I just don't think Gysberts has been given enough time given his injuries and lack of body size and I also think he wasn't given as many opportunities as other players who showed far less in their time at Casey.

I'm not saying he's the next big thing, but I have seen that he has certain talents that are worth persevering with and given the state of our midfield I think a young player with a knack of finding the footy is someone you would want to try to develop.

To then trade him for another key forward – I don't quite understand it. We have Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes and Jesse Hogan. You cannot have more than three talls in your forward line. So I'm just thinking what role Pederson is going to play in a few years' time when Hogan should be ready to play. Pederson is not better than Mitch Clark, and if he keeps Dawes out of the team then we have overpaid on Dawes.

So for me the short-sightedness of the decision is in getting a mature KPF who could play next year but at this point in time is questionable whether he would make our best 22 in a few years' time at the expense of a young developing midfielder who could add something to the midfield group for many years.

But feel free to argue that trading a 21 year old for a 26 year old is not a decision for the short term.

If the 21 year old has one position that we will not play in three years and the 26 year old improved structure and may play in three years then it is a good move.

Pederson can play back? Could he take Sellar's role if he is cut at the end of next year? Doesn't it provide us with the chance to have some strong talls and depth? Martin is not up to it. Fitzy may not be either - his kicking is still very iffy (albeit improved).

Gysberts could only play inside onballer IMO. He could not play forward or back due to disposal being average only and overhead skills and pace being average-below average. So it is him or viney, jones, trenners, mackensie and then pick 4. No loss. We have redundancy/backups (magner & couch).

Pederson may well allow fitzy more time to develop, may give up a choice of big bodied forwards/defenders, allow mitch clarke and dawes to play permanent forward and mean that hogan has to earn his spot. I cannot see gys giving us structural advantage and he has not earnt his place in the midfield and I am not convinced that he'd keep it over the next few years anyway.

I just don't think Gysberts has been given enough time given his injuries and lack of body size and I also think he wasn't given as many opportunities as other players who showed far less in their time at Casey.

I'm not saying he's the next big thing, but I have seen that he has certain talents that are worth persevering with and given the state of our midfield I think a young player with a knack of finding the footy is someone you would want to try to develop.

To then trade him for another key forward – I don't quite understand it. We have Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes and Jesse Hogan. You cannot have more than three talls in your forward line. So I'm just thinking what role Pederson is going to play in a few years' time when Hogan should be ready to play. Pederson is not better than Mitch Clark, and if he keeps Dawes out of the team then we have overpaid on Dawes.

So for me the short-sightedness of the decision is in getting a mature KPF who could play next year but at this point in time is questionable whether he would make our best 22 in a few years' time at the expense of a young developing midfielder who could add something to the midfield group for many years.

But feel free to argue that trading a 21 year old for a 26 year old is not a decision for the short term.

Sure we now have hogan, Clark, Pederson and dawes but this can't be a bad thing seeing as garland and rivers played up front all this year. Pederson is a depth player at worst, gysberts is a potential player who had no cardio, foot speed and poor disposal.

The fact is gysberts is well behind a long list of developing midfielders and Pederson is in our top 3 key position players for next year.

We can get 5-6 years out of Pederson by then hogan, Fitzpatrick, gawn shall be taking over, this is a long term plan rather than a quick fix!

The side will evolve. Pedersen can also play back. I think many will be surprised at how well Pedersen plays.

As for Gysberts ? I've long ago stopped making excuses for NQR footballers. And I've wanted someone to turn the bloody list over for ages. I called for it in the Daniher years. We just keep ordinary footballers for an eternity. Finally there's a coach that rates the players the same as many of the supporters. Finally there's a coach who's prepared to make some tough decisons. Will I be annoyed if Gysberts plays 100 games at North ? No. It's the right call to move him on.

We have given them Gysberts and pick 63 for Pederson and pick 74 well done team, I wonder if we will pay Gysbert's wage as well?

How on earth did they get a better late pick then us? Taken to the cleaners on this one

I have no issue in trading Gys, though I was happy to keep him and see if we could develop him. So for all those who said he wasn't a bad pick, but rather needed development, the FD disagree with you. They say he was a bad selection, because they can't develop him.

I remember on the day he was drafted being told by a MFC official that we would pass on Daniel Talia and take Gys. WJ who was with me at the time nearly fainted. I was lost for words. As it turns out we have passed on an AA CHB and got rid of the bloke we took instead 3 years later. Well done BP you bloody genius. Then its repeated with Cook. BP was another Szondy as far as I am concerned. There, I got that off my chest.

My real beef is that we are getting done over on our trades. Not only have we done a swap of players but also a swap of picks where we have gone back about 11 places. Now before you say we wouldn't even use those picks, why didn't we get a pick we could use say on Ray. We have valued Gys at less than Pedersen. I think that is a joke.

We seem and I stress, from the outside looking in, to be getting bent over on our trades. Could someone explain to me why I am wrong in this perception.

I'd like to hear from the club about this trade. Not some soft statement about thanking a player for their service.

If Gysberts had a bad attitude then say so, if we didn't think he was gong to physically up to it then let's hear the truth.

From the outside all I see was a player I was really excited about this time last year go for 1 bad year.

And we move on lol

How on earth did they get a better late pick then us? Taken to the cleaners on this one

CLearly the coach has made a call on a lot of players. For that I applaud him. He would know better than us.

The thing with trade week is that you can insist on particular compo and stand your ground and the deal doesn't get done. Our position is much worse than that . We had no option but to trade for a team that will have a go - my biggest gripe of 2012. Ticker, heart call it what you will, we have the softest team in the AFL by some way. Significant change was needed and we have it. Whether the changes will be good we will know after about 6 weeks of 2013 I reckon.

I would be betting though that going to the footy will be a lot more enjoyable and competitive than it was this year.

I have a lesser view of Gysberts than the majority here on Demonland. While he can find the ball, he lacks athletic ability and size and his kicking is substandard for a slow inside mid. Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed that he had so little currency.

Pederson may be a good pickup, but I feel that getting him, Dawes and Hogan is a bit like using a cannon to kill a mosquito. Particularly when we already have Clark, as well as Howe, Watts and Fitzpatrick who could also eventually play as KPFs.

I can see the logic in it, as Hogan will take a while to develop so essentially Pederson adds to the current backup stocks for Clark and Dawes, of which the other options are sketchy at best. Having said that, we've been bent over at the trade table with this one. Regardless of whether Gys bought into Neeld's plan, he is worth more than a VFL swingman and a trade down in picks.

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be.

My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts.

Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals.

I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

I just don't think Gysberts has been given enough time given his injuries and lack of body size and I also think he wasn't given as many opportunities as other players who showed far less in their time at Casey.

I'm not saying he's the next big thing, but I have seen that he has certain talents that are worth persevering with and given the state of our midfield I think a young player with a knack of finding the footy is someone you would want to try to develop.

To then trade him for another key forward – I don't quite understand it. We have Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes and Jesse Hogan. You cannot have more than three talls in your forward line. So I'm just thinking what role Pederson is going to play in a few years' time when Hogan should be ready to play. Pederson is not better than Mitch Clark, and if he keeps Dawes out of the team then we have overpaid on Dawes.

So for me the short-sightedness of the decision is in getting a mature KPF who could play next year but at this point in time is questionable whether he would make our best 22 in a few years' time at the expense of a young developing midfielder who could add something to the midfield group for many years.

But feel free to argue that trading a 21 year old for a 26 year old is not a decision for the short term.

Pederson is flexible, he can play down back. So he isn't necessarily a pigeon holed KPF as you put it. And so what if the decision is for the short term? There's an argument that if things aren't working out and Gysberts doesn't want to undergo a Misson pre-season, you cut your losses for those who aren't willing to do the hard yards and be part of a side hell bent on becoming a hard side to play against.

We've lost Jurrah, Green has retired and Watts is an option to play back (according to Neeld), so we need replacements up forward in todays game. I'm as big as critic as any re: our midfield and I'm big on wanting quality. I see that in Viney and pick 4. I see it in who I previously mentioned including the further improvement and progress of Jones, Trengove, McKenzie, Blease, Grimes, etc.

I have a lesser view of Gysberts than the majority here on Demonland. While he can find the ball, he lacks athletic ability and size and his kicking is substandard for a slow inside mid. Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed that he had so little currency.

Pederson may be a good pickup, but I feel that getting him, Dawes and Hogan is a bit like using a cannon to kill a mosquito. Particularly when we already have Clark, as well as Howe, Watts and Fitzpatrick who could also eventually play as KPFs.

Howe will play more of a midfield role, watts as a defender and fitz is still 10 kgs of being ready to play.

The club may not be planning on using these late picks other than rookie upgrades.

How many bleating over Gysberts had him in your best team ? Whenever I write down my best team over a beer with a couple of others none of us ever put Gysberts in the 22. And while a best 22 can clearly change it's also fair to say that Gysberts exposed form suggests it wouldn't.

It's been a long time since I've got upset over losing ordinary players.

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be.

My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts.

Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals.

I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

I understand your lodgic Scoop - but i think people in the media and on here put too much emphasis on draft pick numbers - Once a player is drafted I don't really think clubs look at where they were picked (in the big picture) I do realise a draft position are a good indication of player value but it's not the be all end all.

I personally think list positions are more important that draft order - For example MFC are in a stage where want to bring in experience and draft some quality kids - hence why so many careers are in limbo - Dunn, Bate etc

For my point of view Cale Morton trade was nothing more then to clear list space for a bloke that really wants to play winning footy at the MFC. There is no doubt Gys and Morton had talent and potential - the MFC has made calls to bring in blokes that are going to be dedicated to the cause.

I'd rather have those blokes on the list now then blokes who have had chances haven't proven they can play consistent AFL footy every week and probably don't want to play for the club.

Thats my take

More power to Neeld.

Have never rated Gysberts as highly as many do here, and obviously the FD don't rate him all that

much either!

Hopefully it will shut some of the 'pro every young player on our list' types on this forum.

Time to shift to a new level of conciousness gang. Not every young player on our list

that has been a top 20 draft pick is going to be the next 'star'.

Let the overhaul continue. (Hopefully some supporters will be apart of it also..)

Looking fwd to seeing how the rest of the list responds to the brutal turnover we are seeing.

There are no sacred cows which is a fantastic thing.

A question who is the bigger loss Gysberts or Morton

Gysberts got a couple of nominations granted although it appears did little else wouldn't buy in to Neelds plan and basically may have been traded to show the younger players at the Dees buy in or get out

A statement was made with Gysberts which I agree upon if you are trying to bring about a cultural change at a club

Morton had no physicality in his play although at least he could run and will most likely do ok at the weagles

Farewell Jordie. You blew your opportunities big time, but best of luck at NordaMelbin, you'll need it and more

I have no issue in trading Gys, though I was happy to keep him and see if we could develop him. So for all those who said he wasn't a bad pick, but rather needed development, the FD disagree with you. They say he was a bad selection, because they can't develop him.

I remember on the day he was drafted being told by a MFC official that we would pass on Daniel Talia and take Gys. WJ who was with me at the time nearly fainted. I was lost for words. As it turns out we have passed on an AA CHB and got rid of the bloke we took instead 3 years later. Well done BP you bloody genius. Then its repeated with Cook. BP was another Szondy as far as I am concerned. There, I got that off my chest.

My real beef is that we are getting done over on our trades. Not only have we done a swap of players but also a swap of picks where we have gone back about 11 places. Now before you say we wouldn't even use those picks, why didn't we get a pick we could use say on Ray. We have valued Gys at less than Pedersen. I think that is a joke.

We seem and I stress, from the outside looking in, to be getting bent over on our trades. Could someone explain to me why I am wrong in this perception.

Good post Redleg. Gysberts over Talia ... what an epic fail!

Re your perception on a our trading, you are not wrong in my opinion but there is a clear reason for it. NEELD NEEDS WINS IN ORDER TO KEEP HIS JOB. That's what it boils down. We know it, other clubs know it, and that's why we're coughing up a bit more than we should be here and there.

Given we did well with the Scully compensation picks (getting two instead of one) and had a win in being able to snare Jack Viney down at pick 26, hopefully it all balances out in the end.Ducks and drakes, snakes and ladders.

I wouldn't worry too much. Neeld's doing the best he can in the circumstances IMO.

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be.

My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts.

Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals.

I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

Ironic - as this is what these players gave the MFC

Dirty word - very hard to argue. What is market vale? - what if no other clubs wanted the players then what is the market value???

I agree we haven't got great value in our picks - what we do have is list spots available to get in kids/experience that want to play footy for Neeld and the MFC

This is what I know about Gysberts and why he was traded-

-he is not competitive at all in one on one drills

-he could not bench press 50kgs and was very ordinary with the other weights

-in today's football the club believed he is not strong enough to play as an inside mid and did not appear to want to improve in the strength area

-his endurance is rubbish and again he didn't appear to want to improve. Anyone that went to preseason would have observed this first hand

-he doesnt have a defensive side to his game which goes against the way neeld wants to play. Very similar to moloney.

-he was not a neeld favourite right from the start because of his work ethic and unlike blease was not prepared to turn it around

Neeld has made his decisions on soft footballers at our club and we are seeing the product of this.

I'll admit I'm a bad loser but even more I hate watching us get pumped so often. I'm happy to move on guys that aren't competitive. Gys is one of those guys. Viney and wines would crush him easily now in that area and hogan has already stated he hates losing. These are the guys I want at our club.

The high draft picks are just a by-product of us moving them on.

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be.

My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts.

Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals.

I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

Scoop, the question I have is about whether he is good enough at the inside role. Now, no-one can dispute that he has that knack of getting the ball (not even STMJ though he'll try). Is he better than Jones, trenners, viney and pick 4? Now, for the last two I just don't know. I am relatively confident that he lacks other strings to his bow that jones and Trenners both have. So, the question then becomes is his ball winning skill so particularly good that his weaknesses are offset? I guess that the FD say 'no'. Truthfully I don't know - i'm not a good judge and don't see enough footy.

As for getting done over, well, let's see what happens. Someone once argued that we over-rate draft picks. What we traded out were blokes we don't think will make it and we traded in blokes who ahve or who we think will. Pehaps the picks are incidental - they allow players off our list and TPP and allow us to keep blokes, pay blokes and offer others more money in the future?

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be.

My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts.

Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals.

I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

Spot on !

The club may not be planning on using these late picks other than rookie upgrades.

How many bleating over Gysberts had him in your best team ? Whenever I write down my best team over a beer with a couple of others none of us ever put Gysberts in the 22. And while a best 22 can clearly change it's also fair to say that Gysberts exposed form suggests it wouldn't.

It's been a long time since I've got upset over losing ordinary players.

IMHO, Pederson, Byrne & Rodan fit the definition - ordinary players. I hope I'm wrong but look at the facts - none could command a regular game in 2012 - no winners as far as I'm concerned. Undone the good work from early in the trade period.