This team has been rubbish enough that anyone good enough could have carved out 60- 80 odd games since 2008 or 09. Every opportunity for young players was on the table for the taking. Injuries hurt these guys, but people forget that they put in sub par performances at vfl level when they were fit and when spots were up for grabs. Bail was probably the least talented of the lot but has quietly accomplished 65 senior games in that same period. Good luck to them.

If we could only bottle what Jones has inside him and distribute it to all at the club.

If only we prioritised those character traits when we were recruiting we could have avoided a few repeated potholes.

Interesting that we look at these two players at 17 and 19 from the 2008 draft who supposedly tick boxes in terms of athleticism and skill but fail to make a spot thier own.

In the same draft we took a player at 51 who now owns a spot and I hope may end up one of the better small defenders in the comp. Rohan Bail was picked up at 65.

You have to wonder what we were doing. I know that the draft is a lottery but we clearly did not investigate the characters of these major investments adequately.

Strauss could not operate under physical or mental pressure, and Blease either could not or would not accept instruction and work hard. These are things that surely should have been picked up.

I am happy to hear that our interview process is now probing and gruelling,

For MFC the draft is a lottery but for really good clubs they seem to know how to spot, recruit, retain and develop talent. But you are right to point out the 2008 draft. It has been shown to be rich and deep in talent. Given the priority of our picks is amazing we have no got value out of any pick before pick 50.

prefer Blease to Tapscott, but whatever.

Neither will remain imho

As much as posters might want it - no contracted player will be paid out and delisted - it's that simple.

Unless they do a Nathan Carroll or Campbell Brown, it wont happen!

So can we end these ridiculous demands to cut contracted players.

As I said in the alternative JT can go LTI list and then Jetta could replace him. That would allow us to use 53 or PSD 2 and one more delisting would allow allpicks to be used.

I said Tapscott would be delisted also.

Jetta has already signed a contract, so I think it is too late to keep him on the rookie list.

JT going on the LTI list is a given, but doesn't help us at the draft, just means we might be able to play a player we take in the rookie draft.

If only we prioritised those character traits when we were recruiting we could have avoided a few repeated potholes.

You get to see these boys playing a couple of years at TAC level - and then you interview them. The "Jones" character is something that reveals itself over the journey - its not something you can test in an 18 year old and come up with a definitive answer.

The last footballer who was reported at draft time to have an insatiable desire to be the best he could possible be - was reported as a freakish trainer with a determination to be the best - was one T Scully - -look how that turned out.

As much as posters might want it - no contracted player will be paid out and delisted - it's that simple.

Unless they do a Nathan Carroll or Campbell Brown, it wont happen!

So can we end these ridiculous demands to cut contracted players.

Normally I'd agree Rog, but 40 seems early to have our last pick, and taking GWS' pick 53 or whatever in the Frost deal seems pointless if we're not going to use it.

Jetta has already signed a contract, so I think it is too late to keep him on the rookie list.

JT going on the LTI list is a given, but doesn't help us at the draft, just means we might be able to play a player we take in the rookie draft.

Not sure if as much a given as you suspect. Being on the LTI provides the club no breathing room.

If wagering was the thing, id be thinking delist/rookie. Some see that as cold . Its just prudent and pragmatic whilst allowing the lad the time and opportunity to 'maybe" recover. He was 5 secs from out the door....just saying

Not sure if as much a given as you suspect. Being on the LTI provides the club no breathing room.

If wagering was the thing, id be thinking delist/rookie. Some see that as cold . Its just prudent and pragmatic whilst allowing the lad the time and opportunity to 'maybe" recover. He was 5 secs from out the door....just saying

In what way does Trengove being on the LTI mean the club has no breathing room?

In what way does Trengove being on the LTI mean the club has no breathing room?

Because he occupies a spot on the actual senioor list ..not that bloody hard Nash

Normally I'd agree Rog, but 40 seems early to have our last pick, and taking GWS' pick 53 or whatever in the Frost deal seems pointless if we're not going to use it.

The only way I can see them doing it is to delist Tapscott and convince JT or Evans (for example) to go on the rookie list a la Michael Newton on full pay.

Given that we haven't been told that Tapscott has been delisted - and he surely wil be - I'd say that they just haven't been through all the players yet.

...... or, if those in charge believe that Tappy offers something that most of us don't see, they might 'throw him a lifeline' by offering to rookie listing him a la Nev Jetta last year.

Because he occupies a spot on the actual senioor list ..not that bloody hard Nash

I reckon the chances of the club delisting Trengove so they can take him in the rookie draft are negligible.

If Trenners still can't play by this time next year, he'll have to go and he will go without complaint. Meanwhile, we could rookie Evans and if he shows a bit more he can be upgraded as a replacement for JT - assuming Harmes hasn't pushed his way in.

Just appalling list management as usual No strategy no vision What the hell are Evans and Tapscott still doing with contracts Geesus!

Can we please hold the hysteria about failing list management until the final list lodgements.. crikey we're quick to criticize.

Just appalling list management as usual No strategy no vision What the hell are Evans and Tapscott still doing with contracts Geesus!

Tapscott does not yet have one beyond 8 days from now and Evans would be on very thin ice.

As much as posters might want it - no contracted player will be paid out and delisted - it's that simple.

Unless they do a Nathan Carroll or Campbell Brown, it wont happen!

So can we end these ridiculous demands to cut contracted players.

Newton and Meesen were delisted and picked up in the Rookie Draft as per an agreement - they were paid their contracted salary for that year.

That doesn't need to happen - Evans can be delisted and paid out - if Roos doesn't see a future for him, it would be better than wasting a year on our list.

Tapscott and Evans being delisted would open up ND40 and ND53 or a DFA signing. That may be all we get.

There is no mechanism for us to honour the 2 year deal with Jetta and keep him on the Rookie List to be upgraded during 2015. Tregngove being delisted and rookied is more likely than Jetta staying on the RL.

If the club asked him to stay on the RL after promising to upgrade him - I would have no qualms with him walking from the club at that point.

Can we please hold the hysteria about failing list management until the final list lodgements.. crikey we're quick to criticize.

Its not Hysteria I dont know how we ended up with so many cloggers is all. Tapscott Blease and Strauss should have not been re-contracted last time

I reckon the chances of the club delisting Trengove so they can take him in the rookie draft are negligible.

I don't. There's a certain fairytale notion , call its a pseudo coziness, ( warm fuzzy stuff) about maintaining Jack on the primary list and affording him all opportunity and support to literally get back on his feet and play footy with us.. I get that. All that can still actually be done whilst he is on the Rookie list. He is not a good bet to ever play senior footy at AFL level again. thats just a hard cold reality. Not a preferential one by any means but it is what it is.

The club has already shown a preparedness for being pragmatic. Again , he was just about out the door. Now he's not. Should he take up a spot on the list whilst convalescing , and doing so over a period which would in all likelihood eclipse the 2015 season ?? I can't see any reason he should do. if hes still paid what he was to be in 15 a per original, if hes still part of the club, if he still get s all the medical attention and support why clog up the list ? Its all kum by yah stuuf. Nicey nicey for the sake of appearances ?? It is however a real world and would be a poor management not to make best use of a senior list spot.

We want this club to operate properly ? Well, sometimes hard decisions are needed. Some suggest a moral obligation to maintain his position on the list ( primary ). I call nonsense. Any obligation is maintained by keeping him in club...not specifically on the senior list. Even then really , if a player cant provide the goods then we must make sure he's adequately cared for but further to that what ? This isn't charity

I don't. There's a certain fairytale notion , call its a pseudo coziness, ( warm fuzzy stuff) about maintaining Jack on the primary list and affording him all opportunity and support to literally get back on his feet and play footy with us.. I get that. All that can still actually be done whilst he is on the Rookie list. He is not a good bet to ever play senior footy at AFL level again. thats just a hard cold reality. Not a preferential one by any means but it is what it is.

The club has already shown a preparedness for being pragmatic. Again , he was just about out the door. Now he's not. Should he take up a spot on the list whilst convalescing , and doing so over a period which would in all likelihood eclipse the 2015 season ?? I can't see any reason he should do. if hes still paid what he was to be in 15 a per original, if hes still part of the club, if he still get s all the medical attention and support why clog up the list ? Its all kum by yah stuuf. Nicey nicey for the sake of appearances ?? It is however a real world and would be a poor management not to make best use of a senior list spot.

We want this club to operate properly ? Well, sometimes hard decisions are needed. Some suggest a moral obligation to maintain his position on the list ( primary ). I call nonsense. Any obligation is maintained by keeping him in club...not specifically on the senior list. Even then really , if a player cant provide the goods then we must make sure he's adequately cared for but further to that what ? This isn't charity

That's all lovely Bub, but if I were St. Kilda I'd happily burn a spot on the rookie list for Jack Trengove if he nominated for the rookie draft. Even if you ignore all the so called "nicey nicey" stuff, the risk is by going down this path, you lose the player.

What jackaub and I want to know is, why weren't Clark and Hogan rookie-listed in 2014? Jeez, this club! soft-headed, soft-hearted, I dunno.

The curse of 08 draft

Thanks BP

Now the curse 09 draft

Thanks BP x2

i spoke to him at a get together

He didnt get on with Scott Clayton at Footscray

Who would you wont BP or Scott ???

Shame Shame Shame

That's all lovely Bub, but if I were St. Kilda I'd happily burn a spot on the rookie list for Jack Trengove if he nominated for the rookie draft. Even if you ignore all the so called "nicey nicey" stuff, the risk is by going down this path, you lose the player.

lose what exactly.... a 1% to play footy again player. please.. This is more about exit management but no one want to sight the elephant.

lose what exactly.... a 1% to play footy again player. please.. This is more about exit management but no one want to sight the elephant.

Why bother with all that then? If you don't want him then just delist him at full pay with a promise to fullfil the club's obligations of player care.

I'm pretty sure you're just making this up as go bb.