Newton and Meesen are on the rookie list and deleting them there does create spots on the main list.

If you are going to elevate 2 rookies (Jordie and Spencer) and you want to take 4 players off the list to allow you to at least have the first 2 picks in the draft.

Bell, Miller, Tmac(?), PJ(?)

Obviously we might be able to trade for low picks we dont want but I am not holding out for that one.

I am not sure elevating Green to replace JMac on the vet list creates an actual spot on your main list. It only assists in bringing on additions to the rookie list.

Hughes is gone. He cant be re rookied as MFC has special dispensation from the AFL to rookie him the last time.

I am not sure elevating Green to replace JMac on the vet list creates an actual spot on your main list. It only assists in bringing on additions to the rookie list.

It does. It's only the situation where Junior retires and nobody moves in to the veteran spot that means no spot is created. Basically if Junior goes and Green takes his spot, the spot Green had on the senior list becomes vacant.

It does. It's only the situation where Junior retires and nobody moves in to the veteran spot that means no spot is created. Basically if Junior goes and Green takes his spot, the spot Green had on the senior list becomes vacant.

Thanks for the confirm Nasher.

I know the football departments main aim was to use the rookie list to add players to the main list as the draft depth is poor.

I spoke to Jake Spenser the other day at a function and he has already been told he will be promoted to the main list as has mckenzie which was the strategy of the FD from last year. I the list is pretty settled and there will be a max of 2 draft picks in the national draft....

So we need to find 3 or 4 spots on the main list.

Bell is the only given (Jmac now he has announced retirement), I think all others have some merit value and it depends how the club goes....

Now that Junior's retired.

RETIRED:

McDonald

PROMOTE TO VETRANS LIST:

Green

PROMOTE FROM ROOKIE LIST:

McKenzie

DELIST:

Bell

Miller

TRADE:

Maric to Richmond maybe throw in pick 51 and we could get pick 28 in return for the talented junior.* (Trade picks based off likely ladder position finish.)

This gives three draft picks, the only other list managment issue will be the Johnson v Spencer issue. If MFC decide to give Johnson a 1 year deal then I say Spencer goes, if they want to promote Spencer then Johnson will be the man who needs to make way. Personally I'd keep Johnson.

*For those of you who doubt Richmond would trade pick 28 for someone like Maric who hasn't proven himself it has been done before. In the early 2000's St Kilda traded draft pick no 8 to Port Adelaide for Barry Brooks who was a promising junior ruckman. The trade didn't work out that well for the Saints but it has been done.

My preference for Warnock is to keep him but I reckon we could squeeze a ruckman out of the Blues (Hampson or Jacobs) for him. They both appear to have potential but I acknoweldge it's still a gamble. The good part is with Warnock being 26 he is unlikely to get any better than he already is.

Dangling him in front of North in an effort to land David Hale could also bear some fruit.

This gives three draft picks, the only other list managment issue will be the Johnson v Spencer issue. If MFC decide to give Johnson a 1 year deal then I say Spencer goes, if they want to promote Spencer then Johnson will be the man who needs to make way. Personally I'd keep Johnson.

*For those of you who doubt Richmond would trade pick 28 for someone like Maric who hasn't proven himself it has been done before. In the early 2000's St Kilda traded draft pick no 8 to Port Adelaide for Barry Brooks who was a promising junior ruckman. The trade didn't work out that well for the Saints but it has been done.

Have you considered that if PJ gets one year then MFC may still elevate Spencer? If Wolfmother is correct and I think Spencer will be elevated then it may not be good for PJ.

I dont think your example of StKilda's bad deal provides any validation that Richmond would do such a deal. One bad deal does beget another. And I not sure pick 51 provides any bargaining chip whatsover.

Have you considered that if PJ gets one year then MFC may still elevate Spencer? If Wolfmother is correct and I think Spencer will be elevated then it may not be good for PJ.

I dont think your example of StKilda's bad deal provides any validation that Richmond would do such a deal. One bad deal does beget another. And I not sure pick 51 provides any bargaining chip whatsover.

Fair point you make on both RR. I would of thought that that if Spencer is elevated and PJ is still kept on the list we may be a bit top heavy when we have

Jamar

Johnson

Gawn

Fitzpatrick

Spencer &

Martin (has rucked occasionaly)

All on our seniour list?

My preference for Warnock is to keep him but I reckon we could squeeze a ruckman out of the Blues (Hampson or Jacobs) for him. They both appear to have potential but I acknoweldge it's still a gamble. The good part is with Warnock being 26 he is unlikely to get any better than he already is.

Dangling him in front of North in an effort to land David Hale could also bear some fruit.

I must say I'm in the conservative camp where I like having Warnock ther as insurance for our already impressive backline. Then again it may become better for the development of McNamara & Martin if they're the first ones called upon if any of our tall defenders are injured rather then Warnock getting first crack?

Fair point you make on both RR. I would of thought that that if Spencer is elevated and PJ is still kept on the list we may be a bit top heavy when we have

Jamar

Johnson

Gawn

Fitzpatrick

Spencer &

Martin (has rucked occasionaly)

All on our seniour list?

I think you can get away with six rucks in the short term. Five in the longer term. And MFC always seemes to have a ruckman on the LTI list. I hope no fills Meesen's shoes next year!

Fair point you make on both RR. I would of thought that that if Spencer is elevated and PJ is still kept on the list we may be a bit top heavy when we have

Jamar

Johnson

Gawn

Fitzpatrick

Spencer &

Martin (has rucked occasionaly)

All on our seniour list?

Martin as you note is not really a ruckman and Fitzpatrick is being groomed as a forward. That leaves Jamar , Gawn and Spencer who will need time and Johnson who is not a class ruckman. Given that scenario PJ will probably be kept for at least another season to allow Gawn and Spencer time to develop.

According to the MFC site Newton is actually listed on the seniors list not the rookie list, make of this what you will. Delisting him may indeed only make a spot on the rookies.. but thats been a goldmine for us, so not to be dismissed out of hand either way.

According to the MFC site Newton is actually listed on the seniors list not the rookie list, make of this what you will. Delisting him may indeed only make a spot on the rookies.. but thats been a goldmine for us, so not to be dismissed out of hand either way.

Newton was elevated due to injuries on the senior list or something to that effect. Ditto Spencer?

Newton was elevated due to injuries on the senior list or something to that effect. Ditto Spencer?

Jake still on the rookies list.

Someone might care toclarify who gets nudged and where.

I would expect Jake and Jordie to be elevated. Both likely to be offered 2 years I would think. If Jordie continues to excel they'll probably revisit his situation next year.

Juice to go , other ( out of ) contracted rookies to go.

We might utilsie the delist-rerookie ploy for any not quite making the grade (as yet ) but worth keeping on side , so to speak.

Newton was elevated due to injuries on the senior list or something to that effect. Ditto Spencer?

Website maintainer too slack to move Juice from Senior list to Rookies. Has been on there all year.

According to the MFC site Newton is actually listed on the seniors list not the rookie list, make of this what you will. Delisting him may indeed only make a spot on the rookies.. but thats been a goldmine for us, so not to be dismissed out of hand either way.

For some reason they haven't updated that all year.

My preference for Warnock is to keep him but I reckon we could squeeze a ruckman out of the Blues (Hampson or Jacobs) for him. They both appear to have potential but I acknoweldge it's still a gamble. The good part is with Warnock being 26 he is unlikely to get any better than he already is.

Yep, these are the sort of trade negotiations I'm looking for this year.

As well if we could get an early pick from a good player we consider not in our plans, I'd hope we go for it.

Newton started the year listed as Rookie...something changed whether error ort otherwise.

Its only really semantics in repsect to outcomes though

According to the MFC site Newton is actually listed on the seniors list not the rookie list, make of this what you will. Delisting him may indeed only make a spot on the rookies.. but thats been a goldmine for us, so not to be dismissed out of hand either way.

Yeah, he is to. That would make it easier to give him a 1Yr extension then, I believe.

I think Gold Coast gets the first 5 or 6 rookie picks this year. It could be thin there, unless there is some hidden away.

If this was his last year his farewell game would be round 22 at the G,do you really think a player of Junior's calibre/class wouldn't be farewelled by Melbourne on the G for all of us to say thanks & goodbye.

You've got to be kidding me!!!

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

I'm really sorry James.

Why has no one mentioned TRADING BARTRAM?????????

IMO we have many same type players to cover (or players that could develop into)... James Strauss is being developed as a similar type in the VFL, difference is he kicks the ball very well.

Before people have a go, lets look at his disposal and try and remember the last time you were not nervous when he had the ball.

I will miss his heart, and never give up attitude, but we need a touch of class coming out of the backline.

Bartram is our best option for covering pacy small forwards because he is quick and has good acceleration. Bennell is the other option we need to develop but that gives us only 2 options. Certainly Bartram's dispsosal may cause some nerves but it'd cause me more nerves if we matched up a Gartlett or a Yarran or a Rioli with someone too slow to keep up with them..I'd be on edge every time the ball went near them.

Am I the only person here who thinks Strauss is just as insecure for 2011 as McNamara is?

Both are young. Both have had injuries at some stage. Both have shown a bit in their 2/3 games at AFL level. Both have had some good VFL games but haven't really dominated.

Are people's judgements clouded by their draft positions (Pick 19 vs Pick 60-something)?

PS: I'm not having a go at Strauss, just trying to defend TMac somewhat.

Strauss was recruited for a reason and the footy department is not going to change their mind after 2 injury interrupted years. He is an elite kick who can run the lines well and is earmarked in particular for kicking in duties. Yes he has areas of his game he needs to work on but so do most second year players as they progress through his apprenticeship. So in short I think he will stay on the list.

TMac is a player I like but he may look elsewhere if he is promised regular senior footy elsewhere. Good medium defender who can pinch hit in a key defensive role. Good judge of when to run off and when to man up, runs the lines well and can drift forward and kick a goal. But does he have too many players in front of him at the Dees?

Jones to take his surfing equipment to the gold coast

I hope jones doesnt got to the GC, he is a gun and is only getting better...

Anyone's opinion changed about delistings with this week's team in mind...?

Was surprised that MFC said Newton would have been in earlier if not for injury... Makes sense would def be a better option than PJ...

Yep, these are the sort of trade negotiations I'm looking for this year.

As well if we could get an early pick from a good player we consider not in our plans, I'd hope we go for it.

David Hale is not a good option just more dead wood.