I've got this theory that Neeld doesn't rate Prendergast. I think its why he didn't trade Bate for a second round pick or delist anymore than the minimum players. Sure Bate is training well, but he's still got a lot of work to do to prove he's got an AFL future.

I also think it was part of why he was decisively willing to trade for Clark.

Now you can't sack a recruiter in October/November, it would just throw you into disarray, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was Predergast's last draft for the MFC. Also if he found himself replaced by someone, it could possibly be from Collingwood (although head recruiter Hine is contracted). Fatguts Phil Scully need not apply.

Anyone else think I'm crazy? I just don't think the players we have recruited fit well with the players Neeld wants. That and the sweeping changes in coaching at the club make me think Neeld may as well start from basics with the recruiting. It certainly would have helped someone like Wallace at Richmond.

Absolute carp. You can have your theories but this is one hare-brained one.

Bate wanting to go had nothing repeat nothing to do with Prendergast. BP didn't recruit Bate either. The players we got rid of were fringe players at best.

What are you smoking? BTW the list manager is Tim Harrington.

We delisted the minimum number of players, because this is a weak and shallow draft and any player we delist has more value than pick 70ish

We kept Bate on the list, because Neeld believes his value he can add to our team as a mature physical body is more valuable than a speculative pick 39 in a shallow draft (pick 39 would result in us not using pick 54, so really it's only a 15 spot upgrade, which isn't much than end of the draft).

We traded for Mitch Clarke because we need a tall big target in order to properly implement Neeld's game plan. It gives Neeld the opportunity to play the style of game he wants us to play, and allows Watts, Jurrah and Howe to play in positions that actually suit their playing styles.

Yes, I think you're crazy.

Our drafting in recent times has been great. It's our older players form like green,etc who struggled this year

Stupid post...too much time on your hands

i think everyone has summed it up pretty well.

Absolute carp. You can have your theories but this is one hare-brained one.

Bate wanting to go had nothing repeat nothing to do with Prendergast. BP didn't recruit Bate either. The players we got rid of were fringe players at best.

What are you smoking? BTW the list manager is Tim Harrington.

These 3 comments miss the point.

1. Who drafted Bate is irrelevant.

2. Of course the players we got rid of where fringe at best, so why did we keep other fringe players. Bate being one of them.

3. I dont smoke, but the list manager is also irrelevant. Neeld was advised by Malthouse to take control of everything, he'd be a fool not to listen. He's already made comments about him wanting to retain Bate due to McCartney's interests, that might be true, might not be. If I was Neeld I'd using Harrington to scout players in trade week and provide opinion on our list but I'd make all the changes in the early years of my career.

Anyway we shall see in the coming months.

We delisted the minimum number of players, because this is a weak and shallow draft and any player we delist has more value than pick 70ish

We kept Bate on the list, because Neeld believes his value he can add to our team as a mature physical body is more valuable than a speculative pick 39 in a shallow draft (pick 39 would result in us not using pick 54, so really it's only a 15 spot upgrade, which isn't much than end of the draft).

We traded for Mitch Clarke because we need a tall big target in order to properly implement Neeld's game plan. It gives Neeld the opportunity to play the style of game he wants us to play, and allows Watts, Jurrah and Howe to play in positions that actually suit their playing styles.

These are fair points, thanks for one fair reply.

In answer to your question.. yes. If Prendergast made such poor decisions in the past, he'd be gone and we'd be making more than the minimum list changes required!

Anyone else think I'm crazy?.

Not sure if you're crazy, but starting two threads with identical posts both here and on BF is ... brave?

Surely one would have been enough, especially given the speculative nature of the content. Interesting to see that you're getting a rougher ride here than in The Other Place, I would have called it the other way! Maybe they're just warming up.

I think next years draft and the contract status of a lot of our fringe players also had an effect on the clubs strategy for this draft.

Next year we have a swag of players coming out of contract and potentially 3 first round picks in the least compromised draft for a few years, and its also considered to be a strong draft. This year we had relatively few players coming out of contract in a weak draft that GWS gets to rape.

I remember posting in the preseason that if Martin and Maric both had good years it was going to be very difficult to find 3 delistings from our uncontracteds. We were never going to have more than a few selections in this draft.

Master, I have to say, I don't agree with you - but, then again, I have absolutely no idea what Neeld thinks of Prendergast. My instinct is along the lines of what most other posters have said though.

That said, I loathe the personal attacks that some people simply cannot resist making on this site. It reflects poorly on them, both intellectually and emotionally.

Most people that regularly post on this site appear to love this club - why attack them?! It's good that people have different opinions from time to time - the opposite of that retards progress and advancement.

Edited November 21, 201113 yr by Ron Burgundy

Very poor OP based on... nothing at all.

Several players will be under the microscope during the 2012 season.Neeld shows he will not muck about and with a Super draft expected next year,I expect at least 6 changes this time next year. Actually would not surprise me that Pendlebury joins us then,

WE will pick up a top line experienced mid at this time.

Several players will be under the microscope during the 2012 season.Neeld shows he will not muck about and with a Super draft expected next year,I expect at least 6 changes this time next year. Actually would not surprise me that Pendlebury joins us then,

WE will pick up a top line experienced mid at this time.

Why would Pendles join us??

He has 2 options better then us:

-Stay at the biggest club in Australia and become their captain, get the benefits included in being the top dog in the biggest club (sponsor deals, media) + compete for premierships

-Join GWS - get paid a PUNT load more then what we could offer

I know he grew up as a Dees suporter.. but like Judd and Buddy we can see that doesn't mean much (unless you are Moloney) and I know he is a fan of Neeld, but still can't see it happening

i like your enthusiasm.. but I highly doubt that would ever happen..

I've got this theory that Neeld doesn't rate Prendergast. I think its why he didn't trade Bate for a second round pick or delist anymore than the minimum players. Sure Bate is training well, but he's still got a lot of work to do to prove he's got an AFL future.

I also think it was part of why he was decisively willing to trade for Clark.

Now you can't sack a recruiter in October/November, it would just throw you into disarray, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was Predergast's last draft for the MFC. Also if he found himself replaced by someone, it could possibly be from Collingwood (although head recruiter Hine is contracted). Fatguts Phil Scully need not apply.

Anyone else think I'm crazy? I just don't think the players we have recruited fit well with the players Neeld wants. That and the sweeping changes in coaching at the club make me think Neeld may as well start from basics with the recruiting. It certainly would have helped someone like Wallace at Richmond.

You may or may not be right. But Prendergast can't be blamed for recruiting players Neeld doesn't want. He could be criticised if he had recruited players Bailey didn't want - but I see no evidence of that. I assume Prendergast followed instructions with respect to what Bailey thought were the needs of the club at that time. I have no doubt one of the instructions given under Bailey was to recruit players with character (although in hindsight I think he failed with a certain Pick No. 1...but that is in hindsight. I don't recall anyone here being critical of the recruitment of Scully at the time).

In short, I have no idea whether Neeld wants to retain the services of Prendergast. But, given the almost complete change of assistant coaches and fitness staff since Neeld's arrival, it's not impossible to foresee that this year's drafts may be Prendergast's last.

Specious reasoning.

Especially considering the shallow draft and the fact that we had to give up something to get Clark.

You have to give me more if I am going to take a Neeld vs Prendergast meme seriously.

master, I think you're on your own wavelength and sylvinator's points are well made.

You may or may not be right. But Prendergast can't be blamed for recruiting players Neeld doesn't want. He could be criticised if he had recruited players Bailey didn't want - but I see no evidence of that. I assume Prendergast followed instructions with respect to what Bailey thought were the needs of the club at that time. I have no doubt one of the instructions given under Bailey was to recruit players with character (although in hindsight I think he failed with a certain Pick No. 1...but that is in hindsight. I don't recall anyone here being critical of the recruitment of Scully at the time).

In short, I have no idea whether Neeld wants to retain the services of Prendergast. But, given the almost complete change of assistant coaches and fitness staff since Neeld's arrival, it's not impossible to foresee that this year's drafts may be Prendergast's last.

I agree with the fact that Prendergast would have been following Bayleys instructions and they may now be different under Neeld. Neeld took over the list knowing what was there and surley made some undertaking to the Board that he could take that list deep into September, so the pressure is on him and his new coaches to deliver on that. It will be Prendergasts job to introduce new players that fill what Neeld believes are the gaps. No way can Neeld say that Prenergast is retrospectively responsible for recruiting players that HE doesn't like! What makes it tougher is that this is a weak draft and we don't enter it until pick 36. This will require some really creative drafting.

Edited November 21, 201113 yr by deefan12

And of course one may add that from his three picks from 33 onwards last year Prendergast picked at least 2 players (Howe and McDonald T) who Neeld may well feel contented at the moment

I always love a conspiracy theory (as much as many others here do) -- but this one takes the cake.

Have you shown one, just one, shred of evidence to support your proposition?

IMVHO, and that of many here, BP has done a particularly good job, and I would expect that he will continue.

But, just like those who are sceptical of, and conversely those who are so excited about, the whole "new broom" concept, only time will tell

Yes, I think you're crazy.

I concur

And of course one may add that from his three picks from 33 onwards last year Prendergast picked at least 2 players (Howe and McDonald T) who Neeld may well feel contented at the moment

Good point Bimbo. These two could well turn out to be absolute "steals" taken where they were. Again, time will tell.

I think Mark Neeld fears the numbers 12 and 39 and that's why we traded for Clark and didn't trade Bate.