Discussion on this has filtered through other threads, but I was interested in what people thought of two key aspects to the Roos philosophy, as reiterated in his latest interview on the club website:

1. "Every player is tradeable and every pick is tradeable"

Roos has made this known from an early stage and has also made it known to the player group that they are all tradeable. I'm sure some coaches share this philosophy, but I can't recall one who has been quite as vocal.

Is this reasonable/realistic? Is Nathan Jones tradeable? Is Jesse Hogan tradeable? Is it sending a destabilising message to the players, or is this just part and parcel with professional sport?

2. "Melbourne fans won't cop another rebuild.."

This relates to Roos' desire to top up the list with experience to make an immediate impact on the win/loss column. Prima facie this seems a wise move, particularly when contrasted with the Bailey approach of kids, kids and more kids. Fundamentally, Roos needs to "fix" the list to fill the void left by several years of ill-conceived draft picks and senior players that have moved on.

But is a priority given to older players, particularly if they are acquired with high picks, a temporary fix? Is there enough raw talent in the youth ranks to take the club towards the ultimate, or does this potentially set the club on a path to mediocrity? Is Roos getting the mix of experience and youth correct?

For the right price, anyone is most definitely tradable. For example, clubs desperate for a KPF, say the Bulldogs, would pay overs for a future star like Hogan. Not saying we'd do it but in any trade situation where we hold all the cards, we must be relentless.

Saying 'every player is tradeable' doesn't really mean anything I don't think. I'd be surprised if there were similar words said directly to the players. I think it's more a message to the other 17 clubs that if you're interested, come ask.

Every player is tradeable. I'd trade Hogan for Gary Ablett.

I think Roos is more likely to trade middle of the road players with currency; eg- Howe, Grimes, Garland, *gasp* Watts, if he believes they are surplus, or we can get a deal for them that better solves a more immediate problem for us.

Sydney never bottomed out under him either, and of course it worries me when I hear the word "trade picks for recycled players", but Roos is no fool. He isn't trading pick 3 for Tom Gillies 2.0.

I'm sure we all feared the outcome or last year's pick 2 trade, and we can all now agree it's a resounding win, even without seeing a lot from Salem.

Roos and Jackson have one very important thing in common; their egos won't allow them to fail. Neither will walk away from this club without succeeding. It's a good trait to have and it'll ensure neither makes stupid short-sighted decisions in an effort to prove they're capable (hello Mark Neeld)

Every player is tradeable. I'd trade Hogan for Gary Ablett.

I wouldn't now and I think Ablett is the best player to play the game but he is 30. Not the right time for this trade, would have traded that other millionaire superstar Scully for him, in fact I would have traded Gary senior for him.

Regarding the OPs 2nd point, I think the key is we aren't rebuilding for a premiership.

We are building a club for the next 5 years, a club that will be competitive again. The one we are back on board with culture and competitiveness, we will start the "rebuild" for a premiership using youth and free agency to build a premiership list.

That's how far away we are. But it is the only way we can progress. We've seen that drafting raw talent into our club hasn't been working.

Deanox has it right. We may need to burn a few highish picks to right the ship and get back to mid-table. While in the long run that will hurt us as we may lose a 10 year superstar or two, unfortunately we don't have that long to wait. We just need to get amongst it in the next year or two, get some strong players in the 25-27 bracket and get some grunt in the midfield. Then we can survey where we are at and go from there, hopefully not with any more picks 1, 2 or 3...

If we get pick 3 for Frawley, it will be moved on. I can see Roos sending a combination of picks and players out the door to bring the right players into this footy club. It won't be a fire sale on MFC players. but if there is interest in one of our players and Roos can turn it into value for the club, he will make a deal.

I am thinking this trade period is a huge test of the club and Roos' strength. The club cannot rebuild from here with kids. He needs to trade like crazy!And yes if we can win time and ability trading anyone (even Hogan to Bull dogs ) then he must be allowed to do it.

If not and the club continues to put time into serial underperformers by giving them another chance the club is doomed to the botttom of the ladder for ever.

With Ryder probably going to Brisbane it leaves Leuenberger in no mans land and maybe available for a trade. If so we should be well placed to use a compensation pick. He has plenty of upside IMO.

Why are we concerned of losing players....apart from the top 7-8 b&f & our recent early picks, the rest should be delisted or traded!

With Ryder probably going to Brisbane it leaves Leuenberger in no mans land and maybe available for a trade. If so we should be well placed to use a compensation pick. He has plenty of upside IMO.

I saw Stefan Martin at Brunettis in Carlton last night sitting on a coffee waiting for someone. I scanned the place looking for Roosey no sign of him anywhere! Maybe they got their times mixed up.

What I take out of it is Roos will get a mix of kids (Salem and JKH), a few oldies (Vince and Cross) and try for people who have been in the system 2-5 years and are proving themselves in the system already. That way in 2-3 years when Cross is gone people like Vince are in their 30's, we have a mix in their mid/late twenties and early/mid twenties.

That is where we need to build to get competitive.

Everyone's tradeable, but in some cases it's about as likely as an asteroid hitting us.

• yes it could happen
• yes we would entertain a proposal that see's us trade Jones for Fyfe, Dangerfield and a top 10 pick -
• but I wouldn't plan for it!!!

In an age of free agency and a growing gap between right and poor, good and bad, you simply can't afford to stock up on kids anymore. You need experience, big bodies, and players that have a desire to win.

Much like in the US sports leagues, the philosophy should be to build a strong team of experience and top it up with young players. ATM the club is in the predicament of having a team of inexperience needing to be topped up with experience.

Bailey came in as coach at a time when the shift was beginning: when drafting strongly wasn't anywhere near as important as having experience that could steer the ship. Add in a poor club culture and the recipe was always there for disaster.

Melbourne's list management has been downright deplorable.

If you take a note of Roo's trading/drafting history, he will trade for talls. He will not pay a big price KPB's, and he will pursue midfielders on the cusp with their current side.

Of course times have changed, and Melbourne is not Sydney so I expect him to tweak this a little where tall midfielders and run are probably now a higher priority.

Understanding this I would expect:

• The recruitment of a tall to play KPB that costs next to nothing
• Pursuing players who can deliver of half back - Suckling, Malceski, Lumumba
• This could free Howe up to play on the wing providing us with one of our tall midfielders (a very difficult matchup)
• pursing Midfielders such as Shiel, T Mitchell, Horlin-Smith would all provide strength over the ball/in the contest
• looking at Flankers like as Breust, Morabito, Neade would provide the pace and finishing skills

History has also shown that Roo's model only spends big on proven forwards.

I wonder if Fitzpatrick with his speed and ground skills can be turned into a winger!

We should aslo through everything at Heppel, given the bombers circumstances - other clubs are now circling the potential carcas (oppportunity) that is EFC

This really IS moneyball. If he can create the right mix of reliable experience (Cross, Vince, Lumumba?, Gwilt?), with mid age and youngsters, then we will win more games. The shedding of experienced older players to make way for youth is a failed policy, we know it first hand, and smarter, more successful teams wouldn't do it. Look at the older players at Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the age mix down to their youth.

Otherwise, call it the Junior McDonald correction policy.

This really IS moneyball. If he can create the right mix of reliable experience (Cross, Vince, Lumumba?, Gwilt?), with mid age and youngsters, then we will win more games. The shedding of experienced older players to make way for youth is a failed policy, we know it first hand, and smarter, more successful teams wouldn't do it. Look at the older players at Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the age mix down to their youth.

Otherwise, call it the Junior McDonald correction policy.

"Moneyball" is the act of 1) discovering which statistics correlate positively with victory; and then 2) recruiting players who measure up well in those categories, relative to their price.

That's all it means.

That interview with Matt Burgan was painful, he just kept asking him the same questions.

A commentator recently described North as having the right blend of youth and experience which has precipitated their rise up the ladder this year.

Last year Roo's brought in an old hand with the right attitude (Cross), an experienced known talent (Vince), a developed kid with great potential (Tyson, Michie, Reily) as well as a handful of undeveloped kids (Salem, Hogan*, etc).

I'd expect him to repeat this formulae this year with the added punch of additional high pick(s) from Frawley (Clark) plus being prepared to trade top 22 players given he's now had a year to assess and decide if they fit his model going forward.

Not a dissimilar strategy to what Neeld tried with Dawes, Clark, Rodan, etc... just carried off better thus far.

I don't see this approach needing to change significantly as we rise up the ladder. As the top 4 are proving, as you rise you may get worse draft picks but your free agency punch increases significantly...

A commentator recently described North as having the right blend of youth and experience which has precipitated their rise up the ladder this year.

Last year Roo's brought in an old hand with the right attitude (Cross), an experienced known talent (Vince), a developed kid with great potential (Tyson, Michie, Reily) as well as a handful of undeveloped kids (Salem, Hogan*, etc).

I'd expect him to repeat this formulae this year with the added punch of additional high pick(s) from Frawley (Clark) plus being prepared to trade top 22 players given he's now had a year to assess and decide if they fit his model going forward.

Not a dissimilar strategy to what Neeld tried with Dawes, Clark, Rodan, etc... just carried off better thus far.

I don't see this approach needing to change significantly as we rise up the ladder. As the top 4 are proving, as you rise you may get worse draft picks but your free agency punch increases significantly...

When talking about Paul Roos and North Melbourne at the same time, I suggest you get the apostrophies right.

But on topic, I feel like Mark Neeld's recruiting wasn't really all that bad. He did what we need--get experience into the club. How was he to know about what would happen to Mitch Clark? Chris Dawes was still a good get, and Rodan et al were still useful if you ask me (though obviously not to the same extent as Cross and Vince have been).

Edited September 12, 201411 yr by Chook

When talking about Paul Roos and North Melbourne at the same time, I suggest you get the apostrophies right.

But on topic, I feel like Mark Neeld's recruiting wasn't really all that bad. He did what we need--get experience into the club. How was he to know about what would happen to Mitch Clark? Chris Dawes was still a good get, and Rodan et al were still useful if you ask me (though obviously not to the same extent as Cross and Vince have been).

I'm not so convinced with Dawes 'Chook', he will need to do a lot more in the coming season to win me over.

Dawes has been worth every cent in a couple of matches, and hopelessly outnumbered in others. Sticking a few overhead marks once in a while will go a long way to helping raise my appreciation of him.

In fairness, he's been carrying the whole forward line while double tagged by every other coach in the league. Let's see what happens once Hogan and another KPF get out on the field at the same time.

This really IS moneyball. If he can create the right mix of reliable experience (Cross, Vince, Lumumba?, Gwilt?), with mid age and youngsters, then we will win more games. The shedding of experienced older players to make way for youth is a failed policy, we know it first hand, and smarter, more successful teams wouldn't do it. Look at the older players at Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the age mix down to their youth.

Otherwise, call it the Junior McDonald correction policy.

My fear is that it might become a Junior McDonald over-correction policy.

I'd be happy if we pursued something similar to last year:

• an early draft pick for a top young player (Tyson deal)
• a couple of experienced campaigners (Cross and Vince)
• a couple of fundamentally untried players on senior lists for a couple of years (Michie and Riley)

Not every trade is likely to be immediately successful but I think last year had far more ticks than crosses.

When talking about Paul Roos and North Melbourne at the same time, I suggest you get the apostrophies right.

But on topic, I feel like Mark Neeld's recruiting wasn't really all that bad. He did what we need--get experience into the club. How was he to know about what would happen to Mitch Clark? Chris Dawes was still a good get, and Rodan et al were still useful if you ask me (though obviously not to the same extent as Cross and Vince have been).

More misses than hits in my opinion. Sellar and Gillies were a waste of time. Rodan was just OK. Pedersen just gets a tick, given he's had half a season of good form out of two completed ones. But I think I understood what Neeld was trying to do - get more bigger bodied players in the side to help our grossly, physically under-developed playing list.