On 23/09/2012 at 12:13, titan_uranus said:

THIS is your argument?

Ask yourself what Josh Kennedy delivered for Hawthorn in his time there. Squat.

Look at him now.

Sometimes, a player is beaten into the 22 by better players. In Byrnes case, he lies behind Stokes, Christensen and Motlop. He can't get into the side.

At Melbourne, he lies behind no one. So he would be a starter in our best 22.

Poor poor argument using Josh Kennedy. Byrnes is no spring chicken, unlike a promising Kennedy at Hawthorn.

Byrnes will be 29 in April, is cheap, and will bring very good habits and professionalism into the club. Is worth a punt.

  On 23/09/2012 at 13:36, H_T said:

Poor poor argument using Josh Kennedy. Byrnes is no spring chicken, unlike a promising Kennedy at Hawthorn.

He picked a bad example but why are you so against it?

He will cost nothing, be very cheap salary wise and plays a small forward role that was like a gashing wound for us this year.

He will be a massive plus if he brings professionalism and leadership to the club.

Just sucking the life out me is Demonland at the moment.

Here we are trying to improve the team for very little cost and expense and there are doubter roadblocks wherever you look...

  On 24/09/2012 at 01:25, rpfc said:

He picked a bad example but why are you so against it?

He will cost nothing, be very cheap salary wise and plays a small forward role that was like a gashing wound for us this year.

He will be a massive plus if he brings professionalism and leadership to the club.

Just sucking the life out me is Demonland at the moment.

Here we are trying to improve the team for very little cost and expense and there are doubter roadblocks wherever you look...

So against it...

I'm not convinced Byrnes offers an improvement.

And with regards to the level of professionalism and leadership you speak of that he may bring. He may not either.

I can see why people get excited though because he's been a part of the 'greatest team of all' (well, not in recent times) - I guess I'm not sold on that.

  On 24/09/2012 at 02:10, H_T said:

So against it...

I'm not convinced Byrnes offers an improvement.

And with regards to the level of professionalism and leadership you speak of that he may bring. He may not either.

I can see why people get excited though because he's been a part of the 'greatest team of all' (well, not in recent times) - I guess I'm not sold on that.

I don't think people are excited by Bynres at all, but rather satisfied that we can pick up someone to fill a void in our team, because we have nobody on our entire list that is capable of playing as a decent small crumbing forward in front of Clark/Sellar/whoever else. I think most will agree that Blease will end up as a midfielder when he builds his tank and it will be an uphill battle for Davey to stay on past 2013.

  On 23/09/2012 at 13:36, H_T said:

Poor poor argument using Josh Kennedy. Byrnes is no spring chicken, unlike a promising Kennedy at Hawthorn.

  On 24/09/2012 at 01:25, rpfc said:

He picked a bad example but why are you so against it?

Disagree.

HT: Byrnes has shown nothing in the last two years. Therefore he is unable to add to Melbourne.

Me: Sometimes a player's situation at his club precludes him from being able to show his worth. For Byrnes, he has been pushed out of the side by better players. Exactly the same thing happened to Kennedy, who was 'promising' as HT says, but unable to hold his spot because Hawthorn had players like Hodge, Mitchell and Sewell clearly better than him and taking up the spots.

I'm not arguing Byrnes is as good as Kennedy, or will show the marked improvement Kennedy has. But the clear point is that sometimes there are mitigating circumstances which preclude a player from getting game time. For Byrnes, he is behind the likes of Stokes, Christensen and Motlop. Nevertheless, he is better than anyone on our list at his role, and will add value whether he plays at HFF, drifting up onto the wing, or closer to goal.

I think Byrnes could probably play as a small defender if required.

  On 24/09/2012 at 02:10, H_T said:

So against it...

I'm not convinced Byrnes offers an improvement.

And with regards to the level of professionalism and leadership you speak of that he may bring. He may not either.

I can see why people get excited though because he's been a part of the 'greatest team of all' (well, not in recent times) - I guess I'm not sold on that.

He can play the small forward role we don't have anyone for - immediately.

That is the extent of my excitement.

I think sometimes we get sewpt away in the need to get stars into our club.

We do. But when it comes to improving for the now and looking to be better in the future - it isn't a zero-sum game.

We can do both. We can look for blue-chip talent and get some role-players.

Byrnes may come to the club and he will instantly give us an option we didn't have in 2012 - and he won't hamper any efforts to get stars or potential stars into the club.

  On 24/09/2012 at 03:07, titan_uranus said:

Disagree.

HT: Byrnes has shown nothing in the last two years. Therefore he is unable to add to Melbourne.

Me: Sometimes a player's situation at his club precludes him from being able to show his worth. For Byrnes, he has been pushed out of the side by better players. Exactly the same thing happened to Kennedy, who was 'promising' as HT says, but unable to hold his spot because Hawthorn had players like Hodge, Mitchell and Sewell clearly better than him and taking up the spots.

I'm not arguing Byrnes is as good as Kennedy, or will show the marked improvement Kennedy has. But the clear point is that sometimes there are mitigating circumstances which preclude a player from getting game time. For Byrnes, he is behind the likes of Stokes, Christensen and Motlop. Nevertheless, he is better than anyone on our list at his role, and will add value whether he plays at HFF, drifting up onto the wing, or closer to goal.

Thanks for the transcript of the current conversation. Again, I understand that a player is kept out of a side because of better players. And yes, Kennedy was in that situation at Hawthorn. So I get that point, but it's a poor example. Whether you disagree or not.

Kennedy was a young up and comer, trying to get a crack in a gun midfield. Clearly a different scenario to Byrnes now who is a bit player on the fringe not getting a look in their window and is 29 next year. Being overlooked by young'uns who are developing. Ie Overlooked for development.

When it gets down to it, I simply don't rate him.

You obviously do.

  On 24/09/2012 at 03:35, rpfc said:

He can play the small forward role we don't have anyone for - immediately.

That is the extent of my excitement.

I think sometimes we get sewpt away in the need to get stars into our club.

It's not just about stars, for me it's about getting improvement in across the board. His output underwhelms me.

If we obtain this player for the specific role you say he can fill- the small forward role - I just hope he can produce on a regular basis.

Apologies for any lack of excitement on my part re: Byrnes as a forward/hforward.

He wont be a long term signing, but would be a good player for a couple of years for us. Better than a speculative draft pick, better than most VFL/SANFL/WAFL recruits.

I'd prefer to get Byrnes on 2 years than keep Bate, Petterd etc

  On 24/09/2012 at 01:25, rpfc said:

He picked a bad example but why are you so against it?

He will cost nothing, be very cheap salary wise and plays a small forward role that was like a gashing wound for us this year.

He will be a massive plus if he brings professionalism and leadership to the club.

Just sucking the life out me is Demonland at the moment.

Here we are trying to improve the team for very little cost and expense and there are doubter roadblocks wherever you look...

I agree. He'll play as a 29 year old next year, but still has his pace, which is the key. Byrnes can play 50-60 games for the club over the next 3 years. And he's a type that we need. Stokes, Motlop and Christiansen are very good players, so there's no shame not being able to get a game ahead of them. In 2009 and 2010 he kicked over 30 goals each year. He's been a good player and will immediately improve our side.

  On 24/09/2012 at 04:28, H_T said:

Thanks for the transcript of the current conversation. Again, I understand that a player is kept out of a side because of better players. And yes, Kennedy was in that situation at Hawthorn. So I get that point, but it's a poor example. Whether you disagree or not.

Kennedy was a young up and comer, trying to get a crack in a gun midfield. Clearly a different scenario to Byrnes now who is a bit player on the fringe not getting a look in their window and is 29 next year. Being overlooked by young'uns who are developing. Ie Overlooked for development.

When it gets down to it, I simply don't rate him.

You obviously do.

If you agree with the fact that we don't have a small crumbing forward, and that picking him up cheaply (it's money and a spot on the list... not a need to trade or use a draft pick) Money under the cap isn't an issue, and it's very unlikely we would throw a lot of coin his way. I don't see the problem.

I don't think he is a star, but he more than we have currently, and he comes from a club with a very impressive pedigree which never hurts.

I am flabbergasted at the negativity on here at the moment. There is constant talk on here about improving our 'culture', having soft senior players and having a dearth of onfield and offfield leadership in our playing group. Yet when the club targets a two time premiership player who is still playing good footy, has a good attitude and strong training habits and is being kept out of a team who played finals by very good players all of a sudden we shouldn't obtain him for nothing? Who should we get? Untried kids?

So far Wellingham and Byrnes have been posited strongly on this site and both have been met with an astounding negativity. Our club needs leaders who can play well and do a role. Both players are light-years ahead of our list in terms of what they have experienced and what they can bring to the team. How many members of our list have played finals let alone won premierships. If we get Byrnes it would be great, if we get him and Wellingham it will be brilliant. How people can be so negative about players who have acheived more than our entire list put together astounds me. If not these guys then who?

  On 24/09/2012 at 05:00, Oucher said:

If you agree with the fact that we don't have a small crumbing forward, and that picking him up cheaply (it's money and a spot on the list... not a need to trade or use a draft pick) Money under the cap isn't an issue, and it's very unlikely we would throw a lot of coin his way. I don't see the problem.

I don't think he is a star, but he more than we have currently, and he comes from a club with a very impressive pedigree which never hurts.

I think we can safely say that he's definitely not a star. I don't think anyone has mentioned that from what I've read.

If he's the best option the club has at its disposal this off season, then IMO that's disapponting.

I'd rather a Banfield for a 2nd round pick.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:01, deejammin said:

So far Wellingham and Byrnes have been posited strongly on this site and both have been met with an astounding negativity. Our club needs leaders who can play well and do a role. Both players are light-years ahead of our list in terms of what they have experienced and what they can bring to the team. How many members of our list have played finals let alone won premierships. If we get Byrnes it would be great, if we get him and Wellingham it will be brilliant. How people can be so negative about players who have acheived more than our entire list put together astounds me. If not these guys then who?

I'm happy to get a B grader in Wellingham, but he's a $350K player that some were suggesting we should pay $750K.

That would make me flabberbasted (sic).

Many people in the football community (including highly respected media members) suggested that Mitch Clark was a B grade and we paid overs. What Wellingham would mean to MFC next year might make him worth more than what he would be worth elsewhere, I'd be happy just to get him here. Front load the contract, make sure we are safe in the long run, and get players that will make a difference. Thats what good clubs do.

  On 01/10/2011 at 23:41, titan_uranus said:

Byrnes is crap. Even if we wanted a 27 year old small forward, I wouldn't go near Byrnes.

Goldsack is decent, but I can't see him leaving, or them letting him go.

Hmmm. Amazing how some opinions do change a year on.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:12, deejammin said:

Front load the contract, make sure we are safe in the long run, and get players that will make a difference. Thats what good clubs do.

there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Sydney are full of recycled players and Geelong develop their own. And when I say that I acknowledge that every club will trade for a player, but you get my drift. Selwood recently spoke of not overpaying players. He said that any player coming to Geelong would have to fit into their pay scale.

We're in a different boat to Geelong, but they're a good club and there's no way they'd overpay Wellingham. We're trying to become a good club and there comes a time when we have to start making the types of decisions that good clubs make.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:35, Ben-Hur said:

there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Sydney are full of recycled players and Geelong develop their own. And when I say that I acknowledge that every club will trade for a player, but you get my drift. Selwood recently spoke of not overpaying players. He said that any player coming to Geelong would have to fit into their pay scale.

We're in a different boat to Geelong, but they're a good club and there's no way they'd overpay Wellingham. We're trying to become a good club and there comes a time when we have to start making the types of decisions that good clubs make.

And we can go on to describe the different landscape's of the lists.

Entirely different circumstances and I'm sure Geelong recruiters would be thinking differently to what they are now if they were in our current position.

  On 24/09/2012 at 04:28, H_T said:

Thanks for the transcript of the current conversation. Again, I understand that a player is kept out of a side because of better players. And yes, Kennedy was in that situation at Hawthorn. So I get that point, but it's a poor example. Whether you disagree or not.

Kennedy was a young up and comer, trying to get a crack in a gun midfield. Clearly a different scenario to Byrnes now who is a bit player on the fringe not getting a look in their window and is 29 next year. Being overlooked by young'uns who are developing. Ie Overlooked for development.

When it gets down to it, I simply don't rate him.

You obviously do.

I can't believe how thick you're acting in this debate.

If you can see the parallel between the two, both being kept out of their side because there are better players than them, then my example was spot on, because that was the exact point I was making. I never once tried to say that Byrnes is going to improve like Kennedy did.

Being overlooked for development supports my argument, too. He's been overlooked not because he's bad, but because Geelong has development on its mind.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:02, H_T said:

If he's the best option the club has at its disposal this off season, then IMO that's disapponting.

I'd rather a Banfield for a 2nd round pick.

This belies your ignorance of the free agency situation. Banfield for a 2nd round pick costs us a 2nd round pick. Byrnes as a free agent costs us nothing.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:13, H_T said:

Hmmm. Amazing how some opinions do change a year on.

Yes. Exactly. Last year there was no free agency; this year there is. Last year we'd just won 8.5 games, this year we've won 4, and under Neeld's new regime we have gaps all over our list. All of a sudden, a player like Byrnes, no star at all, is in a position to come to the club and improve us.

Plenty can change in a year HT. But well done trawling through the posts for old views, instead of thinking about your own current one.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:54, titan_uranus said:

/>Plenty can change in a year HT. But well done trawling through the posts for old views, instead of thinking about your own current one.

Trawling ?

It's in this very thread!

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:02, H_T said:

I think we can safely say that he's definitely not a star. I don't think anyone has mentioned that from what I've read.

If he's the best option the club has at its disposal this off season, then IMO that's disapponting.

I'd rather a Banfield for a 2nd round pick.

Isn't it more that he's the best small forward option that we can get potentially for 'next to nothing' without compromising the picks at our disposal.

He's not the best player we can land....

Banfield strikes me more as a HFF than a small forward.

Put it this way, if we get Byrnes through FA then I won't be unhappy. But it's a role we have a lack of players that can fill it, and he possibly can fill this role for a couple of years until we get the chance to develop another player then good for us. If it doesn't work out, we haven't lost a lot either.

  On 24/09/2012 at 06:40, H_T said:

Entirely different circumstances and I'm sure Geelong recruiters would be thinking differently to what they are now if they were in our current position.

Look, that's great, but answer this question: when as a club are we going to make the types of decisions that good clubs make ? Do we just suddenly one year think we've got the list we want and so now we'll be responsible ? Does it work that easily.

Btw, it's not their recruiters who make decisions on how much to pay a player, or who to trade for. It's the coach and list management committee.

  On 24/09/2012 at 07:01, H_T said:

Trawling ?

It's in this very thread!

It's 12 months old. It's irrelevant.