On 18/10/2013 at 00:31, Good Times Grimes said:

What do you think this (and Michie) means for guys like Matt Jones and Michael Evans?

Evans has dash and if he can string games together will be vauluable, M Jones was top four in the b&f and I would expect will improve with a year under the belt and Roos and Stone in his ear.

I think it means more for guys like Bail and Nicholson who will either come on plenty or leave quietly in the not too distant.

(ps: who else has allowed themselves a smile at Mark Robinson's expense this morning? Timing is everything.)

If we get Bernie Vince (and by the way the Age is speaking, this is looking pretty likely), then this will have been a good trade period for us. I have to agree with what was said earlier in regards to how this has been done quietly without great loads of fan fare. It's been smart and business like.

However, and I don't want to be a Debbie Downer here, let's also keep in mind that the two blokes we have gotten have played a total of 14 games between them. We still need to get Vince on board to add some significant experience to the midfield.

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:38, Maldonboy38 said:

I didn't know a lot about this kid, but the highlights reel was a bit of a revelation. His evasive skills are Pendelbury-esque, and his hand skills remind me a bit of Simon Black. I am not suggesting he has the qualities of those two great players but he is the type of player we have not seen for a long time. Since Flower and Farmer, who have been great evasive players for MFC? Nathan Brown was very good but could not kick.

My October just got a very good, very warm feeling about it.

Our starting midfield could look like N Jones, Tyson, Trengove, Vichie and Viney.

Add in Vince (possibly), Watts, Toumpas, McKenzie, Barry, Blease, M Jones and Evans.

I promised myself I would not emotionally invest until after round 11 and I stand by that comment. However, if we also land Bernie Vince I am going to find it very difficult not to have expectations on 2014.

Simon Black was the comparison I got off a friend of mine who I spoke to.

love the look of his highlights, and the fantasy freako write-up sounds like exactly the sort of player we are after.

i remember watching a couple of those games and he was instrumental as a first-possession midfielder.

yes, pick 2 was a lot to give up, but necessary in our circumstances.

looking forward to seeing his work in the square alongside nate jones, viney, michie, trengove, matt jones, mckenzie, no. 9 pick if we go for an inside type, and perhaps vince if he lands with us.

Absolutely no idea what to think of this deal to be honest.

Was told that this was one of the first thing Roosy did, talk with Tyson's management.. was bubbling away for weeks. i know that family, they are terrific people. its a great Deal for the Demons!

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:09, P-man said:

Entitled to your opinion, but have you watched Tyson play? Have you watched his highlights? He's hard as nails and has the silk to match. If he can stay on the park, the kid is going to be a jet.

I can't disagree with much of that and I have been impressed by the bits and pieces I've seen. That said Cale Morton had some impressive moments 13 games into his career. I'm not saying Tyson is a similar player or will go off a cliff like Cale Morton and hope to hell he doesn't, in fact I hope he becomes a champion and I get abusive PMs from half of demonland reminding me of my [censored] comments on this thread!

I just believe that to give up pick two you'd want to be on a sure thing as history suggests that you've a very good chance of at least netting a very good player if not a superstar at the draft with that pick. Maybe I'm too conservative and that's why I'm sitting on my arse tap tap tapping away rather than calling the shots in a red and blue polo shirt at Etihad right now.

It's aggressive, it's bold and hugely risky IMO and I hope it comes off.

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:05, Jimmi C said:

Wrong. It was 3, Kennedy (pick 4 in 2005 - largely unproven at the time) & 20 for Judd, 36 & 54.

The initial point was that if the best player in the competition's value was a top 3 pick (or alternatively 3 top 20 picks) why have we given away a top 3 pick (or two top 20 picks) for a largely unproven kid and an overall worsened draft position that may or may not net us anything better than what we could've got at the draft initially?

Yes Tyson was a pick 3 and yes he has had two years in the system but that doesn't equate to pick two - by that logic Jack Watts>pick 1. Pick 20 could've been used on Bernie Vince who would've had far more immediate impact on our midfield in 2014. As I've said previously we'd want to nail pick 9 at the draft.

I bow to Roos & co's greater knowledge of the landscape than I and hope to one day happily eat humble pie and look at today as the day the club really got it right. I'm happy to disagree with others but I don't see this as a great deal for our club presently.

Equating Judd and Tyson is any way also means you're also equating:

Kennedy with pick 72 and pick 9 with pick 36 (53 and 54 cancel each other out)

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:17, ThreeOneSix said:

I don't think there is much difference between pick 2 and pick 9.

We upgrade from pick 20, which was a pick that will probably blow out to 25 after compo.

Pick 9 gets in before any compo picks and apart from Boyd - there is very little splitting the top 10.

We have 2 bites at the cherry to get an elite mid, we have Dom Tyson and whoever is there at 9.

Be happy bud.

Spot on, 316!

Tyson is a good player. There is no guarantee that the player we would select at number 2 would be as good or better than he is. History shows that our success rate with early draft choices leaves a lot to be desired.

With pick 9 we're going to get one of the mid-fielders we would have looked at if we'd still had pick 2.

It seems to be a pretty even field. Freeman, Salem, Couch, Hartung, Acres, Sheed, Dumont and Dunston are all midfielders who have been nominated in the 'top 20' draftees. Some of them have been spoken of as 'better prospects' or 'more suitable types' for our needs, than the likes of Aish and Billings who will go early in the draft.

That many of them are Victorians is another bonus, as the 'go home' factor seems to be increasing in intensity.

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:19, Colin B. Flaubert said:

If we get Bernie Vince (and by the way the Age is speaking, this is looking pretty likely), then this will have been a good trade period for us. I have to agree with what was said earlier in regards to how this has been done quietly without great loads of fan fare. It's been smart and business like.

However, and I don't want to be a Debbie Downer here, let's also keep in mind that the two blokes we have gotten have played a total of 14 games between them. We still need to get Vince on board to add some significant experience to the midfield.

I'm not sure who or what we were going to trade for Vince. If it was pick 20, then that's gone. There is also speculation that compensation for Sylvia might be pick 38 and not 22. Would 38 be enough to get Vince? Would we also need to trade a player?

With his experience he would be good value for a couple of years and a great role model for the kids. So would Cross.

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:23, hardtack said:

Um... ? (sorry, that went way over my head)

Trinity Grammer....well known hedge burners...

I would say that you need to have about 10 midfielders, plus 2 spare for injury

Of course at any one time a few are on the bench and a few are roating off flanks and pockets etc

You really need 3-4 excellent ones but the other 6-7 need to be adequate or you get shown up

Our group is now:

N.Jones, M.Jones, Trengove, Toumpas, Viney, McKenzie plus Mitchie, Tyson and hopefully Vince

with Grimes, Watts, Kent, Barry, Evans, Blease, Bail and Magner also possibly playing roles

I am starting to feel very confident we can establish a very solid 10 every week out of that group, which will be a remedy for our biggest weakness

Then you have what is no doubt going to be an awesome forward line and we already know a solid back 6

Of course a master coach running it all

Feeling pretty excited

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:08, Curry & Beer said:

Why can't we use 9 on Vince?

because he's not worth it.

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:40, beelzebub said:

pick 74 is useless.. 53 borders the atmospheric limits of this years draft.

We got Mitchie with pick 54....

Just sayin....

I know highlights aren't much to go by but Tyson's reel is impressive.

Good rig on the lad too, you'd think he was about 25.

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:17, ThreeOneSix said:

We have 2 bites at the cherry to get an elite mid, we have Dom Tyson and whoever is there at 9.

Be happy bud.

exactly.

dom tyson and james aish have the same risk/reward for been a star.

plus we get pick 9 which could net us a freeman, crouch, kolodjashnij, bontempelli or sheed or billing hopefully.

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:46, jnrmac said:

because he's not worth it.

yeah you're right we'd be better off getting another Gysberts

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:56, Curry & Beer said:

yeah you're right we'd be better off getting another Gysberts

Are you taking the pi$$ or do you actually believe we should trade pick 9 for Vince?

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:56, Curry & Beer said:

yeah you're right we'd be better off getting another Gysberts

yeah you're right we'd be better off with Vince than Joel Selwood

  On 17/10/2013 at 23:58, Bingo said:

Emma Quale I believe said the other day that we were into Kade Kolodjashnij....he would be one player in line for pick 9

OMG - if he was a big accumulator of possessions it would take up all the commentary time to call his name!

  On 18/10/2013 at 00:09, hardtack said:

The Dominator

Champagne ?

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:59, Django said:

Are you taking the [censored] or do you actually believe we should trade pick 9 for Vince?

as I said earlier if it was sweetened a bit it would be appropriate.. it is probably 'overs' but it is all about what you NEED

we NEED at this stage to get some experience in there so we can compete and start building momentum, and we have shown time and time again complete failure to develop first round draft picks

losing Sylvia has accentuated this

I have had a gut full of 'elite young draft picks' we have a list full of them

  On 18/10/2013 at 01:59, Nasher said:

yeah you're right we'd be better off with Vince than Joel Selwood

yeah because we have produced exactly zero Joel Selwoods in the last 20 years or longer

Sorry, but using Pick 9 for Vince would be nothing short of insane. He's 28 ffs.

  On 18/10/2013 at 02:00, monoccular said:

OMG - if he was a big accumulator of possessions it would take up all the commentary time to call his name!

FWIW, It's pronounced like 'colla-'jasney'

  On 18/10/2013 at 02:04, Curry & Beer said:

yeah because we have produced exactly zero Joel Selwoods in the last 20 years or longer

Assuming we'll pick the absolute worst is just as silly as assuming we'll pick the absolute best.