You do realise we HAVE to lose 3 players off our list - it's an AFL rule.

Which 3 would you lose and what for?

Yip. I do. This is the year to trade like for like. This is not a "building" draft in anyway shape or form .... how do we know this. Simple actions speak louder than words ... the volume of speculation this year is all ready getting out of control with the names mentioned ... and its only going to increase as the names get bigger & bigger.

I can tell you for a fact its not all manager driven ... the clubs are out there "early" this year for a reason.

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by hangon007

Yip. I do. This is the year to trade like for like. This is not a "building" draft in anyway shape or form .... how do we know this. Simple actions speak louder than words ... the volume of speculation this year is all ready getting out of control with the names mentioned ... and its only going to increase as the names get bigger & bigger.

I can tell you for a fact its not all manager driven ... the clubs are out there "early" this year for a reason.

So which 3 would you lose ?

Yip. I do. This is the year to trade like for like.

With 3 players you can't trade "like for like" - you actually have to make 3 vacancies on your list, that means either:

1. delist for nothing

2. trade for draft picks

3. trade for draft pick upgrades

It's a simple question - which 3 players are you going to lose and which of the 3 options above are you going to lose them for?

So which 3 would you lose ?

Sadly, its a like for like year. I'm not in the habit of belittling our players with senseless one way trades.

Fringe player + pick does not = gun. Its just childish. Fringe player + low pick does not = high pick, it will only equal marginal upgrade, but why bother in THIS draft?

Clubs are already positioning themselves for next year. Like it or lump it thats the way it is. But I've been trying to get that point thru for ages.

If you want good you are going to have to give up good. If you trade fringe expect fringe in return.

You have to pick three kids in the draftHO, that is what they are saying.

That means, with trading, you still have to have three less players at the draft than you do right now.

Fringe player + pick does not = gun. Its just childish. Fringe player + low pick does not = high pick, it will only equal marginal upgrade, but why bother in THIS draft?

Don't get this, why would you not consider getting a better draft pick, particularly in a weak draft.

You have to pick three kids in the draftHO, that is what they are saying.

That means, with trading, you still have to have three less players at the draft than you do right now.

You dont have too .... player rotations do count as a list change, upgrades do count as a list change.

You dont have too .... player rotations do count as a list change, upgrades do count as a list change.

You have to go to the draft and complete 3 selections. I will have to check the rookie upgrades but I believe they are not counted in the three.

Trades don't count.

You dont have too .... player rotations do count as a list change, upgrades do count as a list change.

You have to make 3 list vacancies even if you fill them with rookie upgrades.

You have to lose a player to upgrade a rookie

As I said, there is only 3 ways to make list vacancies

1. delist for nothing

2. trade for draft picks (includes lose a player to GWS for compensation picks)

3. trade for draft pick upgrades

How hard is it to understand? A minuimum of 3 senior list players have to be off our list.

It's a simple question - which 3 players are you going to lose and which of the 3 options above are you going to lose them for?

Don't get this, why would you not consider getting a better draft pick, particularly in a weak draft.

Ok ... theory suggest. That 1st round picks in THIS draft are going to be over valued ... because thats were the talent starts to run dry/thin.

2nd round pick onwards are of little value, so clubs may start to move. But why do it in this draft? Might be better to hold onto fringe, unless you can trade on comparable needs basis, for the much better draft next year. Sure you might only get a 4th rounder but hey ... its a much better player.

People around here just cant get the concept all drafts vary in depth. Its just too hard for them to understand. They might be smart but they just dont seem to demonstrate the ability to gauge draft depth (I have my theories on this but I will keep them to myself) So they blurt out all this illogical rubbish, based on the belief that a 2-3-4-5 rounder is the same in all years. Its not.

Minor upgrade might well happen to move a player on, but in reality in this draft you probably wont affect you much in the quality of player.

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by hangon007

People around here just cant get the concept all drafts vary in depth. Its just too hard for them to understand.

You don't get the concept that we HAVE to lose 3 players for picks or nothing.

People around here just cant get the concept all drafts vary in depth. Its just too hard for them to understand. They might be smart but they just dont seem to demonstrate the ability to gauge draft depth (I have my theories on this but I will keep them to myself) So they blurt out all this illogical rubbish, based on the belief that a 2-3-4-5 rounder is the same in all years. Its not.

Minor upgrade might well happen to move a player on, but in reality in this draft you probably wont affect you much in the quality of player.

Thanks for the insight

You have to make 3 list vacancies even if you fill them with rookie upgrades.

You have to lose a player to upgrade a rookie

I told you I know that ... but interesting you changed you first set of options with a new second set. By adding a very important "rookie" upgrade rotation addition.

I told you I'm not in the habit of belittling our players, I would NOT and will never discuss individual players.

Its a terrible, terrible precedent to start. I'm happy to discuss other clubs players, but never our own. Sorry if that disappoints you ... but you just never know who reads all this stuff.

You don't get the concept that we HAVE to lose 3 players for picks or nothing.

Spot on

You don't get the concept that we HAVE to lose 3 players for picks or nothing.

Crap. Absolute crap. You want me to mention names ... I wont do that.

I never, never disrespect any Melbourne player past or present. If you can point out where I've done it in the whole forum I will apologise.

You don't get the concept that we HAVE to lose 3 players for picks or nothing.

I reckon you should be taking your own very sage advice.

Spot on

Absolute rubbish. He wants me to talk players ... I won't do that. I know the rules ... I just wont "belittle" our boys.

If you cant understand that ... maybe you should think why you are a moderator.

Crap. Absolute crap. You want me to mention names ... I wont do that.

I never, never disrespect any Melbourne player past or present. If you can point out where I've done it in the whole forum I will apologise.

Option 1

Delist Billy Bloggs

Option 2

Trade Billy Bloggs to Adelaide

Swap your pick 35 with thier pick 29

It really is a no brainer

If you cant understand that ... maybe you should think why you are a moderator.

You are not getting it. If you don't get the above concept then I can't help you. It is a simple concept for most.

Crap. Absolute crap. You want me to mention names ... I wont do that.

I never, never disrespect any Melbourne player past or present. If you can point out where I've done it in the whole forum I will apologise.

Huh?

It's list management. They are big boys.

I'll start - I think Warnock will be delisted.

(Shock horror)

We wont have a club if you dont retain our playing group. Our current playing group his a bias towards the young, I have no problems with that. However, the last thing we need is a further increase in the bias. We need to keep & increase the maturity of our playing group as a combined unit. In other words we need more games in to this collective group ... not less.

Otherwise all we will become is a development club ripe for the picking. We cant sustain that moving forward. We need success or we will financially fall further & further behind. So if you truly want to "support" the club start getting behind the whole collective group.

OK then, when Scully goes and we get our compensation, you'd use them on Jaryn Geary and Michael Gardiner. In other words you wouldn't use them on talented kids.

Or maybe you just don't like people talking about the players as tradeable commodities??? Just like a House used to be a Home for life, in a stable environment,,,, Now because of credit causing inflationary cycles,,, the Home has now become a commodity,, destroying the fabric of our communities.

See any resemblance to the AFL???

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by dee-luded

Absolute rubbish. He wants me to talk players ... I won't do that. I know the rules ... I just wont "belittle" our boys.

Show me where old55 did that? Is he sending you PMs?

Let's see if you answer with well considered response or will it be another tirade of unintelligible gibberish?

Option 1

Delist Billy Bloggs

Option 2

Trade Billy Bloggs to Adelaide

Swap your pick 35 with thier pick 29

It really is a no brainer

Yeah but people dont do that .... do they? No they mention one-sided stupid trades... that is where the real no brains kick in.

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by hangon007

Show me where old55 did that? Is he sending you PMs?

Let's see if you answer with well considered response or will it be another tirade of unintelligible gibberish?

You have to make 3 list vacancies even if you fill them with rookie upgrades.

You have to lose a player to upgrade a rookie

As I said, there is only 3 ways to make list vacancies

1. delist for nothing

2. trade for draft picks (includes lose a player to GWS for compensation picks)

3. trade for draft pick upgrades

How hard is it to understand? A minuimum of 3 senior list players have to be off our list.

It's a simple question - which 3 players are you going to lose and which of the 3 options above are you going to lose them for?

What part of the highlighted sentence dont you understand dandeeman .... its ok you can apologise now.

No its not unintelligible gibberish ... it talking to the deaf ... because they cant gauge the real problem around here. They never will.

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by hangon007

What part of the highlighted sentence dont you understand dandeeman .... its ok you can apologise now.

I understand the status quo.

It seems that when you proven wrong you make ridiculous claims and accusations. You have done so in the past and you have done it again.

old55 has given some logical responses and ideas, you have ridiculously responded by accusing him of trying to force you to belittle players. He has done nothing of the sort.

Back on topic do you not concede that as is common practice at trade time, it is better to trade for an upgrade that it is to delist, particularly if the player is happy to go to destination X?