WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - DANIEL CROSS

[jackaub 1,402]

we need better than Cross I year for what?

[Cards13 9,117]

We do but who? We are still a rabble with a limited list, true star players will be bulking at coming to Dees. His pick would be two fold, 1 provide mature hard body and training experience. 2 a stop gap to allow Roos to hopefully work some magic and get us playing some quality football to then attractive a star or 4 next off season or going into the one after.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

The Dogs dumping Cross reminds me of when we pushed out Junior McDonald.

Very similar player and highly respected at the club and wider AFL.

Silly Doggies.

There are some similarities and there are also differences.

Cross is not the captain of his team as Junior was and he leaves a club that, unlike Melbourne at the time, still has many leaders and elder statesmen. I think that is why the Bulldogs have made the decision not to offer him another contract.

From our point of view, we're crying out for mature players with leadership skills and ability and, at 30 years of age, he's significantly younger than Junior was when we let him go. At the time, I had no issues with the decision but rather in he way in which it was implemented by Bailey and the FD.

I think we should grab Cross who will probably come relatively cheaply under some form of free agency or possibly even a low level trade.

[CBDees 3,162]

I agree that we should grab Cross for minimal expenditure to make an immediate boost to our midfield, saving our low draft picks/trades for other young 'ready-to-go' midfielders who can play a longer-term role. Still keen to get however Boyd as best available if we are blessed with a (much-desreved) PP. Whatever we speculate on Demonland however, i am sure Roos will have the correct strategy mapped out before we hit the trading period.

[CBDees 3,162]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-look-to-bulldogs-veteran-20130912-2tnmc.html

In fact grabbing Cross for no expenditure of draft picks [as the article above in this morning's paper suggests] makes a lot of sense!

[Nasher 33,246]

we need better than Cross I year for what?

Why can't we have someone better than Cross *and* Cross? "For what" - because he makes our midfield better. I'd like our midfield to be better, even if it's only for a year. Wouldn't you?

The only question I had on Cross when this was first raised was whether or not he was finished. He didn't look at all finished to me when we played them in round 22. I'm definitely in favour and hope we get him.

[beelzebub 22,718]

So, would we do a trade for pick 99 , does he walk in via the PSD ?. Hed be an UFA so wed want to negate the impact on that balance regarding any further dealings ?

Looks like they have something in mind for him post-playing also. We really are building a different club. Good to see.

Cross and at least another will certainly change the capability of the midfield. Give Nate some elbow room

[whatwhat say what 20,353]

Would waltz into our best 22.

He's always been fairly durable too, I think?

[Nasher 33,246]

So, would we do a trade for pick 99 , does he walk in via the PSD ?. Hed be an UFA so wed want to negate the impact on that balance regarding any further dealings ?

Looks like they have something in mind for him post-playing also. We really are building a different club. Good to see.

Cross and at least another will certainly change the capability of the midfield. Give Nate some elbow room

It depends on if you're expecting to lose any free agents, I guess. If you thought you were going to lose (say) Sylvia, you'd offer pick 99 (or whatever pick we've got). Otherwise you'd just save all the hassle and take him as a DFA. Do DFAs even count as compensation for the loss of a UFA/RFA?

[beelzebub 22,718]

It depends on if you're expecting to lose any free agents, I guess. If you thought you were going to lose (say) Sylvia, you'd offer pick 99 (or whatever pick we've got). Otherwise you'd just save all the hassle and take him as a DFA. Do DFAs even count as compensation for the loss of a UFA/RFA?

Ill confess this is where I get a bit bamboozled. Hes effectively delisted but still effectively on there list til end of the contracted period. So though he wont get a game with the Bullies he is still tradable ( I think thats how it plays out ). So in effect ( my understanding ) he is still a UFA for the purposes of movement. If however no trade then he could walk into the PSD as a delisted player as that Draft occurs post contracted period. ( which is why Im sure it happens then ).

If we were to lose Sylvia then as alluded I would trade for Cross with a throwaway pick to maintain out FA-balance ( in our favour )

I do get a bit lost in this murkiness...lol

One or two years?

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

Another inside mid who can get the ball.

But this one can dispose of it properly.

A big plus.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,806]

Yes please. Will be good for us, wont be a game breaker but will be a solid player helping out Nate Jones and relieving some of the burden on our younger players.

[rpfc 27,687]

I will make it easier for people:

If he gets officially delisted; we will take him in Delisted FA (this does not count against any compensation we may get for Sylvia).

If he is not delisted, but WB is amenatable to an easy trade, then we can swap down a couple of picks in the 60s or 70s. Again, no effect on FA comp.

We could take him in FA but it will count (however small) against our comp.

Or he could walk into the drafts if the Bulldogs play hardball on a trade, they won't delist him, and we don't want to affect our FA comp for Sylvia.

[Clark_Kent 315]

I'd say they are just going to delist him and we will pick him up via delisted FA.

[pantaloons 2,019]

If he gets officially delisted; we will take him in Delisted FA (this does not count against any compensation we may get for Sylvia).

Good. That's the part I was wondering about. Thanks.

[Nasher 33,246]

Good. That's the part I was wondering about. Thanks.

Likewise.

[Arrow 1,257]

I will make it easier for people:

If he gets officially delisted; we will take him in Delisted FA (this does not count against any compensation we may get for Sylvia).

If he is not delisted, but WB is amenatable to an easy trade, then we can swap down a couple of picks in the 60s or 70s. Again, no effect on FA comp.

We could take him in FA but it will count (however small) against our comp.

Or he could walk into the drafts if the Bulldogs play hardball on a trade, they won't delist him, and we don't want to affect our FA comp for Sylvia.

Cant be right. Byrnes was officially delisted by Geelong we picked him up and it affected our compo for Moloney Rivers. Think the same would apply this year.

[Nasher 33,246]

Byrnes was officially delisted by Geelong

Bzzzt.

Byrnes was a UFA. Gillies was the delisted free agent we took from Geelong.

[Still Waiting 94]

What has Cross done in the last season?

Another fanciful, hugely talented player that we should chase vigorously?

You are kidding, if he can't get a game at the Dogs we don't want him.

Pick another kid with speed and heart, not another hasbeen!

Look to the future............................not the past.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Still Waiting

[Webber 10,181]

What has Cross done in the last season?Another fanciful, hugely talented player that we should chase vigorously?You are kidding, if he can't get a game at the Dogs we don't want him.Pick another kid with speed and heart, not another hasbeen!Look to the fuure............................not the past.

Hmmmm........Boyd, Griffen, Dahlhaus, Libber jr, Cooney, Wallis. All the future of the rebuilding Doggies. Nat Jones, Jack Viney.............................................. it seems we need some solid, experienced midfield quality while WE establish a future midfield. Hence Daniel Cross. Cheap, and not inhibiting the progression of other young midfielders, but facilitating it, and making us less floggable at the stoppages. 'Moneyball' style, but this time done properly!

[stuie 7,374]

[beelzebub 22,718]

noice Stuie...nuff said !

[torpedo 33]

I am not sold on Cross. The examples of these types of acquisitions working are pretty thin. They only seem to have a high success rate with ruckman, who come to clubs as mentors as well making handy back-ups.

If Cross' form dips, which is likely given he will be 31, be adapting to new structures and have less on-field support, he will simply become another list clogger like Rodan or Byrnes. May be I am underestimating their contributions behind the scenes but I fail to see how those blokes running around looking like washed up hacks every 3rd week provided any leadership value whatsoever.

If we want mature bodies, surely there are some inside mids floating around the second tier comps that are worth a punt? If that comes off, you get 5-10 years service as opposed to 1 year. I think Cross is just a big a risk as a mature age rookie but with significantly less upside.

[rpfc 27,687]

I really do not like the term 'list clogger.' We will have to dig deep into the player pools again this year.

Player A is drafted at pick 80 and is immediately contracted for 2 years. He is little chance to play AFL and is discarded 2 years later.

Player B is picked up on a 1 year contract and has injuries and form issues, plays 6 games and leaves 12 months later.

Which is worse?

The 2 year 'list clogger' or the one year pro whose body is failing him?

When you draft a kid in the National Draft - they are immediately put on at least a two year contract.

So I would argue that there is less risk for a Byrnes/Cross type player on a short term contract because you know what they are capable of and are not behoven to an automatic 2 year contract.

[torpedo 33]

Good points regarding 1 year v 2 year contract. Are Rookie List players also given 2 year contracts?

But I would question whether or not we do really know what role Cross is capable of playing in Melbourne's midfield, given it is such a different environment to the Doggies.