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.

I hear what you are saying. But different drafts need different strategies. Please re-read my ranking comments above. Last year was rated a much deeper draft. Plus Hawthorn is a hell of a long way from GWS.

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.

I think I know what you are trying to say ... but I'm not going to stab a guess. I'm learning to make no assumptions around here. But think its very messy and hence why I said above. Its not to simple as our other learned friend was trying to make out.

"then his trade value is higher if he's contracted than if he's uncontracted" ... are you sure about this? Higher to who? You have to consider both sides of the trade ... other clubs are not stupid.

Sadly in forums tooooo many people only consider their clubs side of the deal.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

I hear what you are saying. But different drafts need different strategies. Please re-read my ranking comments above. Last year was rated a much deeper draft. Plus Hawthorn is a hell of a long way from GWS.

Where did I mention GWS?

I think I know what you are trying to say ... but I'm not going to stab a guess. I'm learning to make no assumptions around here. But think its very messy and hence why I said above. Its not to simple as our other learned friend was trying to make out.

"then his trade value is higher if he's contracted than if he's uncontracted" ... are you sure about this? Higher to who? You have to consider both sides of the trade ... other clubs are not stupid.

Sadly in forums tooooo many people only consider their clubs side of the deal.

A contracted player has more trade value to the club he's contracted to, the club that wants him has to pay more - if he's uncontracted he has the option of going into the draft therefore driving his trade value down.

A contracted player has more trade value to the club he's contracted to, the club that wants him has to pay more - if he's uncontracted he has the option of going into the draft therefore driving his trade value down.

Again you are only considering 1 side. Deals have to be win-win. You rarely get a win-lose deal ... ie opposition clubs pay over the odds for players playing in the VFL. Again you are trying to move him on at his lowest point.

Ps you can ignore the GWS comments they where not directed at you.

You just focus on the point ... hear what you are saying. But different drafts need different strategies. Please re-read my ranking comments above. Last year was rated a much deeper draft.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

Again you are only considering 1 side. Deals have to be win-win. You rarely get a win-lose deal ... ie opposition clubs pay over the odds for players playing in the VFL. Again you are trying to move him on at his lowest point.

Ps you can ignore the GWS comments they where not directed at you.

You just focus on the point ... hear what you are saying. But different drafts need different strategies. Please re-read my ranking comments above. Last year was rated a much deeper draft.

Yes deals have to be win-win. The strength of the draft may have an impact on the relative trade value of a player across the two drafts but it has nothing to do with the relative trade value of a player in that draft - if a club wants a contracted player they will have to pay more than if the player is uncontracted because they can't use getting him in the draft as a lever. See Luke Ball, if he was contracted, Collingwood would have needed to offer St.Kilda more than they did to get him, they could cap their offer because they knew they could get him in the draft if St.Kilda wouldn't deal. Darren Jolly was contracted so Collingwood had to offer a fair trade price.

Davey will be one of the few players with a clause in his contract saying he doesn't have to play at Casey. So if he's right, he's straight in.

Others I'm assuming have that clause are Greeney and Jamar. Possibly Frawley. I heard Bartram did and Moloney did. I know Brucey and Macca did.

Davey will be one of the few players with a clause in his contract saying he doesn't have to play at Casey. So if he's right, he's straight in.

Others I'm assuming have that clause are Greeney and Jamar. Possibly Frawley. I heard Bartram did and Moloney did. I know Brucey and Macca did.

You know for a fact that Bruce and Macca had that clause ?

I would be surprised if any club would put that clause into a contract.

Edit - Fevola certainly didnt have it in his contract at Carlton. Jolly at Collingwood etc etc.

I would be gob smacked if this was in a contract

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by nutbean

You know for a fact that Bruce and Macca had that clause ?

I would be surprised if any club would put that clause into a contract

Know for a fact. It's a fairly standard clause for 'older heads' along with additional tickets for family etc.

Davey will be one of the few players with a clause in his contract saying he doesn't have to play at Casey. So if he's right, he's straight in.

Others I'm assuming have that clause are Greeney and Jamar. Possibly Frawley. I heard Bartram did and Moloney did. I know Brucey and Macca did.

Nothing wrong with playing Davey at Casey after a long lay off.

His form in the seniors certainly does not warrant an automatic recall.

Having a run in the 2's can be very beneficial, and not necessarily a punishment.

Know for a fact. It's a fairly standard clause for 'older heads' along with additional tickets for family etc.

Additional tickets is neither here nor there.

I cant believe we would have players contracted that compromise the selection panel flexibility of the team by mandatory selection.

Dont doubt you - just gobsmack is all

Nothing wrong with playing Davey at Casey after a long lay off.

His form in the seniors certainly does not warrant an automatic recall.

Having a run in the 2's can be very beneficial, and not necessarily a punishment.

cant do it - its in his contract.....doesnt have to play at casey (wow)

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by nutbean

I know Brucey and Macca did.

When was this? Junior came back to the seniors THROUGH CASEY after his hamstring injury last year...

e: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/james-mcdonald-outguns-magpie-stars/story-e6frf9jf-1225896810132 - evidence for you in case you forgot.

If Davey is rushed straight back into the senior side at the expense of someone else that is playing well, just because of his contract... and Davey straight back into his poor form... i'll be furious

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by rhaz

Guys, before Davey was injured, his form was very poor, to the point where most were clamouring for his to be dropped. While he may have recovered from his injury, I don't think his addition to the team after last week would help us. I am also gobsmacked as to him not being able to be played at Casey on his return.

cant do it - its in his contract.....doesnt have to play at casey (wow)

Well, that could be why this club has been ordinary for decades....To soft on our established list.

The 2's are there for good reason.

No such thing in players contracts where they don't have to play for Casey, absolute rubbish.

- if a club wants a contracted player they will have to pay more than if the player is uncontracted because they can't use getting him in the draft as a lever.

I'm not going to labour the point with you ... but it does not actually hold true all the time.

Many times its better if the player is un-contracted. Price is normally dictated by demand. Having a contract can reduce the players demand because other clubs will refuse to put him in their salary cap. So we offer to pay part? This is where it starts to get messy ... hence my comments above.

See Luke Ball, if he was contracted, Collingwood would have needed to offer St.Kilda more than they did to get him, they could cap their offer because they knew they could get him in the draft if St.Kilda wouldn't deal.

St Kildas stupidity is something they will live to rue.

Darren Jolly was contracted so Collingwood had to offer a fair trade price.

Collingwood are one of the best in the business two completely different scenerios two different reasons to leave their original clubs, a completely different draft than we are discussing today.

However, I now understand why you are drawing the conclusions you are. Sometimes you have to look a little deeper. But dont take that the wrong way.

All drafts & trades need to be considered on a one-by-one basis. Different drafts different strategies.

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by hangon007

Well, that could be why this club has been ordinary for decades....To soft on our established list.

The 2's are there for good reason.

I can honestly say I have zero idea as I have never seen a contract - nor have I heard it mentioned before .

I am truly hope it is not true

We are in a position where all player have to earn a spot. And that is very healthy fpr the club. I do rate Davey but lets hope he is made to earn his spot back.

I can honestly say I have zero idea as I have never seen a contract - nor have I heard it mentioned before .

I am truly hope it is not true

i am in the same position as you nutbean....i certainly do not like the idea of a "Free Ride" to any player.

Would Cameron Bruce be getting a game in 20011 by round 14 if he was still on our list??

i have some doubts on that.

I'm not going to labour the point with you ... but it does not actually hold true all the time.

Many times its better if the player is un-contracted. Price is normally dictated by demand. Having a contract can reduce the players demand because other clubs will refuse to put him in their salary cap. So we offer to pay part? This is where it starts to get messy ... hence my comments above.

I do agree with this. Many times a contracted player has gone for way less as the club tries to extricate itself from its own mess.

Woey and TJ are two examples of contracted players that to get rid of them we had to compensate pies/lions well to take away our own mess. Less demand for them. The question on both of these players is not whether someone would take them - it was how much we had to pay to get rid of them. We won on both me thinks ( especially TJ - paid some of his salary but got Grimes in the process)

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by nutbean

i am in the same position as you nutbean....i certainly do not like the idea of a "Free Ride" to any player.

Would Cameron Bruce be getting a game in 20011 by round 14 if he was still on our list??

i have some doubts on that.

I think that competition for a place - ANY PLACE - is essential. Play well - do the team things - you get a gig. Dont and off to Casey you go. I dont care if you are 44 on the list or the captain.

Really compromises the team if you are exempt from Casey.

I think that competition for a place - ANY PLACE - is essential. Play well - do the team things - you get a gig. Dont and off to Casey you go. I dont care if you are 44 on the list or the captain.

Really compromises the team if you are exempt from Casey.

Correct. The 2's have their place....That is why i want a Melbourne VFL side in the future.

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....

Davey seriously struggles with the heavy tag he has been getting. I believe that the days of Davey getting such a heavy tag are limited due to the form of Scully, Treners, Silvia and Beamer. These players will be tagged before Davey. On any given day when Davey is getting smashed with a heavy tag, we should play him as a small forward, where he will become very dangerous next to Jarrah. I think the Davey is going to be a massive plus for us as we push for a finals birth.

Davey seriously struggles with the heavy tag he has been getting. I believe that the days of Davey getting such a heavy tag are limited due to the form of Scully, Treners, Silvia and Beamer. These players will be tagged before Davey. On any given day when Davey is getting smashed with a heavy tag, we should play him as a small forward, where he will become very dangerous next to Jarrah. I think the Davey is going to be a massive plus for us as we push for a finals birth.

Possibly...as long as he hunts the ball & is prepared to tackle.

I think that competition for a place - ANY PLACE - is essential. Play well - do the team things - you get a gig. Dont and off to Casey you go. I dont care if you are 44 on the list or the captain.

Really compromises the team if you are exempt from Casey.

Correct & what do you do with players coming back from a long lay off?

I do agree with this. Many times a contracted player has gone for way less as the club tries to extricate itself from its own mess.

Woey and TJ are two examples of contracted players that to get rid of them we had to compensate pies/lions well to take away our own mess. Less demand for them. The question on both of these players is not whether someone would take them - it was how much we had to pay to get rid of them. We won on both me thinks ( especially TJ - paid some of his salary but got Grimes in the process)

TJ was a brilliant trade for us playing senior football coming off a 40+ possession game ... we sold him for top dollar.

Plus it was a different draft and we had our eyes on Grimes. Again this is what I'm trying to say different strategies for different drafts.