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.

Yet they were prepared to throw plenty at Boak.

  On 24/09/2012 at 07:13, Redleg said:

Yet they were prepared to throw plenty at Boak.

No they weren't. They made it clear he'd fit within their pay scale if he was to come. I've no doubt Port are paying him far more than Geelong offered, which may be one reason he's stayed at a basket case club without even knowing who the coach is. The lure to Geelong was mainly success and family, not money.

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

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.

I make a comment about an opinion on a player I'd rather have in our clubs stable, and you call me on ignorance of the free agency situation?

I have opinions on players and I've given my thoughts on Byrnes. I rate Banfield higher because he is a specialist for that role and has more years ahead in the system - being a younger player - than Byrnes does. Which IMO suits our needs and enables longevity in the role. Regardless of it costing a 2nd/3rd r pick (example only).

I understand a FA costs us nothing in terms for picks, but what is significant in list management and quality of players is - you pay for what you get most/some times.

  On 24/09/2012 at 07:21, H_T said:

I make a comment about an opinion on a player I'd rather have in our clubs stable, and you call me on ignorance of the free agency situation?

I have opinions on players and I've given my thoughts on Byrnes. I rate Banfield higher because he is a specialist for that role and has more years ahead in the system - being a younger player - than Byrnes does. Which IMO suits our needs and enables longevity in the role. Regardless of it costing a 2nd/3rd r pick (example only).

I understand a FA costs us nothing in terms for picks, but what is significant in list management and quality of players is - you pay for what you get most/some times.

Yes, yes it does.

You are irrationally tossing the arguments regarding Byrnes aside and ignoring what is a considerable cost for an unproven player in Banfield.

You are also ignoring the form Byrnes showed prior to the last two years, when he wasn't pushed out of the side for development reasons.

When you look at what Byrnes offers, and you look at the cost of bringing him in (nothing, and a hell of a lot less than Banfield), and you look at what our list could use for improvement, it's really quite difficult to reach the conclusion you are reaching.

What cost does Byrnes have to our 'list management'? Who would he be keeping out of the side? As I see it: no one.

  On 24/09/2012 at 07:03, Ben-Hur said:

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 that last point I should have said FD - not recruiters. Understood.

It's a good question. I guess it depends or comes down to critical decisions on how quick the club wants to influence change in the midfield (in this case re: Wellingham as was discussed previous page of thread). And also the knowledge of what the FD can target with the $allowance available. And of course who is available at any given time out on the market. And what type of player is required in terms of needs.

Without knowing the variables it's not taht easy. I'm also thinking knowing the variables wouldn't make it easy either. Decisions decisions.

  On 24/09/2012 at 04:51, H_T said:

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.

You haven't just had a lack of enthusiasm for Byrnes - you have have fiercely criticised his ability:

  On 24/09/2012 at 02:10, H_T said:

I'm not convinced Byrnes offers an improvement.

You also intimated his recruitment may lead to members not renewing and support leaving the Dees:

  On 22/09/2012 at 00:12, H_T said:

Some decisions of the past may appear cheap waste, but they can effect membership and support as we've seen, it's not that cheap.

I think you have been unfair to Byrnes and his possible recruitment.

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

You are irrationally tossing the arguments regarding Byrnes aside and ignoring what is a considerable cost for an unproven player in Banfield.

I don't think I'm being irrational and I'm certainly not tossing any arguments aside. I'm here explaining my views on Byrnes as a footballer. Already mentioned his age, his output and the lack of value I believe he would be "if" he comes to Melbourne. That's not unfair it is what it is for me.

Interesting you say that Banfield is unproven as a player... .

  Quote

You are also ignoring the form Byrnes showed prior to the last two years, when he wasn't pushed out of the side for development reasons.

Not intended. You're as only good as your recent form. I'm not concerned with what he showed prior to the last two years. I'm looking to the future of what he is capable of and what he's been producing of recent times.

  Quote

When you look at what Byrnes offers, and you look at the cost of bringing him in (nothing, and a hell of a lot less than Banfield), and you look at what our list could use for improvement, it's really quite difficult to reach the conclusion you are reaching.

You're entitled to that view. I don't consider it that difficult.

I have mentioned Ben Ross before, and that's a minimal cost.

  Quote

What cost does Byrnes have to our 'list management'? Who would he be keeping out of the side? As I see it: no one.

I've covered this.

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

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

Oh is it now. And I'm the irrational one according to you.... . You refer to him as "crap" and "wouldn't go near Byrnes" less than 12 months ago. Without reasoning!

  On 24/09/2012 at 08:12, rpfc said:

You haven't just had a lack of enthusiasm for Byrnes - you have have fiercely criticised his ability:

Fiercely? Slight exaggeration there.

I haven't communicated favourably about his football prowess.

  Quote

You also intimated his recruitment may lead to members not renewing and support leaving the Dees:

Possible but not definite. May cause disenchantment among the faithful. Nothing new.

  Quote

I think you have been unfair to Byrnes and his possible recruitment.

Not unlike the opinions contained within re: the possible recruitment of Wellingham?

  On 24/09/2012 at 07:03, Ben-Hur said:

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.

I would argue that several clubs lower on the ladder have to overpay players by virtue of minimum cap payments. For mine very few MFC players earned their money this year, their performance was terrible and yet they got payed almost the same total payments as Hawthorn and Sydney. This is not the MFC being irresponsible, or negligent, or failing to manage our list properly, it is MFC following the rules. These rules will continue to exist next year and Melbourne will have to continue to pay the minimum amount of the cap regardless of performance, I would prefer we do so by enlisting good, proven, successful players who fill a need. How do you suggest we do it?

Anyways.. back on shannon byrnes, now that he is finish playing with geelong anyone heard anything about him coming to the dees? now

  On 24/09/2012 at 16:23, deejammin said:

I would argue that several clubs lower on the ladder have to overpay players by virtue of minimum cap payments. For mine very few MFC players earned their money this year, their performance was terrible and yet they got payed almost the same total payments as Hawthorn and Sydney. This is not the MFC being irresponsible, or negligent, or failing to manage our list properly, it is MFC following the rules. These rules will continue to exist next year and Melbourne will have to continue to pay the minimum amount of the cap regardless of performance, I would prefer we do so by enlisting good, proven, successful players who fill a need. How do you suggest we do it?

Paying Wellingham double what he's worth isn't properly managing the cap. If you argued we should pay someone like Pendlebury double, or Joel Selwood double, I'd understand.

When as a club are we going to make the types of decisions that good clubs make ? Is it just like turning on a tap ? I have no problem getting a Shannon Byrnes, or trying to do what Carlton did with Judd, which is so much easier now with FA, but I don't want silly offers to B graders.

The club knows that we have to build through the draft and as we're not an attractive option to players this is what will happen. Recruit well, develop them well and we can turn things around relatively quickly.

No knock on anyone who has gone to the often considerable effort to try an analyse all the trade option and give their ideas. All power to ya. For me though it doesn't float my boat as it seems to be similar to discussing how we might like the sun to rise and set - that's to say there's nothing we can do about it so why discuss it.

I keep popping into this thread though, for 2 reasons - one to see if there is any new trading rumors or updates and 2 to read Ben Hurs responses to the Dr.

  On 24/09/2012 at 14:18, H_T said:

Not intended. You're as only good as your recent form. I'm not concerned with what he showed prior to the last two years. I'm looking to the future of what he is capable of and what he's been producing of recent times.

But you admitted that he's been kept out for development reasons. Here's the irrationality. On the one hand, you're complaining that he's shown nothing over the last two years. On the other hand, you're saying that he's not in the side because Geelong is playing other players in his position.

Inconsistent.

  On 24/09/2012 at 14:44, H_T said:

Oh is it now. And I'm the irrational one according to you.... . You refer to him as "crap" and "wouldn't go near Byrnes" less than 12 months ago. Without reasoning!

I referred. Since then, things have changed. I've seen him play a bit more than I had; my original view was uneducated. Moreover, I said that 12 months ago when there was no free agency, and therefore we'd have had to give up something to get him, which tainted my opinion.

I've changed my mind. I suggest you consider doing the same.

  On 25/09/2012 at 01:20, binman said:

I keep popping into this thread though, for 2 reasons - one to see if there is any new trading rumors or updates and 2 to read Ben Hurs responses to the Dr.

I now have him on ignore.

He's a waste of space.

  On 25/09/2012 at 02:01, titan_uranus said:

But you admitted that he's been kept out for development reasons. Here's the irrationality. On the one hand, you're complaining that he's shown nothing over the last two years. On the other hand, you're saying that he's not in the side because Geelong is playing other players in his position.

Inconsistent.

Like Chris Scott would suggest it's a combination of the two. And yes I've stated both reasons. It's certainly not complaining, neither is it inconsistent.

He's played 9 games in the AFL in the last two years (4 in 2012; 5 in 2011). From his 17 games in the VFL this season he's returned 14 goals. 4 of those goals from 4 finals games. So he's contributed during the season and there's been games where he's contributed a number of tackles in some games and been named among the best every now and then.

I'm not keen on his returns and he looks to be on the decline. He missed a couple of games somewhere in the middle of the season, and I'm unsure as to why. I think other avenues might be worth pursuing, that's all.

On these boards recently on another thread on this board I also suggested Ben Ross with a possible late pick/rookie pick. He won the Liston and was quite active as a mid for Werribee who contributed around the same amount of goals.

Garry Lyon yesterdays said that byrnes to melbourne is pretty much a done deal.

thoughts?

Good. It's a start.

  On 30/09/2012 at 01:43, dazzledavey36 said:

Garry Lyon yesterdays said that byrnes to melbourne is pretty much a done deal.

thoughts?

Costs nothing directly (understand it impacts our FA compensation). Will offer some maturity, experience and pace to our midfield rotations and can play small forward role. From a strong culture and will help develop our youngsters. If its for 2 years makes sense, if 3 as has been rumoured we have paid overs.

  On 30/09/2012 at 01:43, dazzledavey36 said:

Garry Lyon yesterdays said that byrnes to melbourne is pretty much a done deal.

thoughts?

I hope so. We need some changes, if for nothing more than put holes in the old poor culture. No list changes, will make it harder to crack the back of the negative culture.

Aside from the attitudes ingrown, we need some fresh minds & bodies with some physical maturity.

Byrnes manager all but confirmed him coming to us..

'I think he'll find a home there' he said, tacked onto the end of an article that i cant find atm.

anyway.. (allowing for a mitch clark-like sensation)

its done!

also this:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HeraldSunAflMelbourne/~3/f0iMqZ5MyeQ/story-fn69a32t-1226486129188

do the google thing..

  On 01/10/2012 at 16:19, DemonDan... said:

Byrnes manager all but confirmed him coming to us..

'I think he'll find a home there' he said, tacked onto the end of an article that i cant find atm.

It's at the end of this afl.com article http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=148953

Neil Balme this morning said melbourne should look forward to having shannon byrnes with us free agency

Byrnes has toured the facilities: http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/cats-midfielder-shannon-byrnes-close-to-joining-melbourne/story-fnelctok-1226486877425

I hope the much talked about run and pace that is reportedly what Melbourne are keen on with Byrnes, is what he can provide in the red and blue.

The article also makes mention of 193cm key position player Pederson of North.

  On 02/10/2012 at 17:45, H_T said:

Byrnes has toured the facilities: http://mobile.news.c...k-1226486877425

I hope the much talked about run and pace that is reportedly what Melbourne are keen on with Byrnes, is what he can provide in the red and blue.

The article also makes mention of 193cm key position player Pederson of North.

I honestly think that getting those 2 would be a successful trade/free agency period for the Dees this year. Then go to the draft get Viney and 3 other top picks and see what a BIG pre season can do.