fetch pick 100 for Miller. If anyone really, really wanted him (which I doubt) they'd just wait until we inevitably delist him.

Brad Miller for 1st rounder - roughly pick 8-13. I love Brad, but nobody in their right mind doesn't see the value in that. It's unfortunate for him.

Yeah, then we'll get Ablett for pick 95.

i wonder how many people will go crazy if miller was to remain on out list next year - doubt it though

Yeah, then we'll get Ablett for pick 95.

Hmmmm, seems I was too quick to praise everyone's reading comprehension in another thread.

Try again kids. Perhaps trace a finger along the screen as you read how I justified the analogy of Brad Miller as being released for a 1st round pick.

I think we'll quite a few players delisted, but i don't think any of them will be from the players we've drafted the last 2-3 years.

I reckon the following will be delisted next season:

Bell

PJ

Martin

Newton

Meesen

Hughes

Healey.

So that's 7 delistings, with 2 promotions in Spencer and McKenzie.

That leaves us with an empty rookie list and also space left for draft picks.

I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Cheney or Maric are placed on the rookie list but i don't see us dropping any of those guys. They're more likely to be traded IMO than delisted.

I reckon Miller earns one more contract until Watts is physically developed enough to handle a bigger workload - so i'd say Miller hangs around for 2 more years.

Brad Miller for 1st rounder - roughly pick 8-13. I love Brad, but nobody in their right mind doesn't see the value in that. It's unfortunate for him.

I can't see Brad Miller netting us a first round pick. Maybe 3rd or 4th. Probably not. I doubt another club would take him.

Nobody...except for 16 other clubs. We'd be lucky to fetch pick 100 for Miller. If anyone really, really wanted him (which I doubt) they'd just wait until we inevitably delist him.

I think what Inner Demon was saying is that you base your de-listings on what they will be replaced with. In Miller's case i read it that he assumes the footy department will have the mentality that they need to get rid of players, Miller is on the fringe, is Miller the one to move on in order to enable us to use our dfraft picks?

That's how i read his post. I think it is flawed because i believe they would actually look at it in reverse anyway. Say we have picks 10, 35, 54 & 83. The FD need to free up space on the list to use at least three of them they would hten say:

Petterd gone / Bruce retire- frees up use of first round pick 10

PJ delist- frees up use of second round pick 35

Bell delist- frees up use of third round pick 54

Miller?- what will be more value, delisting him or using pick 83?

That's my assumption anyway...but you know what they say about assuming!

I think what Inner Demon was saying is that you base your de-listings on what they will be replaced with. In Miller's case i read it that he assumes the footy department will have the mentality that they need to get rid of players, Miller is on the fringe, is Miller the one to move on in order to enable us to use our dfraft picks?

That's how i read his post. I think it is flawed because i believe they would actually look at it in reverse anyway. Say we have picks 10, 35, 54 & 83. The FD need to free up space on the list to use at least three of them they would hten say:

Petterd gone / Bruce retire- frees up use of first round pick 10

PJ delist- frees up use of second round pick 35

Bell delist- frees up use of third round pick 54

Miller?- what will be more value, delisting him or using pick 83?

That's my assumption anyway...but you know what they say about assuming!

Good thoughts.

I am not sure its a case of either Bruce retiring or Pettard going GC.

If one of them does go then wouldnt you use pick 83 for McKenzie? And if you could say move Maric to the rookie list (hypothetical)then wouldn't you use pick 99 to elevate Spencer?

If we were to use picks 54 and 83 to elevate McKenzie and Spencer and try to pick up some good prospects at 10 and 35 (of course this is if we have these picks) I would feel that Miller would be retained over the guys i've list above. As we need big strong forwards while Watts develops, and given Meesen and Newton are guaranteed de-listings, as are IMO PJ, Bell, Healey, along with guys who i consider to be on their last legs like Martin and Hughes.

I consider Miller to be more valuable to this team than all 7 of these players so i highly doubt he'll be delisted, particularly given he appears to be highly regarded at the club.

Hmmmm, seems I was too quick to praise everyone's reading comprehension in another thread.

Try again kids. Perhaps trace a finger along the screen as you read how I justified the analogy of Brad Miller as being released for a 1st round pick.

I must admit that I didn't read your post word for word (I rarely read any post or anything at all word for word) so I missed your point. However, I'm still not sure the analogy works. If I were to apply that analogy, I'd apply them in the order of delisting. First cab off the rank in that regard would be the 'unanimous' delistings - so Bell would release pick 8-13, Johnson pick 27 or whatever and so on. In that regard, Miller still only releases a third round pick at the earliest.

I must admit that I didn't read your post word for word (I rarely read any post or anything at all word for word) so I missed your point. However, I'm still not sure the analogy works. If I were to apply that analogy, I'd apply them in the order of delisting. First cab off the rank in that regard would be the 'unanimous' delistings - so Bell would release pick 8-13, Johnson pick 27 or whatever and so on. In that regard, Miller still only releases a third round pick at the earliest.

Bell & Johnson free up the spots for promotions of McKenzie & Spencer. In these cases we're 'trading' a midfielder and ruckman who didn't make it for a developing midfielder and ruckman.

I'm happy to alter my analogy somewhat however.

If a player is poached by GC, that happens before we finalise delistings and would satisy our minimum turnover rate and also open up our 1st draft pick.

From there I stand by the train of thought which would see us weigh up further delistings the same way you would consider trades. This time you're looking at an uncontracted player in return for a Round 2 pick, and so on.

The point I'm really driving at here, which I've made in another thread before, is that it's too simplistic to just say, "We should have 3 draft picks so we'll have to delist 5 players, one way or another". For each delisting decision it must be considered what we're giving up and what we're getting in return, in this case, another draft pick.

Also please remember that neither Junior nor Bruce open up access to an extra draft pick. They are on Veteran's List and nobody on our list is eligible to replace them next year to open up the senior list spot.

The only benefit of either of them retiring is that we would be able to elevate a rookie at the start of the season to fill their spot, ala Fremantle with Barlow.