THE CONTRACTS THREAD [with updates]

[rpfc 28,967]

What if Roos shares my view?

And what view is that?

That he would like to convince Byrnes to retire and break a two-year contract with the club?

There are always going to be players that posters don't want to be at the club: Munga doesn't want Watts, Ben-Hur doesn't want McKenzie, Everyone doesn't want Nicholson, but it gets tedious when posters constantly refer to the removal of a player.

He is contracted for another year, I hope he can contribute next season as we still don't have a small forward on the list besides him. He came for very little, he doesn't cost much, and yet he draws ire outside of what he deserves.

Time to move on?

[Machsy 2,858]

We got something in a deal that we are not using. That's poor planning.

It's not a big deal, and maybe we said to him 'we are taking you at 58 the Crows will not look at you until the RD, come under DFA and let us keep our flexibility.'

I still think either Pick 58 or PSD2 will be a 'live' selection, I don't think we are done delisting.

I guess we will see at the next lodgement.

But how? How is that poor planning?

If we didn't get Riley, was it still poor planning?

Should we have been able to foresee that he would be available?

What if we would have used pick 42, but GWS simply didn't have it, or weren't willing to make it available?

Would it have been worth not doing the deal for the sake of ensuring we use that pick?

Would it be better planning to just let GWS keep pick 57 & the rest of the trade remains the same?

I don't understand how you can plan around whether another club will make available a player that you value higher than the pick you will receive, after the fact.

If anything, pick 57 was a contingency, which in itself is good planning.

Surely it'd be worse planning if we didn't have pick 57 and Riley was retained by Adelaide?

[rpfc 28,967]

But how? How is that poor planning?

If we didn't get Riley, was it still poor planning?

Should we have been able to foresee that he would be available?

What if we would have used pick 42, but GWS simply didn't have it, or weren't willing to make it available?

Would it have been worth not doing the deal for the sake of ensuring we use that pick?

Would it be better planning to just let GWS keep pick 57 & the rest of the trade remains the same?

I don't understand how you can plan around whether another club will make available a player that you value higher than the pick you will receive, after the fact.

If anything, pick 57 was a contingency, which in itself is good planning.

Surely it'd be worse planning if we didn't have pick 57 and Riley was retained by Adelaide?

If we don't use Pick 58, then we lose value in that trade and we should have brought in something else that we would have made use of.

It's not a massive issue, I just prefer to get full value from all deals.

And as I said, you can look at it as insurance in case Riley decided to go into the draft and we didn't pick him up.

I just don't like seeing value lost in trades, that's all.

[drdrake 3,203]

If we don't use Pick 58, then we lose value in that trade and we should have brought in something else that we would have made use of.

It's not a massive issue, I just prefer to get full value from all deals.

And as I said, you can look at it as insurance in case Riley decided to go into the draft and we didn't pick him up.

I just don't like seeing value lost in trades, that's all.

Who cares, it is about improving our list and doing what needs to be done. You look at the 5 players we have brought in they meet our needs and we still have pick 9 and 40 to add. Pick 9 will add another high quality midfielder and pick 40 like every pick mid draft will be hit and miss.

[DemonDave 1,099]

Last (this) years pre-season draft, to show its virtual irrelevance nowadays:

First round

• 1. Bret Thornton
• 3. Sam Colquhoun
• 6. Will Hams
• 8. Jack Hannath
• 10. Nick Joyce
• 11. Kurt Tippett

Second round

• 12. Dean Brogan
• 14. Jesse Crichton

[Machsy 2,858]

If we don't use Pick 58, then we lose value in that trade and we should have brought in something else that we would have made use of.

It's not a massive issue, I just prefer to get full value from all deals.

And as I said, you can look at it as insurance in case Riley decided to go into the draft and we didn't pick him up.

I just don't like seeing value lost in trades, that's all.

You do realise that Riley wasn't delisted until the day we signed him as a DFA, not before the trade?

And if what we gave up wasn't "worth" more than pick 57 to GWS, do we then not make the trade?

Would you rather not get the pick back at all?

I don't understand what you think our planning options were?

It seems like a petty criticism to me, and while I understand wanting to use full value, I can't call it poor planning.

That's just what the trade was "worth" and we found better value by not using a late pick that was part of that worth.

It probably is an indication of the value of late picks in today's DFA climate: negligible.

In any case, I don't think we really lost any value with pick 57.

I think it was thrown in by GWS since they weren't going to use it themselves, and through good planning we acquired it as a contingency in the event we didn't find a good enough DFA prospect.

[rpfc 28,967]

I am not the one making a big deal of it, I actually said multiple times that it isn't a big deal.

It's an aside, something to think about, and my opinion (and fact) that we won't maximise the Tyson deal if we don't have 58 as a live pick.

And he was delisted October 30.

[stuie 7,374]

rpfc's list includes Clisby as an 'addition'. Take that out and you have the third spot (which we use to pick Clisby in the draft).

We do not need to delist anyone else. ND9 = one player, ND40 = second player, ND58 = Clisby (who rpfc has already counted in the additions). That's the three picks at the ND.

But now that we've signed Riley don't we only have two spots available? That's my point.

[stuie 7,374]

Answered my own question...

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-29/melbournes-2014-list

We had 4 spots before signing Cross and Riley, Clisby was already included on the senior list in those numbers (which I didn't realize).

So 2 draft picks, Clisby elevation, 4 rookies, no PSD picks.

[rpfc 28,967]

Answered my own question...

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-29/melbournes-2014-list

We had 4 spots before signing Cross and Riley, Clisby was already included on the senior list in those numbers (which I didn't realize).

So 2 draft picks, Clisby elevation, 4 rookies, no PSD picks.

At the moment...

[Machsy 2,858]

I am not the one making a big deal of it, I actually said multiple times that it isn't a big deal.

It's an aside, something to think about, and my opinion (and fact) that we won't maximise the Tyson deal if we don't have 58 as a live pick.

And he was delisted October 30.

No one said it was a big deal.

Just a point of discussion, and I'm trying to understand why you think we lost out.

For a person whose opinion I respect and agree with 95% of the time, I found it an unusual viewpoint.

That's all.

And you're right on when he was de-listed.

I read somewhere it had been earlier that day, but later checked and found that to be incorrect.

Still not prior to the trade, to my knowledge.

[rpfc 28,967]

I am sure that they were not sure, at the time of that trade, that Riley would be available and that he would agree.

But that doesn't mean that you don't lose value in the trade if you don't use what you get.

Neeld pushed out Pick 61, Morton, Gysberts, and Martin for Pedersen, 52, 71, 72, and 88.

Effectively ND61, Morton, Gysberts and Martin for Pedersen, Matt Jones and 2 spots on the list.

The fact that those spots were subsequently taken by Gillies and Nicholson (as the last 2 players added to the list) doesn't make me feel better and I don't like losing value in trades; you do it often enough it builds up and hurts.

[Redleg 42,053]

At the moment...

Are you suggesting that we should get rid of a player or are you anticipating that we might?

[rpfc 28,967]

Are you suggesting that we should get rid of a player or are you anticipating that we might?

I haven't seen or heard any news regarding the re-signing of Jetta and Nicholson for 2014. I am fairly certain of their OOC status, but stand to be corrected.

I have not heard about how long Riley, Michie, and Tyson have signed for yet so it makes it hard to maintain the OP in this thread. Those will have to amended when better information comes to hand.

[demonoid 317]

I haven't seen or heard any news regarding the re-signing of Jetta and Nicholson for 2014. I am fairly certain of their OOC status, but stand to be corrected.

I have not heard about how long Riley, Michie, and Tyson have signed for yet so it makes it hard to maintain the OP in this thread. Those will have to amended when better information comes to hand.

there is a list lodgement deadline today. Have not heard of Jetta or Nicholson signing new contracts so you would imagine one at least might be in trouble. It would be Nicholson for me

[Generation dee 1,336]

Jetta has been delisted officially now.

Source- mfc Facebook page

[Generation dee 1,336]

http://m.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-11-14/melbourne-makes-list-changes

[rpfc 28,967]

there is a list lodgement deadline today. Have not heard of Jetta or Nicholson signing new contracts so you would imagine one at least might be in trouble. It would be Nicholson for me

There is your answer.

The club either have someone lined up in the PSD or they see a few players at 58 that would improve the list.

It's a shame for Jetta but he had a crack that not many are given - 5 years.

[demonoid 317]

So let me know if I have this right. We will have 3 picks and then use 70 odd on clisby thus using four picks?

[rpfc 28,967]

So let me know if I have this right. We will have 3 picks and then use 70 odd on clisby thus using four picks?

Pick 94 to upgrade Clisby.

Pick 70 odd is now GWS' after the Tyson trade.

But yes, we will either use 58 on a newbie, or if we use it on Clisby then we have coaxed someone into the PSD. We effectively have PSD1 as Lamb is off to the GWS.

[demonoid 317]

Pick 94 to upgrade Clisby.

Pick 70 odd is now GWS' after the Tyson trade.

But yes, we will either use 58 on a newbie, or if we use it on Clisby then we have coaxed someone into the PSD. We effectively have PSD1 as Lamb is off to the GWS.

thanks. Is this the final list lodgement? Every year I think I've got my head around it all then realize I'm still very confused. If we want to use 58 on a newbie and psd1 on something then one more will need to make way. Nicho?

[rpfc 28,967]

thanks. Is this the final list lodgement? Every year I think I've got my head around it all then realize I'm still very confused. If we want to use 58 on a newbie and psd1 on something then one more will need to make way. Nicho?

The MFC website has the updated dates here: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-09-30/2013-key-offseason-afl-dates

That was Lodgment 2 and there is another Lodgement on the Monday after the Draft, however, the DFA Period attached to that lodgement starts the Friday before (the next day after the draft) and concludes on that Monday. It gives zero time to be officially delisted and to be picked up in that DFA period. Although it would only effect a miniscule amount of players.

So if Nicho is to be moved on, it would be Friday week. If Viney and co. are certain that there is no-one in the PSD - then there will be a press release detailing Nicho's new contract in the next few days.

FYI: The PSD and RD are on the 27 Nov (6 days after the ND).

[old55 23,848]

or they see a few players at 58 that would improve the list.

It's pick 57.

[rpfc 28,967]

It's pick 57.

It will probably end up being 56 or 55. Maybe lower in terms of 'live' picks.

[deanox 10,059]

As far as I am concerned it was valuable because it became or third pick which we were quite likely to need to use.

If 3 weeks later we were able to sign a better option through the DFA route and that pick is no longer used then that is fine. Ok we may not have used the full value of the trade but that is because we got better value elsewhere, not because we wasted it. The Tyson deal is still not bad without that speculative late pick.