What we just did.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Well Stefan Martin last year was one of the most improved and exciting new developed players in 2011. Martin is one of the rare talls that is agile and has the smarts to go along with that. Martin can ruck, forward and be a fill in defence if needed. Clearly he spent the 2012 year injured and that was most of the reasoning for why he didnt play at the level he did in 2011.

Martin therefor for his past improvement and an unlucky 2012 is worth more than nothing. If i had asked you at the start of 2012 do you think Stef Martin is worth pick 53 and 73, you would have laughed and told me not a chance in hell.

Morton has never really fit in at Melbourne and clearly hasnt put in his all for the club and the development of himself on the field and in the gym.

But when Morton plays well, it is quite amazing to watch a player like him that is perceived as a spud at the Melbourne Foootball Club, he plays like a gem. Morton is work to me about pick 60, not pick 88. Although pick 60 is nothing special, its not a PASS, pick 88 is an upgrade or a PASS.

Martin maybe an academic, but in football terms he is in remedial class.

Morton showed a huge amount of effort last pre season when he hired himself a personal trainer. He had a few good games where he stood out with his run and spread, but, went backwards once again. He didn't gain the much needed strength that Neeld needs to suit his game plan

[bananas 428]

Love the way people are saying 'we didn't get value for Morton/Martin.'

These trades were never about getting anything in to the club. They were about effectively delisting guys who Neeld clearly doesn't want at the club any more, but who were still contracted. If Petterd had a contract, we'd have given him up for pick 100. Instead, we get to delist him normally.

If anything, we've made out like bandits on the Pederson/Gysberts deal, because we've swapped a guy who Neeld was never going to play, for a guy that he clearly will. How that can be anything but a massive win escapes me.

[Pennant St Dee 13,305]

Kicking us has been in vogue for years now.

Had to restrain myself from calling in 6PR this morning, Karl Langdon and that Hack Hagdorn having shots at us for bringing in players who were no better than the ones we cut.

Langdon says things have been bad at Melbourne for years and cnt see any improvement - What does he expect us to do nothing

Hagdorn almost has us finishing bottom believes GWS & Suns are way ahead in development and will leap frog over us. He has us an Bulldogs as the real strugglers next season - FMD I rang him the other week to let him know what we had done was neccassary as we had no leadership in or senior players and the only big mistake with our older players we had done recently was Junior. The guy has NFI about footy and is an absolute internet troll . I expect us to be much harder next year and believe we will see a fair bit of improvement and wont hold back in letting him know

[Grimseyisgod 378]

Love the way people are saying 'we didn't get value for Morton/Martin.'

These trades were never about getting anything in to the club. They were about effectively delisting guys who Neeld clearly doesn't want at the club any more, but who were still contracted. If Petterd had a contract, we'd have given him up for pick 100. Instead, we get to delist him normally.

If anything, we've made out like bandits on the Pederson/Gysberts deal, because we've swapped a guy who Neeld was never going to play, for a guy that he clearly will. How that can be anything but a massive win escapes me.

I think its amazing home optimistic you are, usually im optimistic but after the last 2 days of trade week my smile stiffened up.

Gysberts is a 21 year old ball magnet and Pederson is a 25 year old player who couldnt get a game at north.

But have their upsides and downsides.

Melbourne should have gotten more out of the array of players we lost. Also i think that we gave up probably too many of our picks. But in return we got Dawes which is good.

Hogan to me is the interesting one, i am stoked to get him but i'm going to sit on the fence, we did give up alot for him... but ill be optimistic and say i expect alot from him in the years to come.

Rodan- Pick 88 WIN

Pederson- Gysberts DRAW/LOSS

Dawes- pick 21 WIN/DRAW/ LOSS could be anything

Brynes- free WIN

Hogan and Barry- pick 3 and 13 DRAW/LOSS cant say its a win because pick 3 and 13 from this years draft could well be stars, we did give up alot of hogan

Viney- 27 WINWINWINWINWIN best of the whole period

this is all my opinion

[loges 6,767]

I think its amazing home optimistic you are, usually im optimistic but after the last 2 days of trade week my smile stiffened up.

Gysberts is a 21 year old ball magnet and Pederson is a 25 year old player who couldnt get a game at north.

But have their upsides and downsides.

Melbourne should have gotten more out of the array of players we lost. Also i think that we gave up probably too many of our picks. But in return we got Dawes which is good.

Hogan to me is the interesting one, i am stoked to get him but i'm going to sit on the fence, we did give up alot for him... but ill be optimistic and say i expect alot from him in the years to come.

Rodan- Pick 88 WIN

Pederson- Gysberts DRAW/LOSS

Dawes- pick 21 WIN/DRAW/ LOSS could be anything

Brynes- free WIN

Hogan and Barry- pick 3 and 13 DRAW/LOSS cant say its a win because pick 3 and 13 from this years draft could well be stars, we did give up alot of hogan

Viney- 27 WINWINWINWINWIN best of the whole period

this is all my opinion

Ball magnet Hmmmmm?

[bing181 9,328]

Dawes- pick 21 WIN/DRAW/ LOSS could be anything

Hogan and Barry- pick 3 and 13 DRAW/LOSS cant say its a win because pick 3 and 13 from this years draft could well be stars, we did give up alot of hogan

You've counted the same pick twice. We didn't use 3 and 13 on Hogan and Barry. We used 3 and 13 on Hogan and Barry AND Dawes.

People should drop this obsession with Gysberts. He hasn't done nearly enough, and there are questions about his disposal, his fitness (endurance), and his attitude. Ball magnet?

[loges 6,767]

What we just did was upsize a team light on for size & structure. When Neeld came to MFC we had only one genuine key position player, Frawley, we then got Clark then Tom Mcdonald came on, we went out and got Dawes, now we have , at last a complete goal to goal line. We've added some bigger tougher bodies in other positions, now we won't get pushed around so easily and will be able to better compete against the better sides.Anyone who doubts this watch MFC v geelong 2010 and see how easily they rag dolled us in the one on one contests. It was obvious then that we had to get much bigger.We have Viney & pick 4 to come. That will be 2 top 10 midfielders in the one draft. How often does that happen? I suspect people may be surprised by how much we can possibly improve next year

[Hannibal 5,814]

Gysberts is a 21 year old ball magnet and Pederson is a 25 year old player who couldnt get a game at north.

Gysberts being a ball magnet is a myth. It's on the back of a couple of early games where he was able to play an outside role and if you watch those games again he butchered the ball - which was OK for his first couple of games.

This year he played 13 completed games for Casey in his third year on an AFL list and averaged 19.7 disposals per game. Hardly a ball magnets effort. And his kicking efficiency was deplorable.

Funny how you say Pedersen "couldn't get a game at North", but overlook Gysberts' solitary game this year for Melbourne.

Want to have a wager on who plays more AFL games next year ? There will be a lot of eggs on faces in 12 months time when people see what Pedersen can do.

[Lampers 563]

Love the way people are saying 'we didn't get value for Morton/Martin.'

These trades were never about getting anything in to the club. They were about effectively delisting guys who Neeld clearly doesn't want at the club any more, but who were still contracted. If Petterd had a contract, we'd have given him up for pick 100. Instead, we get to delist him normally.

If anything, we've made out like bandits on the Pederson/Gysberts deal, because we've swapped a guy who Neeld was never going to play, for a guy that he clearly will. How that can be anything but a massive win escapes me.

Disagree that it's not about getting anything into the club - it's about getting an intangible, which is a good culture.

I've worked in three different workplaces with very different cultures. It's taught me a few things:

* A talented employee with the wrong attitude can be a cancer

* Tone from the top is vital and is the only real way to change a culture

* An engaged, enthusastic (albeit limited) employee is valuable

At the end of the day, Melbourne is a workplace, and the players are employees of Neeld and his team.

When there is an overwhelming culture of hard work, not shirking the contest, sticking to the team rules, players who in the looser culture of the last decade plus would've done their own thing - hopefully now a player prone to do that will tow the line.

The team should be better for it - I hope!

[rpfc 28,779]

Too many effing projects.

If you could sum up what we thought in four words...

Edited October 27, 2012 by rpfc

[rjay 25,093]

Gysberts being a ball magnet is a myth. It's on the back of a couple of early games where he was able to play an outside role and if you watch those games again he butchered the ball - which was OK for his first couple of games.

This year he played 13 completed games for Casey in his third year on an AFL list and averaged 19.7 disposals per game. Hardly a ball magnets effort. And his kicking efficiency was deplorable.

Funny how you say Pedersen "couldn't get a game at North", but overlook Gysberts' solitary game this year for Melbourne.

Want to have a wager on who plays more AFL games next year ? There will be a lot of eggs on faces in 12 months time when people see what Pedersen can do.

Probably right on this 'Ben', in his first game against Geelong they couldn't give a flying... how many touches he had and paid him no attention at all. They had some bloke called Ablett and a few others who seemed to be doing ok. It was only in the later games when opposition decided to tighten up a bit on him that you get a better gauge and he struggled unfortunately. Injury has also been a constant companion.

The FD had a good look at him and he couldn't deliver what they wanted, a couple of the others Blease for one Silvia for another decided to pull the finger out on the track and started to turn their careers around. I know you're not a fan 'Ben' but I think Watts has started to turn himself around as well.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I am just hoping Dawes can take a couple of strong grabs in his first game.

He doesn't even need to do that.

Just lure a defender away from Clark and get the ball to some crumbers.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

there is a massive difference between owning it and smashing it.

we did not smash it. we gave away Morton and Martin for sweet fa.

Ill admit we got some good pickups in there, im not angry, just confused.

Why Rodan?

Why Gysberts?

Neeld sent a message in each case. Rodan: as a mentor. Make the most of what you've got. Gysberts: give 100% or go home.

In light of that you can understand all of the trading decisions. The numbers (pick 11, pick 88, etc) don't mean anything.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Langdon says things have been bad at Melbourne for years and cnt see any improvement

Langdon's opinion can be safely disregarded.

He struggles with understanding how to open his letterbox, let alone what goes on at footy clubs that are not WCE.

[Red Demon 67]

He doesn't even need to do that.

Just lure a defender away from Clark and get the ball to some crumbers.

I hope he's not being paid half a million dollars a year just to do that.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Love the way people are saying 'we didn't get value for Morton/Martin.'

These trades were never about getting anything in to the club. They were about effectively delisting guys who Neeld clearly doesn't want at the club any more, but who were still contracted. If Petterd had a contract, we'd have given him up for pick 100. Instead, we get to delist him normally.

If anything, we've made out like bandits on the Pederson/Gysberts deal, because we've swapped a guy who Neeld was never going to play, for a guy that he clearly will. How that can be anything but a massive win escapes me.

Agreed.

Gysberts is a 21 year old ball magnet and Pederson is a 25 year old player who couldnt get a game at north.

LOL.

Gysberts played one game all year. He couldn't crack into the 16th worst side in the competition.

Pederson didn't play because at North they have Petrie, Hansen and Tarrant. They had no room for him.

Just relax. If you stop and think for a moment, you'll realise you've attached undue weight and praise to a player who never gave us anything outside of those first two games, and if you think even harder (I'm talking like for 30 seconds here), you may realise that, if you weigh up who's come in vs who's gone out, we've done fairly well for ourselves.

[old dee 23,872]

Too many effing projects.

If you could sum up what we thought in four words...

Not sure I can add any more to that rpfc.

You are just correct

[Deecisive 1,709]

Neeld has done a great job, it would not be an easy task cutting players from your list. He has had a year working with all of the telling them what he wants of them, telling them what they need to do. Some obviously were not able to deliver for what ever reasons. I wish them luck in their new endeavors and welcome all of our new replacements. As stated above we now have a goal to goal line of players capable of winning those positions. CHF has been a hole that we have not been able to cover for a lot of years we now have a good CHF. We now have crumbers, and hard bodies willing to tackle and attack the ball.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I hope he's not being paid half a million dollars a year just to do that.

Agree. I would have preferred not to get him, but he's here now, so ..... go Dawesy!

[Adam The God 30,420]

As Real Demon says, it's too early to tell. Over the last few years I've often seen us given a very good rating by media "experts" and we know how most of those years have subsequently gone. On exposed form and with some knowledge of who has come in I'm over the moon.

If all we'd done this trade period was get Hogan and Viney while being able to retain a pick inside the top 5 I would have been delighted. Just doing those things would have been a massive win for me. I genuinely believe that Hogan and Viney are going to be "stars". Some will say, but we've thought that before, so there are no guarantees. In fact you'd be forgiven for saying it's unlikely. But when I analyse those early picks that fail to live up to expectations in the world of the AFL there's a common theme. They tend to be either young talls that have a weakness - usually either pace, size, or the required appetite for brutal contests, or they're mids that are too outside. For example, early picks that have been underwhelming such as Morton, Fiora, Tambling, Oakley-Nichols and even Gibbs, fall into that category. I'm not as rapt in Dustin Martin as some, but his aggression and strength serve him well in the AFL. Viney and Hogan's skill sets will also serve them very well at AFL level.

Dawes and Petersen will really help our forward structure. I believe that Petersen will prove to be an even better player than Dawes, but they'll be equally important in their roles. I'm less excited by Byrnes and Rodan, but Byrnes immediately becomes a best 22 player because he's the best small forward on the list. And the last time we traded for a NT zone selection we landed a young Jeff Farmer. We'll have to wait a while to see what we've got with Barry.

Best 22 additions for 2013 - Viney, Dawes, Petersen, Byrnes and pick 4. The last addition will be contentious for some, but if it happens to be Wines he'll play far more footy at Melbourne than Casey. That's 5 additions, which is almost a quarter of your best 22. How many other clubs will have improved their best 22 by 20% in the off season ? That's enormous. Carlton improved theirs by 0%. Rivers is the only best 22 to walk out and he plays in the one area of the ground in which we're pretty well off.

As for the departures:

Martin - handy back-up ruck, but not a great tap ruckman and a worse forward. He's an athletic gumby with average to poor endurance. There's every likelihood that there will be two subs and less rotations from 2014 and this will hurt Martin as a footballer. Jimmy Stynes would have been a star in this era due to his elite endurance running, but a player like Martin will be exposed.

Morton - I'd given up on him a while ago, despite his talent, and clearly he would have been delisted if he wasn't contracted.

Gysberts for Petersen is a win for me. Petersen will play 22 games next year and Gysberts wasn't close to best 22. Petersen will have an important role in our forward structure and the other player is some way off being a quality mid.

Moloney - ball-ups went from 11 seconds in 2011 to 4 seconds in 2012. This didn't help Moloney set up at the stoppages. With the new rule meaning that the ball is going to be thrown up around the ground it's only going to get quicker. He's probably a decent fit for Brisbane, but being so one dimensional wasn't great at a club with a poor midfield group.

Rivers - a loss, but we were [censored] with him in the one area of the ground where we should be OK. My care factor is either side of zero.

Green - slow and was done and dusted.

Let's look at "What we just did":

Two years ago we had the youngest list outside of the Suns. Before this draft period we had the most number of first round draft picks along with GWS. It's little wonder we recruited some seasoned bodies on the back of losing Green, Rivers and Moloney ?

Neeld wants structure. This year at various times once Clark went down we had Rivers and Garland as forwards. With Dawes and Pedersen we now have a solid forward structure that makes Clark and Howe even more dangerous. As stated, Byrnes will immediately be better than any other small forward we have.

Melbourne are still very young and will be a hell of a lot better next year. Our 25 and unders will include Clark, Dawes, Jones, Grimes, Trengove, Frawley, Tom McDonald, Blease, Watts, Howe, Tapscott, Garland, McKenzie as well as Viney. That's 14, plus there's Strauss, Taggert, Tynan, Gawn, and pick 4 in this year's draft.

It works for me.

Good post. Generally agree with everything, except perhaps that Martin was an ordinary tap ruckman. I thought he'd improved in this area quite a lot.

Meanwhile, it's Pedersen, not Petersen.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Meanwhile, it's Pedersen, not Petersen.

Yes, I know, so I'm not sure what happened there. I even started the thread about him and have posted of him many times.

Weird.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Tall defenders: Frawley, McDonald, Watts and Garland with Sellar +/- Davis for depth.

Tall forwards: Clark, Dawes, Hogan

Ruck/Forwards: Pedersen, Fitzpatrick

Rucks: Jamar, Spencer, Gawn

To me we've got a big man department that is now ready to go and compete with most teams. There is still heaps of development left in it as well with Hogan up forward, Gawn in the ruck and Watts and Davis down back. If there was one criticism from the trade period it would be that I would have loved to keep Rivers to give Tom McDonald some cover down back for 1 more year. Instead now I really hope Watts makes the third tall defender spot his own over preseason. He'll never been the strongest but if he can use his speed and skill and get physical enough as a defender he can be the class that we need from half back. Eventually I see Grimes rejoining the backline as well. Maybe with the addition of Rodan we could do that next year.

What we've sacrificed to a degree is the midfield. But I think Neeld didn't want to just bring in 3 top line midfielders and then for them to have no structure and no leadership and not reach their potential. It might have been poor recruiting but I think development has also been the difference between us rolling out a midfield with Scully, Trengove, Morton and Gysberts all ready to go. For whatever reason we've lost 3 of them. This time we'll still bring in 2 quality mids with pick 4 and Viney and now they have young leaders in Grimes, Trengove and Jones to show them the way. The addition of Byrnes and Rodan is a simple tactic to say to the likes of Tapscott and Blease as well as pick 4 and Viney that you can have these spots in the team as outside mids/rotating forwards but you have to earn them.

[Bay Riffin 1,480]

To me I just don't get it. People can justify the gysberts decision because he played 1 game and got 9 possessions. The kid had something to work with. Is blease all of a sudden better because he wasn't playing at Casey but was getting the same sort of low possession counts?

We just threw out our one player who can play second ruck in Martin ( who does it now ? Pederson ? Give me a break. Fitzpatrick? Spare me). We gave up gysberts for a bloke who played one decent year of afl and is now mid twenties.

Sure we had to do something but I'm afraid I don't share the excitement in this thread. Time will tell but I know in 2012 we had the slowest weakest midfield in the afl. We have done little to rectify that unless they think viney and pick 4 are the new saviours.

Sure we needed another key forward but our midfield and rucks just got weakened.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

To me I just don't get it. People can justify the gysberts decision because ...........

we had the slowest weakest midfield in the afl.

There we go. I just removed the clutter for you.

[mrtwister 652]

Essentially we swapped Morton for Rodan.

I'd say that's a win.

I rate Martin a better first ruckman than a second ruckman (maybe because he can't really play anywhere else) and he wasn't going to be the first ruckman here so no big deal as we have better back ups already.

That's a win (we got some draft picks to have a free swing at a type of player we actually need)

Gysberts was probably 6th or 7th in line for a spot in the midfield and we swapped him for a backup/3rd tall for the forward line that we otherwise wouldn't have.

That's a win.

Edited October 28, 2012 by mrtwister