Tim Harrington just arrived........

Just arrived..?

Can't be too concerned about getting any deals over the line today.

I don't think we'll be involved in anything.

Still hope Fetta goes, but if he does, it'll be a trade they can agree on in 2 mins.

Cheney for a pick we won't use, no haggling needed.

Edited October 11, 201014 yr by E25

A 26yo who has played 51 games including 13 this year and is currently playing VFL for a 27yo who has played 72 games including 14 this year and is currently playing VFL.

Interesting to see Sam Jacobs was traded to Adelaide for pick 33 and 67.

White and Jacobs will become very similar players under the new interchange system, would be interesting to see who people rate the most. I don't think there's a great deal between the 2, yet some out there still laugh at my trade offer to Sydney.

His spot was taken by Rivers and not Frawley.

Warnock is an honest defender whose best footy is capable. It is not up there with the best of any FB in the AFL.

I should have said Warnock can match it with the best forwards in the league, which is quite an accurate summary.

Would you say Rivers took Warnock's place? I'm not sure I'd agree with that, probably more Garland than Rivers.

Regardless, I think Melbourne would be losing out quite a lot if we traded him for Setanta.

rumour has it that Kerr and or Cloke may join s the bluebaggers...all rumours of course lol

l

There's an article out there I just read (can't find the URL for some reason) that also says Tarrant to Collingwood is done.

The whispers are that Carlton is going to land a 'big fish', and there are separate whispers saying Kerr is on the move. Putting two and two together...

Seems so. Wonder if Melb & Cheney are involved within the four club deal re: Tarrant to Pies.

Best looney rumour... Hawkins to Dees for #12....ahh some vivid imaginations out there

"The Dees contingent are definitely here in full strength" ... Windley of of the live blog. So...maybe we're still tryin to concoct something

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/104018/default.aspx

bye bye cheney

Interesting to see Sam Jacobs was traded to Adelaide for pick 33 and 67.

White and Jacobs will become very similar players under the new interchange system, would be interesting to see who people rate the most. I don't think there's a great deal between the 2, yet some out there still laugh at my trade offer to Sydney.

Yeah exactly the same - except Jacobs wass out of contract and requested a trade to the Crows and White was just re-signed to Sydney and doesn't appear to be wanting to go anywhere - apart from that exactly the same!

Acccording to Spyandsource on Twitter we'll use the Cheney pick to get Josh Hill..?!

Acccording to Spyandsource on Twitter we'll use the Cheney pick to get Josh Hill..?!

Yep Josh Hill last minute play is gathering some legs

Besides spyandsource.. other source?

Yeah exactly the same - except Jacobs wass out of contract and requested a trade to the Crows and White was just re-signed to Sydney and doesn't appear to be wanting to go anywhere - apart from that exactly the same!

Surely our ability to construct attractive contracts would've allowed us to at least made White open to a chat? Plus I think in the next 2 years we will be passing Sydney.

I was right about the Mumford deal last year being one that got away. I have a feeling this could be a similar situation. I just feel that we're not agressive enough. There is a fine line between agressive and stupidity, but again, I can only have faith in our FD. They believe they are able to draft a premiership core, good on them for sticking to it.

According to HUN, the dogs have taken Josh Hill off the table.

I should have said Warnock can match it with the best forwards in the league, which is quite an accurate summary.

Try again.

From the top 12 AFL goalkickers in 2010, he matches up reasonably with only few of them. He can take the 2nd string gorillas

and be 2nd go at Hall, Roughy and Podsiadly.

Would you say Rivers took Warnock's place? I'm not sure I'd agree with that, probably more Garland than Rivers.

Yes. Rivers and Warnock played few games together in the same 22. Garland and Frawley were in most of the year. Garland plays tall and small. Once saw Garland take Jeff Farmer to the cleaners a couple of years ago. Could not expect that of Warnock.

Surely our ability to construct attractive contracts would've allowed us to at least made White open to a chat? Plus I think in the next 2 years we will be passing Sydney.

If he has signed a contract then Sydney would have to want to trade him and White would have to want to go. Neither scenario seems apparent.

I was right about the Mumford deal last year being one that got away. I have a feeling this could be a similar situation. I just feel that we're not agressive enough. There is a fine line between agressive and stupidity, but again, I can only have faith in our FD. They believe they are able to draft a premiership core, good on them for sticking to it.

We had the ruck position covered with Jamar. Mumford would have been an expensive 2nd fiddle. And besides Mumford wanted to be a first ruck and Sydney had the need.

And as for MFC not being aggressive enough... Brock McLean for pick 11 !!!!

In:

2005 - Byron Pickett and picks #54 Port Adelaide Melbourne Draft Picks #28, #44

Out:

2009 - Brock McLean Carlton for pick 11 (Gysberts)

Thanks RR for bringing this to our attention-I forgot about Byron-How could I -sorry all.And I forgot also re John Meeson..

Edited October 11, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

Try again.

From the top 12 AFL goalkickers in 2010, he matches up reasonably with only few of them. He can take the 2nd string gorillas

and be 2nd go at Hall, Roughy and Podsiadly.

Yes. Rivers and Warnock played few games together in the same 22. Garland and Frawley were in most of the year. Garland plays tall and small. Once saw Garland take Jeff Farmer to the cleaners a couple of years ago. Could not expect that of Warnock.

So, in your expert opinion, do you think a straight swap of Warnock for Setanta would have been a win-win for both clubs?

Me - I don't, I think Warnock's value is more than Setanta's. He would add more to a backline than Setanta would to a forward line.

So, in your expert opinion, do you think a straight swap of Warnock for Setanta would have been a win-win for both clubs?

Me - I don't, I think Warnock's value is more than Setanta's. He would add more to a backline than Setanta would to a forward line.

No fan of Setanta's game but there is no need to overstate Warnock's game. I am a fan of Warnocks but I know his limitations.

If he has signed a contract then Sydney would have to want to trade him and White would have to want to go. Neither scenario seems apparent.

We had the ruck position covered with Jamar. Mumford would have been an expensive 2nd fiddle. And besides Mumford wanted to be a first ruck and Sydney had the need.

And as for MFC not being aggressive enough... Brock McLean for pick 11 !!!!

Gee RR, let's pick the sh!t out of everything I post. Hope you have all day becasue I will keep stating my case.

Mumford prior to the start of this season would have been happy to play 2nd ruck. That's because he was playing 3rd ruck at Geelong (behind Ottens and Blake). Mumford wasn't in good enough form to warrant a first ruck spot, but as we saw, he improved significantly throughout the year. Going in to season 2010, Jamar hadn't consistently shown the form he did this year, mostly because of injury, so surely having Mumford as a 2nd ruck would have allowed Jamar to play more forward, or be there in case Russian broke down (which history shows could have been possible). Now, that's all pre-the form of these 2 guys during 2010.

Now that we can sit and see how they both performed over the year, and with the new interchange rules next year, it could have meant that Jamar could have become that Full Forward that we were looking for in Hale, and imagine having a player like Jamar as a 2nd ruck. It would also mean that Mumford would be our number 1 ruck going in to 2011. this can be seen as a ludicrous comment, considering Jamar was AA, but he wouldn't have been able to play more forward throughout this year.

Do you really think the Swans traded for Mumford beleiving that at the start of 2010, he would have been their number 1 ruck? Would he come straight in over Seasby and Pyke? In hindsight, yes he would, but at the start of 2010, I'm sure they would have been hoping that either Pyke or Seaby was their number 1 - turned out a bonus that Mumford took that role.

The Brock Mclean situation clearly defines my opinion about that fine line between agressive and stupidity. Brock wanted to go to Carlton, they wanted him BAD, and we weren't going to stop him but weren't going to give him away for nothing. I don't the MFC would've belived they would gety pick 11 for him. I would have said that was agressive of Carlton, not Melbourne. As it turned out with the year Mclean had and who we got for him, it could prove to be a stupid decision on their behalf.

We were reasonably agressive toward Hale, but are still amateurs in that department because we missed him. Good agressive Clubs wouldn't have let that player consider any other options.

Edited October 11, 201014 yr by billy2803

No fan of Setanta's game but there is no need to overstate Warnock's game. I am a fan of Warnocks but I know his limitations.

I ask again, is a straight swap of Warnock for Setanta a win-win for both Clubs? Simple yes or no!

Edited October 11, 201014 yr by billy2803

With Hale and Cheney now in the brown and Gold, Box Hill should be an awesome proposition in 2011.

Gee RR, let's pick the sh!t out of everything I post. Hope you have all day becasue I will keep stating my case.

Just putting you straight Billy! B)

Do you really think the Swans traded for Mumford beleiving that at the start of 2010, he would have been their number 1 ruck? Would he come straight in over Seasby and Pyke? In hindsight, yes he would, but at the start of 2010, I'm sure they would have been hoping that either Pyke or Seaby was their number 1 - turned out a bonus that Mumford took that role.

Yes. After losing Jolly, they needed a key ruckman. Pyke was raw, Seaby was questionable and a cheap pick up. Mumford came with good promise at Geelong who had Ottens and Blake already on their books. At 23, with 20 plus games he was definitely in the zone. The Swans were serious too. They offered him a $1 mil 4 years contract and offered him the role Jolly had. You dont do that with speculation.

The Brock Mclean situation clearly defines my opinion about that fine line between agressive and stupidity. Brock wanted to go to Carlton, they wanted him BAD, and we weren't going to stop him but weren't going to give him away for nothing. I don't the MFC would've belived they would gety pick 11 for him. I would have said that was agressive of Carlton, not Melbourne. As it turned out with the year Mclean had and who we got for him, it could prove to be a stupid decision on their behalf.

MFC were quick to move on their part and could have delayed until when Luke Ball played his cards in the trade week which would have muddied things. MFC moved decisively and quickly and they should be recognised for that. And yes I think Carlton made a rash judgement and it will cost them.

We were reasonably agressive toward Hale, but are still amateurs in that department because we missed him. Good agressive Clubs wouldn't have let that player consider any other options.

Good aggressive clubs know not to pay over the odds. MFC didn't. We identified an interest, determined a value and stuck to our guns. Hardly amateurs at all.

Just putting you straight Billy! B)

Yes. After losing Jolly, they needed a key ruckman. Pyke was raw, Seaby was questionable and a cheap pick up. Mumford came with good promise at Geelong who had Ottens and Blake already on their books. At 23, with 20 plus games he was definitely in the zone. The Swans were serious too. They offered him a $1 mil 4 years contract and offered him the role Jolly had. You dont do that with speculation.

MFC were quick to move on their part and could have delayed until when Luke Ball played his cards in the trade week which would have muddied things. MFC moved decisively and quickly and they should be recognised for that. And yes I think Carlton made a rash judgement and it will cost them.

Good aggressive clubs know not to pay over the odds. MFC didn't. We identified an interest, determined a value and stuck to our guns. Hardly amateurs at all.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you have some valid points, but some of your other points aren't valid, but we could go on forever arguing about them! That's the joys of opinions, but I don't think it's a case of you setting me straight (who's to say you are 100% correct??!!). Cheers.