On 11/09/2013 at 21:37, CBDees said:

Did we have to delist all these guys before the trading period or could we have retained them a bit longer and tried to trade them? (Better to trade one or two of our least preferred players than be forced to release one of our emerging/established key players)!

  On 11/09/2013 at 21:51, Whispering_Jack said:

I think you can take it as read in these days of more relaxed trading rules (including delisted free agents) and tighter salary caps, the players who are being delisted by clubs this early in the piece are of absolutely no trade value.

Yes, and CB - I would say we are keeping a few to trade.

Jetta, Magner, and Nicholson have little trade value but that is more than Tynan, Davis, Gillies, et al.

I wonder why Rawlings has been spared? I have always had the impression that he was a class above the others, but it's a view that I have nothing to support other than perception from a long distance.

  On 11/09/2013 at 23:49, Nasher said:

I wonder why Rawlings has been spared? I have always had the impression that he was a class above the others, but it's a view that I have nothing to support other than perception from a long distance.

Someone on here said he was contracted for another year.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Yes, Rawlings is contracted for next season. Not that contracts seem to be an impediment for removing staff at the moment.

Garland spoke very highly of Rawlings at the B&F, it would be no surprise to see him continue next season.

  On 11/09/2013 at 23:49, Nasher said:

I wonder why Rawlings has been spared? I have always had the impression that he was a class above the others, but it's a view that I have nothing to support other than perception from a long distance.

Remember he had a stint as a senior coach and I think he is rather well thought of. I think he would be the last of the current lot that would be removed.

It is often reported that Assistant Coaches have a clause in their contracts which allow them to leave (break their contract) if they get a senior coaching gig elsewhere. As a matter of interest, is there any evidence of something similar in reverse which allows clubs to terminate contracts of assistant coaches if the senior coach is removed? Just seems a logical step to me given the assistants are so closely linked to the senior coach who chooses them.

  On 11/09/2013 at 12:21, rpfc said:

Oh, yeah, The Mighty Predictors torn down!

I hate those guys.

With their awful predictions and their non-existence - damn them!

There were multiple posts in 2012 about Couch and what a great player he was and frequent calls for him to be selected in the seniors.

Interesting on here how many are just here to take a dig at other posters. Perhaps this is what is left of the Dees supporters.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:21, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It is often reported that Assistant Coaches have a clause in their contracts which allow them to leave (break their contract) if they get a senior coaching gig elsewhere. As a matter of interest, is there any evidence of something similar in reverse which allows clubs to terminate contracts of assistant coaches if the senior coach is removed? Just seems a logical step to me given the assistants are so closely linked to the senior coach who chooses them.

Sound ridiculous to me. Given the rapidity of senior coach turnovers, assistant coaches have a gun to their head.

Why should an assistant coach be punished if the senior coach is deemed incompetent and sacked? The assistant coach may or may not have had a part in the senior coaches failings but such a get out clause for Club would draconian. No thinking assistant coach would sign such a contract if a regular livelihood is key.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:28, Demon31 said:

There were multiple posts in 2012 about Couch and what a great player he was and frequent calls for him to be selected in the seniors.

There may have been calls for him to be selected from time to time in the seniors but there were never claims that he was a great player.

I can't see why you got on your soapbox and gloated about the detractors

.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:30, Demon31 said:

Interesting on here how many are just here to take a dig at other posters. Perhaps this is what is left of the Dees supporters.

You are not alone then.

  On 11/09/2013 at 21:51, Whispering_Jack said:

I think you can take it as read in these days of more relaxed trading rules (including delisted free agents) and tighter salary caps, the players who are being delisted by clubs this early in the piece are of absolutely no trade value.

Is this true of Jolly?

Round 1 2013 Sellar drops 2 absolute sitters in the forward 50 during the first quarter. Absolute sitters.

No wonder the team had no confidence.

Just not up to it. He tried hard, but that is not good enough at AFL level.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:30, Demon31 said:

Interesting on here how many are just here to take a dig at other posters. Perhaps this is what is left of the Dees supporters.

lol

The mistaken claim that you have been 'picked on' about is a dig at posters...the phantom posters that thought Couch was to become a star.

And, as RR has intimated, you have taken many digs in your short time here.

  On 12/09/2013 at 02:30, Demon31 said:

Interesting on here how many are just here to take a dig at other posters.

Depends on what they post.

Forgive me if this has been covered already but what about Taggert. I know he's had his injuries but whenever I read the write up on our website about Casey, he was always rated "disappointing." He must be under the pump. Maybe they'll drop him to the rookie list.

Also hope that Rawlings is retained. Garland certainly spoke very well of him.

  On 12/09/2013 at 06:00, The Dee-Fibrillator said:

Forgive me if this has been covered already but what about Taggert. I know he's had his injuries but whenever I read the write up on our website about Casey, he was always rated "disappointing." He must be under the pump. Maybe they'll drop him to the rookie list.

Also hope that Rawlings is retained. Garland certainly spoke very well of him.

We can re-rookie him but that would require delisting him and then taking him in the rookie draft.

We may do that, or we may be simply looking at what happens during trade/FA period.

Around 5 or 6 players at every club will be in this situation as the new FA period brings opportunity for clubs to bring in players.

  On 12/09/2013 at 06:00, The Dee-Fibrillator said:

Forgive me if this has been covered already but what about Taggert. I know he's had his injuries but whenever I read the write up on our website about Casey, he was always rated "disappointing." He must be under the pump. Maybe they'll drop him to the rookie list.

Also hope that Rawlings is retained. Garland certainly spoke very well of him.

I'd say he's under the pump. But there are plenty of other prime delisting candidates and only so many good players get picked in drafts each year. Getting rid of Taggert means another late draft or rookie pick who have a very low success rate. In a lot of ways it's better sticking with Taggert who we've invested 2 years into getting fit, getting over his back injuries in year one and who played some reasonable games at Casey. Certainly has nice foot skills which is another positive for him and a good size for a midfielder/half forward. Reminds me a bit of Col Sylvia as well in the fact he's taking a while to get started and seems to have some tricks but can't do the basics ie. gather his 20 touches a week.

The thing about Taggert which really shits me is that he was drafted as a midfielder and last year against Box Hill he got 25 disposals and kicked 2 goals playing on ball, wing. This year he has been stuck up without even stints in the midfield..! I dont understand why they can just play him in the guts and then have a rest in the forward line. I trully believe he would have gotten a gig for the dees if they developed him as asole midfielder..

  On 12/09/2013 at 08:58, dazzledavey36 said:

The thing about Taggert which really shits me is that he was drafted as a midfielder and last year against Box Hill he got 25 disposals and kicked 2 goals playing on ball, wing. This year he has been stuck up without even stints in the midfield..! I dont understand why they can just play him in the guts and then have a rest in the forward line. I trully believe he would have gotten a gig for the dees if they developed him as asole midfielder..

Might have a little to do with the much hyped Couch and Magner clogging the list. Some of the Melbourne Facebook pages are pretty funny stuff. You'd think Couch and Magner were Voss and Buckley the way they get talked up. I respect the work ethic of both and understand why they were brought onto the list but they just aren't up to AFL standard. Those who rate them fail to understand how the modern game works or more to the point what wins games of footy in 2013.

  On 12/09/2013 at 08:58, dazzledavey36 said:

asole midfielder..

I believe Tom Scully is quite adept at this role.

Agree with comments and think there will be a minimum of two and possibly as many as four delistings to go.

Don't understand why anyone would put Clisby on the main list after one year when he can be kept on the rookie list for one more season yet and upgraded to the main list during the season of his form warrants it.

At the moment based on eight delistings we have just five draft picks (Hogan and Magner, if not delisted have to come on) and two rookie picks.

For a side that finished second last with two ins and percentage of 54% or whatever, that would be massive faith in the list, even for a new coach.

Assuming Watts and Sylvia stay as predicted, I think almost everyone agrees that Jetta, Nicho and Magner are under the gun still - although the latter two are renowned quality trainers.

I would expect Bail to retire - sadly he's been almost as concussed as Daniel Bell - he would know he's never going to be a star, so why would you risk your long-term life health.

My left field omission - and yes I know he's contracted - is that Roosy might move Byrnes on because he will know that he's not part of the future in his latest rejig.

If they are expecting to be ready and play Clisby next year in the AFL then they should uplift him from being a rookie.

I am not aware that Bail will retire with 1 year to go on his contract. Any sources?? Or is it a guess?

While I sympathise with the thought I don't expect Byrnes or any player to be delisted prior to their contract expiring. We are paying a whole series of officials from the old regime, I doubt we are financial and foolhardy enough to payout any foot soldiers.

  On 12/09/2013 at 10:57, Rhino Richards said:

If they are expecting to be ready and play Clisby next year in the AFL then they should uplift him from being a rookie.

I am not aware that Bail will retire with 1 year to go on his contract. Any sources?? Or is it a guess?

While I sympathise with the thought I don't expect Byrnes or any player to be delisted prior to their contract expiring. We are paying a whole series of officials from the old regime, I doubt we are financial and foolhardy enough to payout any foot soldiers.

Are they able to elevate Clisby with a year left or was he on a one year contract only?

  On 12/09/2013 at 10:57, Rhino Richards said:

If they are expecting to be ready and play Clisby next year in the AFL then they should uplift him from being a rookie.

I am not aware that Bail will retire with 1 year to go on his contract. Any sources?? Or is it a guess?

While I sympathise with the thought I don't expect Byrnes or any player to be delisted prior to their contract expiring. We are paying a whole series of officials from the old regime, I doubt we are financial and foolhardy enough to payout any foot soldiers.

Hope ur right.

  On 12/09/2013 at 11:10, Django said:

Are they able to elevate Clisby with a year left or was he on a one year contract only?

Regardless of initial contract they can upgrade him (it's a promotion!). But we had 4 rookies this year and you can have up to 6 and take 2 players off the main list and then upgrade 2 at the start of the year. Richmond did it with Petterd I believe. That's where I'd see Clisby at. Leave him as a rookie but don't add your full quota of main list players. Is effectively a bet each way. Especially if the last spots on the list come down to recycled players like a Gillies or Rodan, the rookie list is perfect.