On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

Nevermind, the baby wasn't fully commited to the bathing process and was just getting in the way of new babies who can understand the importance of scrubbing.

PLEASE, PLEASE don't give any of the new young players numbers of significance.

Give them all high numbers and give them time to earn a number of significance.

If we give Viney 31, Hogan 5 etc etc then it shows we have learnt NOTHING and will continue to be crap.

On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

Babies (plural)

Thankfully .

Hopefully we just put men on the park now.

On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

Disagree, I would have been more disappointed to have missed out on Cam than I am to losing Gys. And I said earlier in the year, I'd only give up on Cale when he was officially de-listed well here we are and I feel....hmmmm......pretty bl@@dy good actually!

I wouldn't say an e but c- would be more like it, we got hasbeens in and let some good players go, Gysberts is the one whose going to burn us and if he does l'll be down to Neeld and burn my membership in front of his face

If I threatened to burn my membership every time we made a mistake there would be constant inferno's raging.

On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

I reckon we just threw out the bath water and there were turds floating in it.

That's a very absolute statement.

I will say that if Byrnes is still here in 3 years, these things must happen:

1. He has played well enough to earn another contract.

2. He has been a positive influence on the group.

3. And we still haven't found a suitable replacement to play as a small forward.

For what it's worth, my older sister who has been a mad Cats supporter (and no, in this case that isn't a tautology) since the late 40's, insisted last night that we have made an excellent pick-up in Byrnes. She says that the only reason he wasn't playing in the ones, was because of the class that was keeping him out and there just wasn't room for him to get a regular gig...and when you think about it, at that level in a team like the Cats, the difference in skill levels required to get a run ahead of the likes of Bartell can be pretty miniscule.

In a couple of years time if we are in a position to challenge for the flag, I would expect that we will go after a big fish and land one. If it will help us win a flag I don't care what it costs and how long the contract is. Essendon have recruited Goddard to show the supporters they are leaving no stone unturned, but they are in reality miles off a flag.

Spot on Robbie. The really good players leaving clubs as FA will be those desperate to snare a flag before they retire. If we're in with a shot at one at some point FAs will want to be part of it.

Of course to get there we have to get the culture and development infrastructure right, which is what the power clubs have over us (and most of the small clubs like North and Bullies - at least in terms of infrastructure). If we do get those things right more of the smaller fish in the FA pool will be interested in coming to the dees.

I was happy with our performance until today. Giving up Gysberts and especially Morton for SFA is disappointing. I am confident both will perform better under the right development framework. I am also concerned Neeld is not prepared to invest any time to develop kids properly. Mature players from good cultures is a sensible strategy but too many mid-age NQRs will not a flag team make.

RD, you write as if we have delisted all of our team. What Neeld has done is get rid of the time wasting periphery.

Go Dees

On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

Which baby was that?

Gysberts - the weak, inside mid, with terrible endurance?

Morton - the weak, soft, distance running project?

Martin - the back-up ruck who is useless for the 75% of the game he doesn't spend in the ruck?

Which one these 'babies' was so important?

I rated them infront of only a handful of Demons in line to get a game next year. Gysberts and Morton pushed farther down by Wines, Byrnes, Viney, Rodan, Taggert, and Tynan.

Martin's usefulness evaporated the moment we got Pedersen - a player who will actually be useful while not in the ruck for the chop out of Jamar/Spencer/Gawn.

Dr. Smith on SEN is again spitting bile on the club like Denham...

On the last day of trade week, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Smacked of desperation.

Why? Pederson was A major target. If the lions had given up pick 33 for Martin, that would have done the job, and Gysberts would have stayed. But Gysberts was the reluctant trade to get Pederson and once Pederson was landed, the game time for Martin was probably very limited; so Martin to the lions was a win/win.

Morton? We effectively paid WC to take him and so create a spot on our list - fair outcome for mine.

Dr. Smith on SEN is again spitting bile on the club like Denham...

...and in part he is right. Not about the delistings and drafting decisions but about the decisions that were made previously that have brought us to this point.

I have reservations about those still in senior positions that have overseen the disaster. Wouldn't happen anywhere else.

...and in part he is right. Not about the delistings and drafting decisions but about the decisions that were made previously that have brought us to this point.

I have reservations about those still in senior positions that have overseen the disaster. Wouldn't happen anywhere else.

yes the Mclardy board & CS are on notice but Smith was still bagging Neeld as well for the players recruited.

At least supporters are ringing to disagree.

How could you rate it a pass. We've paid overs for everything, and received unders for everything given up..... The art of negotiation MFC style.

Totally agree- I think we definitely need a change at the top- our CEO needs to put in place a replacement strategy as he is a looser with the same mentality and seems to now be desperate spending our heroes money unwisely IMO

Who would you have recruited JCB?

We had to pay overs because of how far back we came from...It will be the same next year.

The board & CS are now one entity, in it together & are on notice this year imo.

Totally agree- I think we definitely need a change at the top- our CEO needs to put in place a replacement strategy as he is a looser with the same mentality and seems to now be desperate spending our heroes money unwisely IMO

How is he spending it unwisely?

yes the Mclardy board & CS are on notice but Smith was still bagging Neeld as well for the players recruited.

At least supporters are ringing to disagree.

Who cares what Smith said .

We got what we wanted from the draft .

We're training already.

The sandbags are cut.

Everyone has an opinion on it but we got Neeld here to do a job and he's doing it .

Bascially the same list as 186 last year.

He couldn't have been more brutal than he was.

Getting on our list is no longer an excuse to be mediocre.

I heard on the weekend from a friend that the players all hate Neeld because he is an ar%e hole.

Good stuff I say.

The players are no longer running the show because they are incapable.

When they are more like Geelong maybe we can ease up on them .

^^^ agree. I just wish the media could see it this way.

The backroom deal involving Jack Viney saw us overpay for Hogan, particularly when we had #4. The club has charged people in roles where they are heavily conflicted and, as a result, we let the emotion of the Viney situation get the better of us. We should have called GWS’s and GC’s bluff on Viney, because they didn’t rate him at #1 or #2 and they would not have nominated him if they knew they would then be forced to take him.

The Martin deal was terrible. Going forward, he would have been a better first ruck than Jamar, who is on his last legs. While Martin has shown little as a KPF, he has always done well when given first ruck responsibilities and he would have added some much need pace around the ball to complement our slow midfield.

The decision to take Byrnes and Rodan smacks of desperation from Neeld. While others talk of their leadership qualities, not enough is made of the opportunity cost from them taking up spots on the list that could otherwise be developed into long-term players. Moreover, the decision to take Byrnes as a Free Agent so early in the trade period diluted our compensation for Moloney and Rivers and we should have only ever taken him after he was delisted.

The Dawes deal was fair in terms of draft picks but is risky given his form last year was hopeless. The four-year big money deal means that he must deliver more than a decoy role for Clark and he needs to kick 40 goals per year for the trade to be a success.

I doubt Gysberts will come back to bite us, as his kicking is not good enough for a midfielder without pace. Pedersen looks like he will be a good pick up.

The Morton deal made sense given he was never going to be successful at Melbourne. I doubt he will make it at West Coast.

While Rivers loss can be covered, he was still better than the alternatives. I see his exit as a negative.

While our list will improve over summer, it was always going to improve given the low base we are coming from and the draft picks we had. I just feel it could have been so much better.

Totally agree- I think we definitely need a change at the top- our CEO needs to put in place a replacement strategy as he is a looser with the same mentality and seems to now be desperate spending our heroes money unwisely IMO

Board gave him 3 years, and he isn't a loser.

He is a part of what has been a collective failure but there are many culprits and the most to blame, in my opinion, have been moved on.

Proper personnel has always been a problem at this club, and it seems to have been only rectified this year.

It's going to take time.

How is he spending it unwisely?

Good question ( for which there is no answer!!)

The backroom deal involving Jack Viney saw us overpay for Hogan, particularly when we had #4. The club has charged people in roles where they are heavily conflicted and, as a result, we let the emotion of the Viney situation get the better of us. We should have called GWS’s and GC’s bluff on Viney, because they didn’t rate him at #1 or #2 and they would not have nominated him if they knew they would then be forced to take him.

Backroom deal? Talk about manipulative laguage...

I hollered until the collective ears of Demonland that the importance of getting Viney in the second round was of paramount importance. To be able to get a third Top 5 talent in the draft is list altering. That deal - where three parties worked in their own best interest - got us a dominant FF/CHF, and maintained our ability to pick two mids in the Top 5 in Viney and Pick 4.

Without this deal we might have had to pay Pick 3 for Viney or not taken him at all and still got our Top 5 picks but no future FF/CHF.

The Martin deal was terrible. Going forward, he would have been a better first ruck than Jamar, who is on his last legs. While Martin has shown little as a KPF, he has always done well when given first ruck responsibilities and he would have added some much need pace around the ball to complement our slow midfield.

When a ruckman is supposed to 'complement our slow midfield' I think we have got bigger issues than whether we swap our back-up ruck Martin for Pedersen. Pedersen is useful in the forward line and as that is where the back-up ruck would play - hallejulah...

And nobody else thought MArtin could be first ruck. Where was the rest of the AFL? The Lions got him to help Leuenberger for reason that escape me - he is useless in the forward line and that is where he will play most of his footy.

The decision to take Byrnes and Rodan smacks of desperation from Neeld. While others talk of their leadership qualities, not enough is made of the opportunity cost from them taking up spots on the list that could otherwise be developed into long-term players. Moreover, the decision to take Byrnes as a Free Agent so early in the trade period diluted our compensation for Moloney and Rivers and we should have only ever taken him after he was delisted.

If Knights got Adelaide nothing then so did Byrnes for Geelong - which means he would not have affected our compensation at all. And comp wasn't bundled - if we had two net players lost - we would have got 2 crappy picks rather than the one crappy pick we got.

And you cannot do everything with kids. We have enough kids. We have enough projects as it is and enough talent to expose over the next few years. What we need is to create an enviroment for the talent we do have to thrive and improve. It wasn't happening under those that have left so if the FD think that Byrnes and Rodan can help that then bring it on.

The Dawes deal was fair in terms of draft picks but is risky given his form last year was hopeless. The four-year big money deal means that he must deliver more than a decoy role for Clark and he needs to kick 40 goals per year for the trade to be a success.

I doubt Gysberts will come back to bite us, as his kicking is not good enough for a midfielder without pace. Pedersen looks like he will be a good pick up.

The Morton deal made sense given he was never going to be successful at Melbourne. I doubt he will make it at West Coast.

While Rivers loss can be covered, he was still better than the alternatives. I see his exit as a negative.

While our list will improve over summer, it was always going to improve given the low base we are coming from and the draft picks we had. I just feel it could have been so much better.

A agree with most of this save for Rivers - he was already pushed out of the backline - and the last line: we brought in 5 players that will improve our team straight away and secured 3 Top 5 talents.

We had a very good October.

All this talk of the backroom deal to enable us to get Viney in the 2nd round, but "overpay" for Hogan by using pick 3 + some, does that mean Gold Coast had a backroom deal with GWS as well? Afterall, they gave up Pick 2 + some for the 1st mini draft pick.

The backroom deal involving Jack Viney saw us overpay for Hogan, particularly when we had #4. The club has charged people in roles where they are heavily conflicted and, as a result, we let the emotion of the Viney situation get the better of us. We should have called GWS’s and GC’s bluff on Viney, because they didn’t rate him at #1 or #2 and they would not have nominated him if they knew they would then be forced to take him.

The Martin deal was terrible. Going forward, he would have been a better first ruck than Jamar, who is on his last legs. While Martin has shown little as a KPF, he has always done well when given first ruck responsibilities and he would have added some much need pace around the ball to complement our slow midfield.

The decision to take Byrnes and Rodan smacks of desperation from Neeld. While others talk of their leadership qualities, not enough is made of the opportunity cost from them taking up spots on the list that could otherwise be developed into long-term players. Moreover, the decision to take Byrnes as a Free Agent so early in the trade period diluted our compensation for Moloney and Rivers and we should have only ever taken him after he was delisted.

The Dawes deal was fair in terms of draft picks but is risky given his form last year was hopeless. The four-year big money deal means that he must deliver more than a decoy role for Clark and he needs to kick 40 goals per year for the trade to be a success.

I doubt Gysberts will come back to bite us, as his kicking is not good enough for a midfielder without pace. Pedersen looks like he will be a good pick up.

The Morton deal made sense given he was never going to be successful at Melbourne. I doubt he will make it at West Coast.

While Rivers loss can be covered, he was still better than the alternatives. I see his exit as a negative.

While our list will improve over summer, it was always going to improve given the low base we are coming from and the draft picks we had. I just feel it could have been so much better.

disagree completely Fat.

You have little understanding of how Free Agency works now & in the future.