With the likes of Blease, Tom Mcdonald and fringe players like Bate and Dunn playing reasonably well, and then Tapscott, Davey and Bail all coming back from injury I think that fter the Round 16 Bye and after the Port game the club will have some real dillemas on the selection table in the forthcoming weeks. I really hope that players such as nicholson and strauss can hold their spots as they have been above par while playing senior footy. Hopefully all things work out well and we get the best 22 out on the park from Round 18-21, the games that may make or break our season.

There will be and it will be great for our team.

Davey back through Casey and maybe even the sub.

Bail also as Mckenzie has his spot. Tappy or Blease should replace Bennell.

Bate will not be seen in a Melbourne jumper again.

Bate will not be seen in a Melbourne jumper again.

Sad to say it but it's the blatant truth. GWS' 2nd round pick wont go astray......

Players who are playing well, and doing the jobs asked of them should keep their spots.

This is when the "Flag Core" is sorted out.

Sad to say it but it's the blatant truth. GWS' 2nd round pick wont go astray......

That's If he wants to play In [censored] town. Id say a few teams would be keen to pick him up. Tiges and Dogs may be keen for a forward.

Sad to say it but it's the blatant truth. GWS' 2nd round pick wont go astray......

Last thing we need in this years draft is more draft picks ... I really doubt we are going to use all the draft picks we already have. Tactically IMHO its a waste.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by hangon007

It would if we plan on using 3 picks.

I'd much prefer to take have a choice at pick 30 than at pick 50.

Upgrading any pick for a player you plan on removing from the list anyway, is a good move.

Much like what we did with Cheney last year.

It would if we plan on using 3 picks.

I'd much prefer to take have a choice at pick 30 than at pick 50.

Upgrading any pick for a player you plan on removing from the list anyway, is a good move.

Much like what we did with Cheney last year.

Very simplistic way to consider trading player.

You have to factor in the strength of draft ... early consensus is this is a fairly weak draft. Plus I'm pretty sure Bate has a contract for next year ... so being a Croydon boy you would expect he would want to remain in Victoria. So I dont think its going to be so straight forward as you are making it.

Last years draft was a different kettle of fish. Different years require different strategies.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by hangon007

Last thing we need in this years draft is more draft picks ... I really doubt we are going to use all the draft picks we already have. Tactically IMHO its a waste.

It's unlikely to trade for a star , you draft 'em .

Very simplistic way to consider trading player.

You have to factor in the strength of draft ... early consensus is this is a fairly weak draft. Plus I'm pretty sure Bate has a contract for next year ... so being a Croydon boy you would expect he would want to remain in Victoria. So I dont think its going to be so straight forward as you are making it.

Last years draft was a different kettle of fish. Different years require different strategies.

You have a strange grasp of these matters.

No matter how strong or weak a draft is, if you plan to move a player on (even if it's for nothing), upgrading a pick is of benefit.

To say a draft is "weak" lacks detail. Is there little depth in the draft? Are the top 5 very good, then the following 30 much of a muchness?

"Weak" (or "strong") is far too simplistic to go on.

Minimum number of changes is 3.

I understand this includes upgrades of rookies, but I also make the assumption the rookie list will be abolished, meaning 3 draft picks still need to be used for those changes, regardless of how weak the draft is (as rookie upgrades will happen automatically and as a result won't count).

Bate may have a contract for next year, but I'm pretty sure a grown man in the AFL would choose to play at any team where he has a fair chance to play in the seniors as opposed to a team in his home state where he likely won't get out of the VFL.

Your view is actually more simplistic, but you don't realise it.

Oops.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by Artie Bucco

You have a strange grasp of these matters.

No matter how strong or weak a draft is, if you plan to move a player on (even if it's for nothing), upgrading a pick is of benefit.

This is where your whole argument falls over. One minute you want to moving him on for "nothing" ... next second you are talking about "upgrading a pick." Make your mind up.

If players are worth "nothing" you will get "nothing." To get good you must give up good.

Other clubs are not stupid. Nearly all clubs have grading orders ...if the draft pick is weaker than the player you are giving up ... you would be trading for trade sake. You would be giving up a player you have put 5-6 years into for a player that would be playing at Casey anyway.

Just because its new does not mean its better. Not in this draft at least.

IMHO if I was at an opposition club I would probably offer a player, for player swap on a needs basis & probably someone playing at my VFL affiliate side. However, I'm not sure that help us .... hence my comment I'm not sure its going to be that simple with Bate having a contract.

So its in fact its you that that has the strange, strange grasp of the matter. In fact a complete naivety but not unlike many who contribute to forums. Who just cant understand the basics of trading.

Your view is actually more simplistic, but you don't realise it.

Oops.

Hehehe ... No problems.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by hangon007

we will probably get 5 injuries before the bye anyhow ;o(

hopefully not and would be good to see bail back in the seniors and Davey come through the VFL

we will probably get 5 injuries before the bye anyhow ;o(

This is actually quite a solid justification for keeping a player who is contracted. Plus you would be "moving him on at his lowest point" ... I hope we strongly consider telling him to get his bum up his head down back himself to make it back into our side & stay there. If thats not possible ... in this case I'm not really sure how much difference a year makes ... but we might have little choice.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by hangon007

What a great position we will be in when our players have got over their injuries. It will place tremendous pressur on all players to play there best to be a part of a finals campaign.

What a great position we will be in when our players have got over their injuries. It will place tremendous pressur on all players to play there best to be a part of a finals campaign.

Exactly. Nice point. If you trade your "depth" away what is the alternative ... a new 18YO player that may or may not make it. Our list has good depth now we just need to fill/improve our weakness. Back our boys at Casey to put pressure on our seniors to get a game. What a fantastic position to be in.

Go Dees

Davey should be a walk up start - a senior player who's finally got his body right. Damaging kick off half back, will allow the press to be further instigated and developed.

A must for me....

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by jumbo returns

I'd like to Blease play this week.

Time has long passed for Morton to be given his marching orders - go to Casey for a month, toughen up or time is up!!

I am getting sick of watching his insipid efforts.

Average 0.8 tackles per game - the lowest at our club from one who is now a middle level of seniority and a top draft pick, who plays a tagging and defensive role -pffff!

This is where your whole argument falls over. One minute you want to moving him on for "nothing" ... next second you are talking about "upgrading a pick." Make your mind up.

If players are worth "nothing" you will get "nothing." To get good you must give up good.

Other clubs are not stupid. Nearly all clubs have grading orders ...if the draft pick is weaker than the player you are giving up ... you would be trading for trade sake. You would be giving up a player you have put 5-6 years into for a player that would be playing at Casey anyway.

Just because its new does not mean its better. Not in this draft at least.

IMHO if I was at an opposition club I would probably offer a player, for player swap on a needs basis & probably someone playing at my VFL affiliate side. However, I'm not sure that help us .... hence my comment I'm not sure its going to be that simple with Bate having a contract.

So its in fact its you that that has the strange, strange grasp of the matter. In fact a complete naivety but not unlike many who contribute to forums. Who just cant understand the basics of trading.

Hehehe ... No problems.

You have absolutely no idea.

I'll be brief, because you're a waste of my time.

- I don't get how you can be stupid enough not to understand the distinction between us letting a player go in return for nothing, and a player's value being nothing. Completely different things.

- upgrading a pick is of marginal benefit, but some benefit is better then no benefit. We're not talking about "giving up something good to get something good". We're talking about "giving up something someone else may want but we don't, and ensuring they get it directly, in return for a small benefit".

- "new does not mean better", but youth with untapped potential has a possible high ceiling, whereas a player you have already put 6 years into is a measured quantity. If that same player is not getting a game ahead of rookies and is a likely candidate to be delisted at year's end, he is expendable for the minor benefit of moving up a few places in the draft.

- more than anything, GWS should enable us to move guys like Bate and Dunn, as they need mature bodied players while their many kid's grow. Especially talls, who take longer.

Danny Stanley couldn't get a game at AFL level, but is playing consistently at GC. Bate and Dunn have a hell of a lot more AFL experience and are still relatively young and competitive at times. Perfect candidates.

I'm not going to respond to your posts on these matters anymore - you've proven across many threads that you have a very poor grasp of what's really going on.

Good luck.

yeah morton and bennell out this weak tapscott and blease in for me

What a great position to be in.

IMO the likes of Davey should earn their spot.

He was not in good form before the injury

I for one would want to see a good game at Casey before he was included.

If the current injury and form position continues then all the injured players should come back through Casey.

They will have been out for some time by mid July

You have absolutely no idea.

I'll be brief, because you're a waste of my time.

- I don't get how you can be stupid enough not to understand the distinction between us letting a player go in return for nothing, and a player's value being nothing. Completely different things.

- upgrading a pick is of marginal benefit, but some benefit is better then no benefit. We're not talking about "giving up something good to get something good". We're talking about "giving up something someone else may want but we don't, and ensuring they get it directly, in return for a small benefit".

- "new does not mean better", but youth with untapped potential has a possible high ceiling, whereas a player you have already put 6 years into is a measured quantity. If that same player is not getting a game ahead of rookies and is a likely candidate to be delisted at year's end, he is expendable for the minor benefit of moving up a few places in the draft.

- more than anything, GWS should enable us to move guys like Bate and Dunn, as they need mature bodied players while their many kid's grow. Especially talls, who take longer.

Danny Stanley couldn't get a game at AFL level, but is playing consistently at GC. Bate and Dunn have a hell of a lot more AFL experience and are still relatively young and competitive at times. Perfect candidates.

I'm not going to respond to your posts on these matters anymore - you've proven across many threads that you have a very poor grasp of what's really going on.

Good luck.

Hahaha ... you just have no idea what you are talking about. Just remind me what GC17 paid for Stanley again? End of story.

You lose again. I'm not going to respond to your posts on these matters anymore - you've proven across many threads that you have a very poor grasp of what's really going on.

But you are not alone around many forums ... sadly.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

Hahaha ... you just have no idea what you are talking about. Just remind me what GC17 paid for Stanley again? End of story.

You lose again. I'm not going to respond to your posts on these matters anymore - you've proven across many threads that you have a very poor grasp of what's really going on.

But you are not alone around many forums ... sadly.

Oh please excuse all us fools with a different opinion to yours H

It must be hard to have to put with so many with inferior intellect to your own.

Oh please excuse all us fools with a different opinion to yours H

It must be hard to have to put with so many with inferior intellect to your own.

I was waiting for you to come along and bang the pots. Play the ball not the man.

I think the Cheney trade for a pick upgrade from 66 to 52 was a win-win. MFC traded a player that was surplus to needs in a position in which we have a lot of depth and young players coming through, Cheney got an opportunity he warrants, Hawthorn filled a need with Campbell Brown leaving and MFC got a pick upgrade that secured a very promising talent in Tom McDonald who could easily have been snapped up in the 14 picks we advanced by.

How many medium forwards do we need? We've got Jurrah, Green, Sylvia, Howe, Petterd, Dunn, Bate.

If a player wants to leave your club for more opportunities elsewhere and there's a club or clubs interested, then his trade value is higher if he's contracted than if he's uncontracted. If he's uncontracted he has the option of going into the draft therefore diminishing his value, if he's contracted there's the option of paying part of his contract to receive a higher pick.