Should we though?

What good did it do last time we did it?

I think if its done by a better think tank then definitely yes.

Conversely , what esle is there to do A) do little B) do next to little C) go half hearted D) attempt a mini rebuild and hope all others come good.

The reality is there are very few on our list who are really up to it, or indeed up for it. The list has to change or everything stays the same....all but.

There is surely going to be a clean out of players aged between 22 - 25 on our list who have not been able to cement a spot in our senior side. This is the bracket that we need to hit in my opinion.

Without taking existing contracts into consideration (or presuming we can either trade or payout anyone that we don't want/need next year, this is the way I see it;

The following 9 payers to be traded or de-listed. Presuming we can arrange a trade for at least 2 of these (albeit for late picks or other fringe players), that leaves us with approximately 7 spots to fill.

1) Jordie McKenzie (possible trade?)

2) Mitch Clisby

3) Sam Blease (possible trade?)

4) James Strauss

5) Daniel Nicholson

6) Michael Evans

7) Luke Tapscott (possible trade?)

8) Dean Terlich

9) Jack Fitzpatrick (possible trade?)

Note that the following 3 players get a reprieve due to not wanting to take too many low draft picks, and not having much ruck depth;

Rohan Bail

Matt Jones

Spencer

The following 2 players leaving under differing circumstances leaves us with approximately 9 spots to fill;

Frawley

Clark

Upgrade Jetta, which leaves us with approximately 8 spots to fill, plus a rookie.

1) 1st round pick

2 plus 3) compensation pick (trade for a player plus a pick)

4) 2nd round pick

5) 3rd round pick

6) 4th round pick

7) 5th round pick

8) presume 1 or 2 latish picks were traded in for say, Blease, Fitzpatrick, McKenzie or Tapscott

Rookie pick

In addition to all of this, I believe we should have Jack Watts on the trade table. Not necessarily for a draft pick - but in a player deal such as (eg); priority pick and Jack Watts for Tom Mitchell, Zac Jones and Nick Malceski.

I forgot to include Byrnes who is retiring.

I imagine a few in my de-list section will survive, but next year it will be a lot easier as we'll be able to take some free agents again - rather than mostly draft picks.

I would be happy if we just traded out 1 player: Jack Watts. I know there are lots of Watts supporters here, but I have finally given up on him this year. He is the epitome of a lot that is wrong with our culture. Might not be his fault but there it is. Too soft, doesn't tackle, rarely chases, doesnt earn his own ball, can't keep to his feet, given too much of a free ride, something of a sacred cow because of some draft number label applied to him in the dim dark past.

Fair dinkum, he plays more like a Jill or a Jacqueline than a Jack.

It would send a huge message to the players, the club, supporters and the competition if we just grew some balls and called it quits with Watts. Enough is enough.

Some are very straightforward decisions:

Evans

Strauss

Nicholson

Tapscott

Clark

Byrnes

On the edge:

Spencer

McKenzie (inclined to keep as tagging "depth" - say what you like about his skills but he can at least usually do a good tagging job)

Terlich

Blease (only reason he's not automatic delist is his pace, but we've been blinded by that part of his game since he was drafted)

Fitzpatrick

Clisby

I don't think any of the above will have any trade value whatsoever....if they can't get regular games at a bottom two side then they are struggling. Assuming we delist half of the "on the edge" players, that leaves 9 free spots (not including inevitable N.Jetta upgrade). I think we have to keep Bail and M.Jones. Despite their limitations, they've played pretty good roles for us this year.

I would be happy if we just traded out 1 player: Jack Watts. I know there are lots of Watts supporters here, but I have finally given up on him this year. He is the epitome of a lot that is wrong with our culture. Might not be his fault but there it is. Too soft, doesn't tackle, rarely chases, doesnt earn his own ball, can't keep to his feet, given too much of a free ride, something of a sacred cow because of some draft number label applied to him in the dim dark past.

Fair dinkum, he plays more like a Jill or a Jacqueline than a Jack.

It would send a huge message to the players, the club, supporters and the competition if we just grew some balls and called it quits with Watts. Enough is enough.

Why reward him and send him to a better club for poor performance. Let him suffer at the Dees like the rest of us.

I would be happy if we just traded out 1 player: Jack Watts. I know there are lots of Watts supporters here, but I have finally given up on him this year. He is the epitome of a lot that is wrong with our culture. Might not be his fault but there it is. Too soft, doesn't tackle, rarely chases, doesnt earn his own ball, can't keep to his feet, given too much of a free ride, something of a sacred cow because of some draft number label applied to him in the dim dark past.

Fair dinkum, he plays more like a Jill or a Jacqueline than a Jack.

It would send a huge message to the players, the club, supporters and the competition if we just grew some balls and called it quits with Watts. Enough is enough.

Cool story.

I would be happy if we just traded out 1 player: Jack Watts. I know there are lots of Watts supporters here, but I have finally given up on him this year. He is the epitome of a lot that is wrong with our culture. Might not be his fault but there it is. Too soft, doesn't tackle, rarely chases, doesnt earn his own ball, can't keep to his feet, given too much of a free ride, something of a sacred cow because of some draft number label applied to him in the dim dark past.

Fair dinkum, he plays more like a Jill or a Jacqueline than a Jack.

It would send a huge message to the players, the club, supporters and the competition if we just grew some balls and called it quits with Watts. Enough is enough.

How about this for an epiphany - Jack Watts isn't the reason we lose games.

He isn't what we thought. And his physicality is disappointing to say the least. But he gets attention and blame outside of what he deserves. Bernie Vince said this a few months ago.

If we got rid of Watts, all we would be doing is getting rid of a scapegoat and moving onto the next one.

How about this for an epiphany - Jack Watts isn't the reason we lose games.

He isn't what we thought. And his physicality is disappointing to say the least. But he gets attention and blame outside of what he deserves. Bernie Vince said this a few months ago.

If we got rid of Watts, all we would be doing is getting rid of a scapegoat and moving onto the next one.

Not all , you would be getting rid of a serial underperformer and bringing in someone esle. You would be evolving the list. Its really quite simple an idea.

Some are very straightforward decisions:

Evans

Strauss

Nicholson

Tapscott

Clark

Byrnes

On the edge:

Spencer

McKenzie (inclined to keep as tagging "depth" - say what you like about his skills but he can at least usually do a good tagging job)

Terlich

Blease (only reason he's not automatic delist is his pace, but we've been blinded by that part of his game since he was drafted)

Fitzpatrick

Clisby

I don't think any of the above will have any trade value whatsoever....if they can't get regular games at a bottom two side then they are struggling. Assuming we delist half of the "on the edge" players, that leaves 9 free spots (not including inevitable N.Jetta upgrade). I think we have to keep Bail and M.Jones. Despite their limitations, they've played pretty good roles for us this year.

What use is keeping a very limited skilled player Mc Kenzie who's tagging ability is questionable anyway?? I would much rather not tag fullstop and develop players who are creative and damaging, thus forcing opposition teams to not just tag Jones, Tyson and Vince but tag multiple players because of the damage they do!

Nup Pay out his contract or trade (doubtful) and move on!

Agree with most of the others

Blease Trade, Clisby doesn't appear to be in the plan Tapscott, Strauss, Nicholson Evans all have had chances, time to really move with clinical precision and ruthlessly those who won't or can't make it in a Melbourne jumper!

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by picket fence

If we got rid of Watts, all we would be doing is getting rid of a scapegoat and moving onto the next one.

Agree with this. Have to think for hos own sake that he may want to consider moving on though

Agree with this. Have to think for hos own sake that he may want to consider moving on though

Agree. Win/win. Even with the great Roos Watts languishes between cameo and ineffectual. Maybe it is indeed best for all to seek new fields.

I doubt very much that grimes is up for trading he is a captain for heavens sake. This would be history in the making. Trade a captain? Spencer has only just been re-signed (unfortunately) so he's not going either. Roos has defended Watts all year publicly so he'd look pretty silly if Watts was traded out.

captains have moved clubs. Its not an obstacle really. (grimes)

Hes a co captain also.Not like we havent got one

So here's where we as a club need to be a bit more pragmatic. Is the ONLY reason for some not putting Grimes up being that hes a co captain....i.e all other factors are ok for a trade bar this ??

I was listening to SEN the other night.. Dermie & the ox were talking about playing lists and players to get you to a flag. They said when you look at players when making a decsion on there future and people say "will he be part of the next premiership side ?" The answer is no but you need the player/s to be there now for the journey, there part of the development and they are best option for now. I look at Bail, M.Jones, Riley, Pedersen, Clisby, Terlich as players that fit that category. If we're going to win a flag these players can't be apart of it, but they can be apart of the now for we have no better options

captains have moved clubs. Its not an obstacle really. (grimes)

Hes a co captain also.Not like we havent got one

So here's where we as a club need to be a bit more pragmatic. Is the ONLY reason for some not putting Grimes up being that hes a co captain....i.e all other factors are ok for a trade bar this ??

For mine most players should be available. A lot deppends on the quality being offered in return. I really do not want more draft picks but ready made players who are young enough in their career that we can get 5-7 good years out of them. Should that be offered in return for any player it should be considered.

captains have moved clubs. Its not an obstacle really. (grimes)

Hes a co captain also.Not like we havent got one

So here's where we as a club need to be a bit more pragmatic. Is the ONLY reason for some not putting Grimes up being that hes a co captain....i.e all other factors are ok for a trade bar this ??

For mine most players should be available. A lot deppends on the quality being offered in return. I really do not want more draft picks but ready made players who are young enough in their career that we can get 5-7 good years out of them. Should that be offered in return for any player it should be considered.

We as a club need to do whats best for the list, not so much for those on the list. Its a professional business after all...no ?

For mine most players should be available. A lot deppends on the quality being offered in return. I really do not want more draft picks but ready made players who are young enough in their career that we can get 5-7 good years out of them. Should that be offered in return for any player it should be considered.

There are a few exceptions W33 but Grimes IMO is not one of them.

I was listening to SEN the other night.. Dermie & the ox were talking about playing lists and players to get you to a flag. They said when you look at players when making a decsion on there future and people say "will he be part of the next premiership side ?" The answer is no but you need the player/s to be there now for the journey, there part of the development and they are best option for now. I look at Bail, M.Jones, Riley, Pedersen, Clisby, Terlich as players that fit that category. If we're going to win a flag these players can't be apart of it, but they can be apart of the now for we have no better options

The problem with this assessment is that we are 17th and talking about players that will make us competetive not what players will take us to a flag. The players you mention don't add much, are not getting the job done and have limited upside it would appear.

The choice is sticking with them or turning the list over until we find soldiers that can do the job. Or even hit targets!

I have said this before, No player and I mean no player should be off the table! If we need to trade a player to get a player commensurate to our needs then do it!

Grimes and Watts I believe might have some currency elsewhere and if it forms part of a deal that improves us then do it! Captaincy or not is irrelevant!

Hard nosed football bargaining takes no prisoners! And we are at the stage of having to shed some quality to get even better quality that suits our needs!

Emotional attachment in this footy club ended when Norm Smith was sacked and more recently when James Mc Donald was unmercifully told to retire! The die has been cast now lets be ultra ruthless!

A problem this club has had for quite some while apart from inability to bring some players on ( maybe they just werent up to it either ? ) is to leave it too late to change players. There's this manana complex where there's belief that one day, one more preseason , one more year etc, will reveal that inner player that suggests within. Often it never does and the best currency conversion moment is missed, time and time again.

If a player isnt doing it then move him on. Its about the club , not individuals. They are professionals getting paid. If they are good they get paid more and for longer . If they arent they're moved on. Thats the nature of the game come lists. They know this before they sign on. There are NO promises in this game. Theres no requisite to retain a player.

They are there to do a job. if they cant do it get someone who can. People get far too attached to players for mine.

I really dont care who plays for us as long as they bring their A game and contribute and add to the equation. Too many currently detract from it. They need to go. Why is it made any more complicated than it really is.

There are a few exceptions W33 but Grimes IMO is not one of them.

But the exceptions make them self exempt. Thats good. That more should be in this group. Its a bloody small group at present I reckon

The problem with this assessment is that we are 17th and talking about players that will make us competetive not what players will take us to a flag. The players you mention don't add much, are not getting the job done and have limited upside it would appear.

The choice is sticking with them or turning the list over until we find soldiers that can do the job. Or even hit targets!

Youre definitely on the right track Jr. We need a legion of good standard soldiers around whom you can augment and build a decent team. Currently its more akin to

"Carry on Kicking !!" and even them most can't

I was listening to SEN the other night.. Dermie & the ox were talking about playing lists and players to get you to a flag. They said when you look at players when making a decsion on there future and people say "will he be part of the next premiership side ?" The answer is no but you need the player/s to be there now for the journey, there part of the development and they are best option for now. I look at Bail, M.Jones, Riley, Pedersen, Clisby, Terlich as players that fit that category. If we're going to win a flag these players can't be apart of it, but they can be apart of the now for we have no better options

I won't address each player individually but these sorts of players can be in flag winning side - but you want them to be the 16 17 or 18th player picked.

Assuming Bail has reached his ceiling - I have no problem with him on our list - but at the moment he would be in the first 10 players picked each week. What we require is him to be the one of the last 2 or 3 picked. Have a look at Hawthorns GF team last year. I will name 3 players and before I get howled down at how much better these players are than ours - factor in them playing in a far superior team who completely understand and execute a game plan and have confidence in each others abilities to run and deliver exactly as prescribed. Think of how these players would go in our current environment - Puopolo, Sheils, Simpkins. Would a Pderson at Hawthorn be any better or worse than a Stratton ?

Our problem is not the players you mentioned - our problem is that we dont have a collection of Hodge, Roughhead, Rioli or Mitchell.

Alluded to this in my response in the 'time is up for some players thread' , but to improve the list you need to bring in someone who is better than what you have. History (generally across all clubs) shows its not going to be with round 4+ draftees (even round 3 comes with significant risk). That leaves 3 draft picks a couple of trades may improve this to 4; Frawley compo may make 5. A Jetta upgade is anothet posdible option; so at the most there will be 6-7 spots. Byrne's & Clarke are 2, Frawley 1 (or stays and reduces the required spots by one), leaving only 2-3 delistings. It's not about whose should get rid of, its who do we keep?

Further, you can be very unlucky in drafting just through which year you happen to be prominent, the Sylvia year was a generally bad crop of draftees while the Hodge year it was hard to miss

Also don't assume trading players in will improve a list, again historically it doesn't, Sydney and Hawthon normally exemplars in trading still brought in Bradshaw, Armstrong, Everitt, Bruce, Cheney, (hawks ruck), etc. On the other end of the scale think Brisbane, Richmond, Carlton and of course Melbourne.

Lastly massive changes doesn't instill good culture as it contradicts one of the key pillars - trust!