In simple terms ...Along with even the same set of drafts picks possible , Boak( or Boak type ) will impact the setup of out team far more than Cloke.

No one can comment upon who is actually avail under trade week. We only know the FA's as theyre there for all to see.

But in playing your money or the box game Osilik I would rather pick B... Boak, pick 3, 12 and Viney ( 3 - 4 mids)

its not about having the best change left over or greatest collection of drafts etc. Its about having the best abled team, thats all.

And thats "Team"...not disconnnected amalgamtion of known names.

Explain how getting Cloke will hamper us in getting mids when such big coin isn't needed to trade.

Just because we get Cloke, it will not stop us from trading for Boak

It would only hamper us if there was other A grade mids who we could get with F/A as our coin would be to tied up to go all out for multiple F/A's

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by olisik

Explain how getting Cloke will hamper us in getting mids when such big coin isn't needed to trade.

It would only hamper us if there was other A grade mids who we could get without trading but there isn't.

History suggest the only way to entice an established player to Melbourne...is money. Its exactly how anyone is planning on getting Cloke. The same money would /will be needed to entice a Boak or anyone else. Id rather spend money to entice A good mid...( or two ) and a small crumbing type forward to us than throw ALL that money at one bloke whom we can not feed with our current midfield.

History suggest the only way to entice an established player to Melbourne...is money. Its exactly how anyone is planning on getting Cloke. The same money would /will be needed to entice a Boak or anyone else. Id rather spend money to entice A good mid...( or two ) and a small crumbing type forward to us than throw ALL that money at one bloke whom we can not feed with our current midfield.

As i have already said many times, we TRADE for Boak or other mids, not lure them with money. If we trade for them then they are FORCED to come to us, otherwise go in PSD.

Money is not needed to entice/lure when they are TRADED.

Them wanting to come to us is a luxury we dont need players to have. It is a nice-to-have thing.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by olisik

As i have already said many times, we TRADE for Boak or other mids, not lure them with money. If we trade for them then they are FORCED to come to us, otherwise go in PSD.

Money is not needed to entice/lure when they are TRADED.

Them wanting to come to us is a luxury we dont need players to have. It is a nice-to-have thing.

you dont get it do you ..

Trading is ABOUT the money

I say if we have the money GET HIM.

Were not giving up anything but money.

We still have picks 3,4,12 which will get us 2 or 3 qualtiy mids,which we can trade for ready to go mids(Caddy,Viney,Boak)

Cloke would bring members through the gate in 2013 and help with future sponsors.

Clark,Jurruh,Cloke and throw in a small forward and we have a ready to go STRONG forward line.

The young players will grow under big boys like Cloke and Clark.

This for me is a no brainer. GET HIM

you dont get it do you ..

Trading is ABOUT the money

Its not about the money.

Port Adelaide couldn't give a sh#t what we pay Boak. All they care about is what draft picks/players they get in return.

If we TRADE for Caddy for example, we can pay him whatever we want. Money isn't an issue for TRADING.

Money is an issue with FREE AGENCY which is why we should use our money on Free Agents.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by olisik

I say if we have the money GET HIM.

Were not giving up anything but money.

I'm coming round to that line of thinking BJ but i'm still not convinced. I have been thinking he simply isn't worth the sort of money that has been discussed. In my humble i reckon he is really overrated as he's only had one a half really good seasons. But structurally he would really help - two power forwards with Clark being able to spend more time in the ruck would be great.

On the other hand what does it matter if we pay overs for him if we have the money in our cap. It has to go somewhere. Exactly the same discussion was being had about Clark last year and look how that panned out. It would be a big thing for the club and i'm sure help team morale for a big name player to come to the club and it would definitely create a buzz, which would please the sponsors.

Also as several posters have noted not having to use any draft picks to get him has to be worth something and needs to be factored in when weighing up the pros and cons.

So i'm a swinging voter atm, though i have to say i wouldn't mind seeing him rampaging around our forward line in a Melbourne jumper round on 2013

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by binman

Its not about the money.

Port Adelaide couldn't give a sh#t what we pay Boak. All they care about is what draft picks/players they get in return.

If we TRADE for Caddy for example, we can pay him whatever we want. Money isn't an issue for TRADING.

Money is an issue with FREE AGENCY which is why we should use our money on Free Agents.

Ummm, I am fairly certain that if we trade with another club for a player that is under contract you have to take on that contract value. It's also likely that you would increase the value of that contract to entice that player to come over, so to say that the player has no say in it is wrong, they have to agree to be traded as well. Again.... that being the case... whats the best way you get a player to agree being traded?

Pay them more money...

The only time this differs is when a player is coming out of contract and has some level of leverage by threatening to go into the draft if they attempt to facilitate the move themselves

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by Oucher

Ummm, I am fairly certain that if we trade with another club for a player that is under contract you have to take on that contract value. It's also likely that you would increase the value of that contract to entice that player to come over, so to say that the player has no say in it is wrong, they have to agree to be traded as well. Again.... that being the case... whats the best way you get a player to agree being traded?

Pay them more money...

The only time this differs is when a player is coming out of contract and has some level of leverage by threatening to go into the draft if they attempt to facilitate the move themselves

You pay them more to keep them happy, its not a must.

Also in regards to the contract, if they are still under contract and the trade is good enough, sometimes the team that the player comes from continues to pay out some/all of the contract as they signed the contract. Not the club the player is going to.

Its not about the money.

Port Adelaide couldn't give a sh#t what we pay Boak. All they care about is what draft picks/players they get in return.

If we TRADE for Caddy for example, we can pay him whatever we want. Money isn't an issue for TRADING.

Money is an issue with FREE AGENCY which is why we should use our money on Free Agents.

you really dont get it do you

Whilst Port dont care much...Boak does...hes the player involved.. you understand that.. He is calling this..not Port. Why should he or anyone come to us ? Fot the greater glory that is to wear the hallowed Red and Blue ? yeah right !! No it will be for MONEY !!!

Money is what drives the desire ( invariably ) for a player to move. Trading etc is the mechanism..not the catalyst. Money talks , players walk.

For those that advocate Cloke please advise,/describe the midfield that will feed him , keeping in miind even Collingwoods well oiled machine has only resulted in a miserly 35 goals to date this year ...WOW !!

That same Million plus some would gift Cloke might well be whats needed to entice the likes of a Boak ( or similar ) plus possibly a decent smaller forward. . Might even go some ways to snaring another exp mid. Now these players will do more to fire up what we already have, than one bloke.

It needs to be understood money is involved with just about everything..EVERYTHING. !! Even in trades, money is involved. FA simply removes an exchange of 'other than money".

you really dont get it do you

Whilst Port dont care much...Boak does...hes the player involved.. you understand that.. He is calling this..not Port. Why should he or anyone come to us ? Fot the greater glory that is to wear the hallowed Red and Blue ? yeah right !! No it will be for MONEY !!!

Money is what drives the desire ( invariably ) for a player to move. Trading etc is the mechanism..not the catalyst. Money talks , players walk.

For those that advocate Cloke please advise,/describe the midfield that will feed him , keeping in miind even Collingwoods well oiled machine has only resulted in a miserly 35 goals to date this year ...WOW !!

That same Million plus some would gift Cloke might well be whats needed to entice the likes of a Boak ( or similar ) plus possibly a decent smaller forward. . Might even go some ways to snaring another exp mid. Now these players will do more to fire up what we already have, than one bloke.

It needs to be understood money is involved with just about everything..EVERYTHING. !! Even in trades, money is involved. FA simply removes an exchange of 'other than money".

Thats where your wrong. The club decides where the player goes.

You saw what happened with Mitch Clarke, he wanted to go home to Fremantle to be with family, but Freo couldn't get the TRADE done.

Even if Freo offered 3 million a year to Clarke last year the fact was that they couldn't get the TRADE done, so they didn't get him. We did.

If the player is not happy with the money then they can go to the draft, where ANYONE CAN DRAFT THEM, and still pay that player whatever they like.

Money is a secondary factor with Trading. It's a primary factor with free-agency.

We should use it where it is a primary factor.

I can see where you are going but honestly the club would've considered all of this. Moloney, Davey, Green are all on pretty big contracts to which are going to end soon.

If we can get good A grade players without having to give up priceless draft picks then I say go for it. Salary cap will just keep growing over time anyway. By the end of the contract the % of his salary to the salary cap will be alot lower then it is the first year. Especially if they front load.

Thats where your wrong. The club decides where the player goes.

You saw what happened with Mitch Clarke, he wanted to go home to Fremantle to be with family, but Freo couldn't get the TRADE done.

Even if Freo offered 3 million a year to Clarke last year the fact was that they couldn't get the TRADE done, so they didn't get him. We did.

If the player is not happy with the money then they can go to the draft, where ANYONE CAN DRAFT THEM, and still pay that player whatever they like.

Money is a secondary factor with Trading. It's a primary factor with free-agency.

We should use it where it is a primary factor.

Yes, but we lured Clark with cash.

He is on huge money - well deserved BTW - and he wouldn't be here without that.

There will be no 'saving' of money in trades...

The side point to all this, and one you should have just stuck with, is that getting FAs is infinitely easier than getting trades done. So one can't simply say 'if Neeld wants Cloke then that means he wants a tall forward - what about these trades...', you can't say that because the reason we are so aggressive with Cloke is because we will maintain our picks if we get him. If the picks are traded it will be for a ready made midfielder to replace HWFUA.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by rpfc

Yes, but we lured Clark with cash.

He is on huge money - well deserved BTW - and he wouldn't be here without that.

There will be no 'saving' of money in trades...

The side point to all this, and one you should have just stuck with, is that getting FAs is infinitely easier than getting trades done. So one can't simply say 'if Neeld wants Cloke then that means he wants a tall forward - what about these trades...', you can't say that because the reason we are so aggressive with Cloke is because we will maintain our picks if we get him. If the picks are traded it will be for a ready made midfielder to replace HWFUA.

Money was a secondary factor was the point though.

The primary factor is satisfying the trade, which freo couldn't.

Teams like to keep players happy, but they don't have to.

Money was a secondary factor was the point though.

The primary factor is satisfying the trade, which freo couldn't.

Teams like to keep players happy, but they don't have to.

We had to convince Clark though.

If he had said 'nah, want to go home' a deal would have been done and the Lions would have settled for Pick 16.

Make no mistake, money, connections, and the fact we got his missus a hospital to work in got the deal done - not an agreement with the Lions.

The simple point is A grade players will cost a lot of money ,no matter how you come by them. We have only one ( near ) A grader and a couple who aspire to a place very close to it but continually lapse back to B-ness.

There is no sense ( to me ) in front loading the team...and literally. We need balance through out to get this mob to work efficiently and consitently.

Cloke is not the answer, not for us. If all we needed was a power forward to complete the team , then yeah, why the hell not. But the dam is leaking all over the place....another shiny sluice gate isnt the answer

The simple point is A grade players will cost a lot of money ,no matter how you come by them. We have only one ( near ) A grader and a couple who aspire to a place very close to it but continually lapse back to B-ness.

There is no sense ( to me ) in front loading the team...and literally. We need balance through out to get this mob to work efficiently and consitently.

Cloke is not the answer, not for us. If all we needed was a power forward to complete the team , then yeah, why the hell not. But the dam is leaking all over the place....another shiny sluice gate isnt the answer

BB hear me out. I'm sure you're well aware of our clubs list management strategy. You know, a few years ago where the club went about paying big contracts early, and staggering other contracts..because someone had to be paid, despite the poor performing list.

And the strategy enabled our club to "STRIKE" while the iron was hot with an enticing contract. And it did last year in Clark. (olisik - I know you're reading this so please spell Clark's name without the "e" in future, because everytime I read your posts I think of Michael Clarke and I puke !)

And that goes for any other nuff nuff "Clarke" subscriber.

Ok. Now after the next 6 weeks take place it could well be that we will have 3,4,12 (incl. compo picks). We know we need quality mids and if the club and it's recruiting can manufacture a decent return with the help of some others we could feasibly achieve this including our F/S pick as a second rounder.

Cloke is a RFA, he won't cost a pick, but he'll cost $ and he won't be a project player. The top teams have two decent key forwards and yes they are serviced by good midfields. We have a chance to address both IMO. Improve the functionality of both in one foul swoop. Clark can be a second ruckman and be a dual forward with a Cloke.

I'm still big on the midfield, but I'm also willing to accomodate a Cloke if he's attainable thanks to strategic list management position. Or any other experienced player our club sets it's eyes on.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by H_T
Spell. Brainfade or finger fade, most likely the former.

Id only entertain him H_T if the club can secure at least one fair dinkum b+ mid, secured a small forward (rtg) and decent picks draft wise as well as Viney. Do all that as a pririty and if the cashtin allows.... Then Cloke. Not the other way round. We need the horse(s) first.

I am hoping Viney will come for something other than 3,4 or 12!

Cloke, Clarke, 3,4,Caddy/Boak and Viney would be a good set of "ins" over a 2 year period.

I am hoping Viney will come for something other than 3,4 or 12!

Cloke, Clarke, 3,4,Caddy/Boak and Viney would be a good set of "ins" over a 2 year period.

How could you forget about Taggart!!

Id only entertain him H_T if the club can secure at least one fair dinkum b+ mid, secured a small forward (rtg) and decent picks draft wise as well as Viney. Do all that as a pririty and if the cashtin allows.... Then Cloke. Not the other way round. We need the horse(s) first.

http://www.melbourne...x?newsid=142524

maybe one of those small forwards could play a 200cm forward like what Rivers is trying to play.

This says it all, we need some better targets. They will make our current and our new drafted mids look better.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by olisik

Improve the functionality of both in one fowl swoop.

We get chickens too ?

We get chickens too ?

lol. Hopefully we get the lot.

lol. Hopefully we get the lot.

just no more egg on our face !!