Who will be cut at the end of the season?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Rhino in reply to the question:

And if a player is close to best 22 how can he be surplus??

My point is in the event that the FD decides that we have surplus players to fill a particular role and that we would be best served to pick up a player to fill a need. Ie the argument that Warnock and Martin might struggle to find a spot over Frawley, Rivers and Garlards as tall defenders. Or alternatively for example Dunn, Cheney, Bartram etc's role in the team going forward with the development of McKenzie and Bail.

If the GC or another club came along and said what would you want for ....player (which might be considered surplus) would you consider it? On the flip side you might find the MFC FD trading a Dunn, Cheney, Bail, Bartram or Warnock who could all be considered for people's best 22, for someone who may be able to win the MFC a premiership during their window. (IE satisfy the big KPF, or speedy small forward pocket that some feel we need to complete the team balance)

I guess the question is are they good enough to challenge for best 22 as opposed to being close to best 22?

I am not sure anyone will trade for a player deemed excess by MFC and OOC that they could confidently say they could get him in the PSD. Cheney, Bail falls into that bucket.

I cant see them dumping Bail, Bartram, Dunn or Warnock as they have all have at least reasonable claims for best 22. And I am not sure if we did trade any of these player we would get more than a 3rd rounder which means you chasing a player similar to what you gave away.

I dont think MFC will be participating too actively in a draft leeched by GCFC.

[Guest hangon007]

If the GC or another club came along and said what would you want for ....player (which might be considered surplus) would you consider it? On the flip side you might find the MFC FD trading a Dunn, Cheney, Bail, Bartram or Warnock who could all be considered for people's best 22, for someone who may be able to win the MFC a premiership during their window. (IE satisfy the big KPF, or speedy small forward pocket that some feel we need to complete the team balance)

GC are in the box seat when it comes to negotiations in this draft.

Unless of course the player has a contract and is on your list.

For un-contracted players they are not going to over pay for players ... they dictate the prices & hence by "default" the compensation.

Baring in mind the compensation is not paid directly by them but in the way of draft picks or future draft picks.

If the players do have a contract then its a "normal" trading scenario where the gold coast do have to pay the compensation out of one of their existing picks.

[beelzebub 22,716]

I guess the question is are they good enough to challenge for best 22 as opposed to best 22?

im not bad at cryptic....but that one eludes me !! 18?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

im not bad at cryptic....but that one eludes me !! 18?

Long Day....I have reworded the question

I guess the question is are they good enough to challenge for best 22 as opposed to being close to best 22?

I am asking are they one step short of being close to best 22.

If a player is deemed close to best 22 (say 23 to 32) on the list now and in the near future then why would the Club cut the person off the list unless there is a great deal on the table? I would not hold my breathe waiting for that deal.Makes no sense.

[beelzebub 22,716]

Long Day....I have reworded the question

I guess the question is are they good enough to challenge for best 22 as opposed to being close to best 22?

I am asking are they one step short of being close to best 22.

If a player is deemed close to best 22 (say 23 to 32) on the list now and in the near future then why would the Club cut the person off the list unless there is a great deal on the table? I would not hold my breathe waiting for that deal.Makes no sense.

ahhh !! yes.. quite so.

Another aspect is even the best teams dont rest on laurels, they keep the list fluid.

We may have a ouple of kids who were adjudged say 8/10 talent.. 8/10 potential and were 6/10 along the road. One they are further along they may be rejudged lower.. and it might warrant an earlier call than with some otherplayers who ARE making progress. i.e get some value or cut losses when able, and then get newer blood in and on it goes, constantly improving the bloodlines as it were.

[Parma 28]

BELL

HUGHES

HEALEY

JOHNSON

MARTIN

MILLER

NEWTON

Other than McDonald and Bruce who will finish next season and will be good leaders again next year, if a player is not considered as a chance to play in our best team in 2 years then seeya later.

Thats 4 off the list and these should be used at draft time to get mature bodied tall forwards types. If we get one good one from this four then its worth it.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I have been thinking about this a little bit, we would probably need to drop 4 or 5 players i think, and i was just wondering what peoples feel about who needs to go and who should stay on the list.

Personally I think there is really only one obvious delisting at the moment on our senior list, and that is Daniel Bell.

Brad Miller is a possibility, but he is also in our leadership group.

Paul Johnson is another possibility, but he is our only other real ruckman on our senior list, besides Gawn and Fitzpatrick who we are yet to see.

then from there its anyone's guess

Will Cameron Bruce retire, he played his best game for season 2010 today against Essendon but would we be fussed to see him go gold coast, or a coaching role at the club?

Personally Kyle Cheney is one to be dropped for mine, I dont think he will do anything at AFL level and is just a list clogger, but I'm sure there are people who disagree.

Addam Maric is another, personally i see him having talent, but is he good enough to stay, or do we have too many players in his role.

Tom McNamarra, is struggling to get a gig, does that mean we look to trade him?

Rookie list we can basically remove them all, although i think Meeson is worth persevering and Hughes aswell, but none the less this does nothing for our senior list.

would love to hear peoples thoughts.

IMO Kyle Cheney will Not be delisted. Small possibility of trade, but not delist.

PJ, I think will be gone to another team.

I think Bruce will move on to extend his career.

Maric,,, see cheney,,, one more year or off to GWS.

Tommy Mac, I think will keep, 3rd tall type Fore or Aft.

Miller will keep to give young forwards a chopout, & when their down.

Below is my file list. some below, ------ @ the edge.... also look for your poss' trades?

McDonald, James 246 33yr 9mth 180cm 75kg

Green, Brad 212 29yr 3mth 184cm 83kg

Davey, Aaron 133 27yr 177cm 74kg

Jamar, Mark 87 26yr 10mth 198cm 104kg

Moloney, Brent 104 26yr 5mth 182cm 86kg

Warnock, Matthew 50 26yr 3mth 194cm 95kg

Macdonald, Joel 90 25yr 8mth 188cm 88kg

Rivers, Jared 100 25yr 8mth 192cm 92kg

Sylvia, Colin 95 24yr 7mth 186cm 85kg

Martin, Stefan 29 23yr 7mth 198cm 100kg

Dunn, Lynden 62 23yr 1mth 192cm 95kg

Bate, Matthew 80 23yr 1mth 192cm 90kg

Jones, Nathan 84 22yr 5mth 180cm 82kg

Bartram, Clint 72 22yr 4mth 181cm 80kg

Garland, Colin 32 22yr 2mth 191cm 85kg

Bail, Rohan 4 22yr 183cm 81kg

Petterd, Ricky 35 21yr 11mth 185cm 84kg

Frawley, James 53 21yr 9mth 193cm 91kg

Jurrah, Liam 9 21yr 9mth 188cm 83kg

Wonaeamirri, Austin 20 21yr 9mth 176cm 76kg

Grimes, Jack 26 21yr 1mth 187cm 81kg

Cheney, Kyle 13 20yr 10mth 186cm 87kg

Spencer, Jake ® 8 20yr 8mth 203cm 100kg

Morton, Cale 45 20yr 5mth 192cm 83kg

Jetta, Neville 21 20yr 4mth 180cm 77kg

Healey, Rhys ® 0 20yr 2mth 186cm 81kg

Maric, Addam 11 20yr 2mth 176cm 77kg

McNamara, Tom 3 20yr 2mth 190cm 87kg

Bennell, Jamie 28 20yr 1mth 179cm 73kg

Strauss, James 2 20yr 185cm 82kg

McKenzie, Jordie ® 14 20yr 186cm 71kg

Blease, Sam 0 19yr 4mth 184cm 77kg

Watts, Jack 10 19yr 3mth 196cm 85kg

Scully, Tom 13 19yr 1mth 182cm 77kg

Gysberts, Jordan 3 19yr 190cm 82kg

Fitzpatrick, Jack 0 19yr 200cm 87kg

Tapscott, Luke 0 19yr 180cm 87kg

Trengove, Jack 13 18yr 10mth 185cm 85kg

Gawn, Max 0 18yr 6mth 208cm 104kg

-----------------------------------------------

Bruce, Cameron 216 30yr 9mth 190cm 85kg

Miller, Brad 133 27yr 194cm 94kg

Johnson, Paul 63 26yr 199cm 103kg

Bell, Daniel 66 25yr 2mth 186cm 91kg

------------------------------------------------

Meesen, John ® 6 24yr 200cm 100kg

Hughes, Danny ® 2 23yr 6mth 186cm 82kg

Newton, Michael ® 23 23yr 2mth 193cm 91kg

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

Here's something interesting I just discovered which I think many of us were unaware of. In the upcoming draft, Rookie elevations will be counted towards the mandatory three picks. While we've all been assuming that McKanezie and Spencer would force us to delist five players, we could get away with three if we absolutely had to.

Source

[jackaub 1,402]

As someone said above. If for no other reason than as insurance, PJ will stay. Gawn is a few years off being ready and Fitzpatrick likewise (although i believe they will groom him for full forward). Unless they draft a ready made gun ruckman i can't see them getting rid of PJ. He is the lukiest man on the list.

If you listen to the way Bailey talks of leadership within the team, i also believe Miller will get another year. He is in the leadership group for a reason. With a team that is still so young i believe like with PJ, they will keep him in case we have another horror run with injuries to forwards.

I believe they will promote Mckenzie and probably Spencer.

I believe Bruce will retire. Junior will go on another year.

McNamara is gone

Bell is gone

Maric may well then be rookie listed

And if they promote Spencer then the 5th might be Cheney (altho he deserves his spot more than some others) (Don't know if they can rookie list him too?).

I attempted to watch PJ all afternoon on Sunday

He seemed lost and unable to find the ball

Perhaps he never was a footballer and we all expected to much

What are OPs in regards to PJ on Suday and the rest of the season. Does he have a future remembering that Daniher refused to play Jamar for all those years and hence limited his development

[e25 5]

Here's something interesting I just discovered which I think many of us were unaware of. In the upcoming draft, Rookie elevations will be counted towards the mandatory three picks. While we've all been assuming that McKanezie and Spencer would force us to delist five players, we could get away with three if we absolutely had to.

Source

Uh... No, that's been common knowledge for some time now.

[Inner Demon 1]

The idea that we can just freely move players we're not sure about to the rookie list every year is very misguided. It worked with Meesen & Newton because no other clubs in the comp had any interest in them. If we make a practice of delisting contracted players each year and subjecting them to the uncertainty of the draft, particularly with the prospect of being moved to GC or GWS, we will lose the trust of our playing group.

Furthermore, I can't fathom where the idea that Cam Bruce would want to move Clubs to 'extend his career' comes from, considering he'd be a frontrunner to assume the captaincy next year should Junior retire. Fantasy stuff.

[jayceebee31 692]

The idea that we can just freely move players we're not sure about to the rookie list every year is very misguided. It worked with Meesen & Newton because no other clubs in the comp had any interest in them. If we make a practice of delisting contracted players each year and subjecting them to the uncertainty of the draft, particularly with the prospect of being moved to GC or GWS, we will lose the trust of our playing group.

Furthermore, I can't fathom where the idea that Cam Bruce would want to move Clubs to 'extend his career' comes from, considering he'd be a frontrunner to assume the captaincy next year should Junior retire. Fantasy stuff.

Front runner - your kidding. Several in front of him- if indeed he plays and doesn't retire on a reasonable high.

[Inner Demon 1]

Front runner - your kidding. Several in front of him- if indeed he plays and doesn't retire on a reasonable high.

The players have voted him the Vice Captain for the last 3 years.

Just because everyone here like Moloney & Grimes more doesn't mean a thing. If Cam Bruce wasn't highly thought of as a leader amongst the playing group who hold sole responsibility for nominating the captain, vice-captain & leadership group then he wouldn't be VC.

[Guest hangon007]

The idea that we can just freely move players we're not sure about to the rookie list every year is very misguided. It worked with Meesen & Newton because no other clubs in the comp had any interest in them. If we make a practice of delisting contracted players each year and subjecting them to the uncertainty of the draft, particularly with the prospect of being moved to GC or GWS, we will lose the trust of our playing group.

Furthermore, I can't fathom where the idea that Cam Bruce would want to move Clubs to 'extend his career' comes from, considering he'd be a frontrunner to assume the captaincy next year should Junior retire. Fantasy stuff.

Nice Post ... at least you understand the drafting & trading rules unlike many in this thread.

[beelzebub 22,716]

Bruce will play out with the Dees.. A no brainer surely. Whether that's one or two more has yet to be seen. Honestly who else would suffer his skilful disposals but seriously he IS Melbourne. There will be a shuffle in amongst the rookies / seniors with one up one down likely and rest of rookies to clear for newbies. Bell will go, Tmac must be iffy, newt is history as is meesen. Healy &hughes must be reaching expiry. A question must be on table about Stef ? With some you have to ask how long some fringe players get to show their wares ?

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

Uh... No, that's been common knowledge for some time now.

Perhaps, but there are quite a few posts in this thread talking about up to five delistings to make room for the three required draft picks plus rookie elevations. It may well be common knowledge to you and to others who follow these things closely, but I was unaware of it, and I see evidence of others also being ignorant. Hence the post.

[Guest hangon007]

With some you have to ask how long some fringe players get to show their wares ?

Probably as long as it takes until we think there is a better alternative!

All depends on which draft picks we allocate to keep or use.

Change for change sake might appease the masses - but not sure its clear it adds to our depth - not in this draft at least.

Edited July 13, 2010 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

newt is history as is meesen.

Re our Rookie listed players

Not so clear - both are 1st year rookies. Possible we could hold onto 1 or 2 of them assuming we think the Rookie alternatives are weaker.

Oh & I should add if the Gold Coast would actually want them.

However, the ball is in their court if they want to move on else where for more opportunities.

Might also heavily depend on what Junior or the FD decides to do on our Veterans list.

Edited July 13, 2010 by hangon007

[beelzebub 22,716]

Probably as long as it takes until we think there is a better alternative!

All depends on which draft picks we allocate to keep or use.

Change for change sake might appease the masses - but not sure its clear it adds to our depth - not in this draft at least.

Conversely do you hang on to medicrity for fear of change ? The draft this year is according to BP and co deeper than last. Sometimes you do need to mix it up .... Or stagnate

[Inner Demon 1]

Re our Rookie listed players

Not so clear - both are 1st year rookies. Possible we could hold onto 1 or 2 of them assuming we think the Rookie alternatives are weaker.

Oh & I should add if the Gold Coast would actually want them.

However, the ball is in their court if they want to move on else where for more opportunities.

Might also heavily depend on what Junior or the FD decides to do on our Veterans list.

Any footballer available who is physically capable of training is ahead of Meesen. He's shot to bits and nowhere near good enough a player to desperately cling to in the hopes he one day gets fit. Fortunately there wasn't much quality around Pick 38 in that draft so that trade isn't as big a clanger as it might appear.

Newton I just want gone.

I really can't see any of our rookie listed being kept on the rookie list. They'll either be promoted or delisted and we'll stock up on a fresh batch of projects.

[Guest hangon007]

Conversely do you hang on to medicrity for fear of change ? The draft this year is according to BP and co deeper than last. Sometimes you do need to mix it up .... Or stagnate

Draft might be deeper but you have 1 dominate force in this years draft ... the Gold Coast. Their strategy will heavily, heavily impact the rests.

In normal years I would agree with you ... However, this is not a normal year.

Edited July 13, 2010 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Any footballer available who is physically capable of training is ahead of Meesen. He's shot to bits and nowhere near good enough a player to desperately cling to in the hopes he one day gets fit. Fortunately there wasn't much quality around Pick 38 in that draft so that trade isn't as big a clanger as it might appear.

Newton I just want gone.

I really can't see any of our rookie listed being kept on the rookie list. They'll either be promoted or delisted and we'll stock up on a fresh batch of projects.

I dont dis-agree but like I said above, it all depends if the FD thinks the alternatives are better especially baring in mind where our rookie picks will be in this draft.

Dont forget Gold Coast have to fill their list first, then GWS get the first 5 picks in the rookie draft ... then the rest get their picks.

Its just not as clear cut as many are saying especially with the first year rookies.

Ultimately the best for us would be if we lost a few of the above mentioned as "un-contracted" players. However, the Gold Coast have to want to take them.

[beelzebub 22,716]

Draft might be deeper but you have 1 dominate force in this years draft ... the Gold Coast. Their strategy will heavily, heavily impact the rests.

In normal years I would agree with you ... However, this is not a normal year.

The thing is... they still need a balanced group as mauch as any team. They cant have all forwards or mids etc. They also need some eperienced leadership and so they cant have all kids in diapers. I would be very surprised if GC go to the draft with the picks they have presently in tact. There will be some trade. There will also be some talent at each of our picks. Keep in mind some of the best players came at picks you thoughth were throw aways and some early ones just dont develop. I do agree it will depend quite a bit on the strategy shown by GC but there are hundreds of talented players out there. who knows there might be a few more like Bail/Pons etc just waiting for a chance and theyd be much more ready to go.

I think this and next years drafts will be quite unlike many suppose

[Guest hangon007]

1st round

GWS gets picks 1-8

Gold Coast get pick 9

16th team this year gets pick 10

15th team gets pick 11 etc

Also you can't forget the National Draft ... the Gold Coast(and any other club for that matter) in theory can keep picking until they complete there list.

Hi Sorry I made a another typo error in my answer ... but now fixed up.

[hoopla 418]

there will not be more than 3 delisting this year, and that is because, the next draft is very sallow after the GC take the cream of the draft, so there will only be the min of player to be delisted, , newton, bell and meeson will be the only ones delisted, if we delist more then 3 there will be not much to replace them with, and that will leave our list short.

Sorry mate.... Newton and Meeson are rookies ..... so your bottom line is 2 de-listings short.

The basic 3 must surely be Bell, PJ and Miller ( who, as a Queenslander with a big body and leadership qualities, ought to be of interest to the Gold Coast)