Latest murmurings of a crazy time

[Guest José Mourinho]

I think he will be out of footy for a year.

Ask Fabian Francis how that might turn out...

[sue 8,451]

Hawks pick up Jed Anderson from GWS for Gilham. Why the hell couldn't we have used Martin or Pettard for this trade. We pick up "Dads Army" and they pick up a Jet.

You could ask the same question 20 times over for every good player snapped up by another club - geez we'd had him if only we'd....You can't do them all. Only time will tell how well we've done. But looks OK to me for the moment - a mixture of youth and experience to help them (and the others who have shown real promise) to develop properly.

[DeeZee 6,763]

Stefan Martin deal done for 53 and 73

[Jordie_tackles 354]

We got MacDonald a couple years ago by doing this.

yeah i mean this might be the first year....i might be dreaming it though. Just stops clubs getting screwed by player walking to a bottom team when they would HAVE to be traded to a higher team.

[TheoX 1,218]

Stefan Martin deal done for 53 and 73

And we give them pick 4 with Martin? wouldn't suprise me

[wisedog 326]

That means we've received picks 49, 53, 58, 73, and 88.

There has to be more trades in the pipeline, otherwise I can't see why we would be racking up low picks we don't have room on the list to use.

Edited October 26, 2012 by wisedog

[red and blue forever 781]

we will offer 53 and 73 to saints for ray

[Ned 156]

That means we've received picks 49, 53, 58, 73, and 88.

There has to be more trades in the pipeline, otherwise I can't see why we would be racking up low picks we don't have room on the list to use.

Preparing for hidden gems late in the draft no doubt.

[Guest José Mourinho]

What I don't get is why 53 AND 73.

If we don't plan to use the late picks, why bother?

If its just a way of "delisting" a player under contract, why include TWO picks?

Just do it for 53. Or 73. Whatever.

But to include both picks indicates both would be used for some purpose.

[PaulRB 5,973]

MAybe we're trying to Help the Saints deal with West Coast to get Ray?

[old dee 22,930]

Guys how is this for a theory

"A number of players have been told by the FD they are not in our plans for the future e.g. Gysberts, Martin and Morton.

They have been told we will try and get you somewhere else".

using the three above as examples none have shown anything approaching their draft selections positions.

So forget what we have got for them they are nowhere near their draft selection positions quality.

It is the MFC doing the right thing by these players.

The result for the MFC is we liberate spots and save salarys on players that will contribute little in 2013 or beyond.

[dee-luded 2,958]

That means we've received picks 49, 53, 58, 73, and 88.

There has to be more trades in the pipeline, otherwise I can't see why we would be racking up low picks we don't have room on the list to use.

W don't have to use them all. IMO some will obviously be rookie upgrades, & we may be able to use unused picks in the preseason or the delisted free agencies?

[Guest José Mourinho]

W don't have to use them all. IMO some will obviously be rookie upgrades, & we may be able to use unused picks in the preseason or the delisted free agencies?

FCS! You don't need to trade picks in for bloody rookie upgrades...

[GM11 692]

FCS! You don't need to trade picks in for bloody rookie upgrades...

You do.

[Salems Lot 2,378]

Guys how is this for a theory

"A number of players have been told by the FD they are not in our plans for the future e.g. Gysberts, Martin and Morton.

They have been told we will try and get you somewhere else".

using the three above as examples none have shown anything approaching their draft selections positions.

So forget what we have got for them they are nowhere near their draft selection positions quality.

It is the MFC doing the right thing by these players.

The result for the MFC is we liberate spots and save salarys on players that will contribute little in 2013 or beyond.

To be fair I think Martin was a rookie so in fact he probably gave better than expected

[Salems Lot 2,378]

Looks like I will be buying a record next year, the old "well played number 9!" will be the case at the start of the seaon with all the changes going on!

[wisedog 326]

W don't have to use them all. IMO some will obviously be rookie upgrades, & we may be able to use unused picks in the preseason or the delisted free agencies?

But surely there's just not enough space on the list to go hunting for late gems and delisted free agents?

As Jose said above, I can't sunderstand why Melbourne would push for pick 73 in addition to pick 53, when we already had 49, 58, 66, 84, and 88.

Something has to happen in the next 10 minutes...

[old dee 22,930]

To be fair I think Martin was a rookie so in fact he probably gave better than expected

You are correct re Martin

However what do you think of the theory?

[dee-luded 2,958]

But surely there's just not enough space on the list to go hunting for late gems and delisted free agents?

As Jose said above, I can't sunderstand why Melbourne would push for pick 73 in addition to pick 53, when we already had 49, 58, 66, 84, and 88.

Something has to happen in the next 10 minutes...

Yes I think the reason is to shed certain players, & to start with a fresh attitude around the club.

And yes, I did know we need list spots to upgrade our rookies, but got tangled in a moments confusion, re the trades.

As to the need for those later picks, I guess we'll have to wait & see.

[jnrmac 19,077]

But surely there's just not enough space on the list to go hunting for late gems and delisted free agents?

As Jose said above, I can't sunderstand why Melbourne would push for pick 73 in addition to pick 53, when we already had 49, 58, 66, 84, and 88.

Something has to happen in the next 10 minutes...

We haven't de-listed any players yet....... should be a number of those coming next week.

[pantaloons 2,019]

Unforgivable to end up with that collection of slop picks. Total lack of smarts.

[Jack Jack 415]

To be fair I think Martin was a rookie so in fact he probably gave better than expected

Are you talking about Stef Martin? I think he was taken in the PSD.

[old dee 22,930]

Yes I think the reason is to shed certain players, & to start with a fresh attitude around the club.

And yes, I did know we need list spots to upgrade our rookies, but got tangled in a moments confusion, re the trades.

As to the need for those later picks, I guess we'll have to wait & see.

AS I understand it dee-luded you cannot give a player to a club you have to get something.

so in the case of Morton they probably told him we do not want you and will try and get you back to WA if that is what you want.

So 88 is just to get the trade done.

[Jock Strap 197]

Guys how is this for a theory

"A number of players have been told by the FD they are not in our plans for the future e.g. Gysberts, Martin and Morton.

They have been told we will try and get you somewhere else".

using the three above as examples none have shown anything approaching their draft selections positions.

So forget what we have got for them they are nowhere near their draft selection positions quality.

It is the MFC doing the right thing by these players.

The result for the MFC is we liberate spots and save salarys on players that will contribute little in 2013 or beyond.

Agree. Fire sale / assisting guys find new homes

[old dee 22,930]

Unforgivable to end up with that collection of slop picks. Total lack of smarts.

You may well be grossly over rating the value of our traded players.

Remember we won 1 game against a team above us in 2012.

These players are ordinary. so guess what we got ordinary value.