Delistings/trades at end of the season

[titan_uranus 24,962]

We can't go into next season with all 4 of Garland, Howe, Cross and Grimes, right?

Howe - Likely gone at end of season

Cross - May retire this year, will definitely be rested if he plays on next year

Grimes - Garland is far better than, otherwise Grimes would be in the side

But by all means, get rid of Garland.

See? This is what I'm saying. What is it you see in him? At present, is this the best argument in favour of Garland that you've got? We need to keep him because of Howe, Cross and Grimes?

The four names you've mentioned are four massive parts of the problem at this club. The fact that Howe will likely leave, Cross is petering out, and Grimes is in and out, is not a reason to keep Garland without Garland actually having an important role to play. What is that role?

So far in 2015 Grimes has been the more attacking, more likely to use the first option and has provided more run.

[Adam The God 29,950]

See? This is what I'm saying. What is it you see in him? At present, is this the best argument in favour of Garland that you've got? We need to keep him because of Howe, Cross and Grimes?

The four names you've mentioned are four massive parts of the problem at this club. The fact that Howe will likely leave, Cross is petering out, and Grimes is in and out, is not a reason to keep Garland without Garland actually having an important role to play. What is that role?

So far in 2015 Grimes has been the more attacking, more likely to use the first option and has provided more run.

Bit unfair on Crossy, I reckon. He wasn't good yesterday, but he's been in our top 3 or 4 most consistent and important players this season, IMO.

The thing that annoyed me yesterday about Garland's game was his inability to stick tackles. This is a bloke that's 27 and failed to hold two or three really important and not overly difficult tackles. I really like Col, but for a bloke who's 27, he lacks consistency in a way that Jones, Cross and Vince don't. The other bloke who's wildly inconsistent is Chris Dawes. We should be getting more from these guys, but we're not. So what I think we might see if this keeps up, is a surprise trade or two on top of the 5 or 6 obvious delists at the end of this year.

[rjay 24,787]

Bit unfair on Crossy, I reckon. He wasn't good yesterday, but he's been in our top 3 or 4 most consistent and important players this season, IMO.

The thing that annoyed me yesterday about Garland's game was his inability to stick tackles. This is a bloke that's 27 and failed to hold two or three really important and not overly difficult tackles. I really like Col, but for a bloke who's 27, he lacks consistency in a way that Jones, Cross and Vince don't. The other bloke who's wildly inconsistent is Chris Dawes. We should be getting more from these guys, but we're not. So what I think we might see if this keeps up, is a surprise trade or two on top of the 5 or 6 obvious delists at the end of this year.

You're right 'Adam', he really did need stick the tackles...

Dawes, well I'm not s fan and can see why Bucks was keen to move him on. Unfortunately we were too willing a buyer.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Garland isn't the problem, but he is part of it. Personality and attacking flair of a mouse with absolutely zero leadership qualities.

He's a nice guy and a good servant I hear you say. WGAF. At least when Grimes is in we seemed a little more settled, I think he has a calming affect on the team.

The usual names have been done to death but Garland escapes scrutiny from most because of his perceived flexibility. He is a momentum killer who is too scared to really take the game on. I wouldn't be fighting to keep him and can not wait for Frosty to come back

[Coq au vin 755]

Actually, I think Kali might be playing the game of "Demonland, I told you so". This scattergun approach allows Kali to say, "I told you [insert player's name here] was going to be off our list at the end of the year."

Nonsense. If you think this bunch of duds, spuds and losers can win a premiership anytime in the next five years you must have a serious mental deficiency. We need better players. It's about winning games and premierships.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Garland isn't the problem, but he is part of it. Personality and attacking flair of a mouse with absolutely zero leadership qualities.

He's a nice guy and a good servant I hear you say. WGAF. At least when Grimes is in we seemed a little more settled, I think he has a calming affect on the team.

The usual names have been done to death but Garland escapes scrutiny from most because of his perceived flexibility. He is a momentum killer who is too scared to really take the game on. I wouldn't be fighting to keep him and can not wait for Frosty to come back

Nice to hear there are some supporters who see it too.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Nice to hear there are some supporters who see it too.

You sometimes remind me of a 50 year old woman at a staff meeting Steve - puts forth her opinion loudly, and when someone questions it or has a differing view they get all poopy and quickly side with anyone who agrees with them as if it vindicates their view.

If Garland is such a big problem then what is your solution? Who do we have to fill his role? He is no world beater, far from it, but you can have a team of world beaters. He plays his role well and as far as I am concerned we don't have any better options to fill his position. We might be able to draft a young key position player but they take time - just look at the younger McDonald. He will take time.

We can rebuild again, and unless there is someone to replace Garland with, we stick with a bloke who gives his all and frankly doesn't do much wrong.

Frost MAY be a solution, but we don't know that yet. The kid has good pace and the size but is a questionable kick at best and a young kid who is unproven at AFL level. We don't have the freedom to be too risky with how we go about our list management at the moment.

[M C 221]

See? This is what I'm saying. What is it you see in him? At present, is this the best argument in favour of Garland that you've got? We need to keep him because of Howe, Cross and Grimes?

The four names you've mentioned are four massive parts of the problem at this club. The fact that Howe will likely leave, Cross is petering out, and Grimes is in and out, is not a reason to keep Garland without Garland actually having an important role to play. What is that role?

So far in 2015 Grimes has been the more attacking, more likely to use the first option and has provided more run.

"we simply cannot go into next season with garland, howe, lumumba, grimes, cross all as 'third / fourth tall' defenders. they don't do enough." - DemonAndrew

This is what I was responding to.

Addressing your post, each week Garland locks down the opposition's 3rd best forward. And each week, he succeeds at it, which is why he keeps getting the job over the other names listed by DA. Someone needs to play this role, and I see no reason to get rid of the guy who's best at it. There is a reason Grimes keeps getting dropped and not Garland.

[titan_uranus 24,962]

"we simply cannot go into next season with garland, howe, lumumba, grimes, cross all as 'third / fourth tall' defenders. they don't do enough." - DemonAndrew

This is what I was responding to.

Addressing your post, each week Garland locks down the opposition's 3rd best forward. And each week, he succeeds at it, which is why he keeps getting the job over the other names listed by DA. Someone needs to play this role, and I see no reason to get rid of the guy who's best at it. There is a reason Grimes keeps getting dropped and not Garland.

Well you hadn't quoted that post so forgive me for not reading your mind.

That aside, I don't share your thoughts on Garland, and even if he is shutting down the third tall, if they're the third best then we need to be asking more from a senior player than that. I don't mind if McDonald and Dunn are playing pure defensive games when they're being given numbers 1 and 2, but for most opposition sides number 3 shouldn't be such a threat to stop Garland from peeling off, linking up, and once in a blue moon taking the first option when he gets the ball.

The other issue I see is that I don't think we can go long term with Dunn as the second tall defender. Frost may end up being that player, and Dunn then becomes the third defender. I'd take that before I take the current set up. I'd like to see Garland get some attacking flair into his game. At least Grimes had developed that this year.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

Nonsense. If you think this bunch of duds, spuds and losers can win a premiership anytime in the next five years you must have a serious mental deficiency. We need better players. It's about winning games and premierships.

OK, so if you genuinely think all 13 players you listed should be off the list, how would you propose we replace them? I'm no expert, but reports suggest that this year's draft may not go very deep. Let's just argue, for the moment, that we can get 5 players in via trades and free agency. That still leaves 8 spots to fill. Are you certain that whoever you think is the last name on your list is of less value going forward than the eighth choice we'd have through the draft process?

And, by the way, I've been following Melbourne since the mid-1960s. Of course I've got a serious mental deficiency.

[Lucifers Hero 39,291]

On Ch7 this morning Goodwin was asked about the list turnover...about 22 in last 2 years and maybe another 12-14 coming up (before he takes over in 2017). Goodwin said: yeah that is a huge change.

My take was that the players we on DL complain about will be gone end of 2016. So any player coming our of contract in 2015, 2016 is in strife if they can't become a regular 22. We have enough newer Roos recruits for depth to not keep the pre Roos NQRs.

I then wondered if, given this year is a shallow draft and the lack of trade value of many of our NQR player, we could see all 4 rookies upgraded. Then bring in 4 new rookies that we can groom and have a good look at.

Would be quite happy with all 4 rookies to be upgraded to seniors eos.

BTW Bernie was asked about the 'mansion' he has bought a few doors from Roos' house. In his cheeky style Bernie said it was the old wooden shack at the back. Allowing for any sort of house in the area is $1m+ it was interesting that Bernie is settling into Melb.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

On Ch7 this morning Goodwin was asked about the list turnover...about 22 in last 2 years and maybe another 12-14 coming up 'before he takes over in 2017). Goodwin said: yeah that is a huge change.

[Dee1987 277]

Trade week will be interesting

[Dee1987 277]

Roos stated he will leave list in good shape so this year is his last year to recruit wisely at both trade table and draft table. Here's to hoping PJ, Mahoney and Viney have some aces up there sleeves

[Adam The God 29,950]

You're right 'Adam', he really did need stick the tackles...

Dawes, well I'm not s fan and can see why Bucks was keen to move him on. Unfortunately we were too willing a buyer.

We bought Dawes on the assumption he'd be the third forward behind Clark and Hogan, and would nurture the likes of Jesse. Clark's betrayal put a spanner in the works there.

I agree that Chris is not good enough as a second forward. He tries hard, sets a good pressure example, but ultimately doesn't hit the scoreboard enough. I'd be willing to look for a trade, but we'd have to have a ready made replacement. Pedersen can't be the only back up.

We also need more toe in our forward 50. Kent's return will help that, but we're still lacking another. Howe is gone, either by choice or the club's, so Kent takes his place. JKH is too slow for that forward pressure role and currently lacks the physicality. And most importantly in the forward half, we need a good foil for Jesse. They don't need to be as good as Jesse will be, but they need to offer more than Dawes and Pedersen. Think Scott Lucas as Lloyd's foil.

As for Col Garland, if Frost ever gets on the park, he'll take Col's role. He'll bring the versatility to be able to play on the tall or small opposition forwards. Having not been Melbournised by the past few years, hopefully he'll have a greater capacity to take the game on too.

Edited July 12, 2015 by AdamFarr

[Adam The God 29,950]

Garland isn't the problem, but he is part of it. Personality and attacking flair of a mouse with absolutely zero leadership qualities.

He's a nice guy and a good servant I hear you say. WGAF. At least when Grimes is in we seemed a little more settled, I think he has a calming affect on the team.

The usual names have been done to death but Garland escapes scrutiny from most because of his perceived flexibility. He is a momentum killer who is too scared to really take the game on. I wouldn't be fighting to keep him and can not wait for Frosty to come back

I'd suspect the defence is even more scared to take the game on with Grimes in the team. His kicking is still appalling. He's not best 22 and you'll see him as depth from here on out.

I remember Garland standing up and taking the game on against GWS in 2012(2013?) and he's done it a couple of other times during his career, notably under Bailey, but the fact I can pin point that GWS game is a real concern. I think they'll try and low ball Col on a new deal. He'll either go somewhere else or stay on the list as others, with the ability to consistently take on the game, go past him.

[Adam The God 29,950]

You sometimes remind me of a 50 year old woman at a staff meeting Steve - puts forth her opinion loudly, and when someone questions it or has a differing view they get all poopy and quickly side with anyone who agrees with them as if it vindicates their view.

If Garland is such a big problem then what is your solution? Who do we have to fill his role? He is no world beater, far from it, but you can have a team of world beaters. He plays his role well and as far as I am concerned we don't have any better options to fill his position. We might be able to draft a young key position player but they take time - just look at the younger McDonald. He will take time.

We can rebuild again, and unless there is someone to replace Garland with, we stick with a bloke who gives his all and frankly doesn't do much wrong.

Frost MAY be a solution, but we don't know that yet. The kid has good pace and the size but is a questionable kick at best and a young kid who is unproven at AFL level. We don't have the freedom to be too risky with how we go about our list management at the moment.

Why is it you keep comparing posters you disagree with to women? The sexist subtext is starting to get annoying. Edited July 12, 2015 by AdamFarr

[beelzebub 23,309]

On Ch7 this morning Goodwin was asked about the list turnover...about 22 in last 2 years and maybe another 12-14 coming up (before he takes over in 2017). Goodwin said: yeah that is a huge change.

My take was that the players we on DL complain about will be gone end of 2016. So any player coming our of contract in 2015, 2016 is in strife if they can't become a regular 22. We have enough newer Roos recruits for depth to not keep the pre Roos NQRs.

I then wondered if, given this year is a shallow draft and the lack of trade value of many of our NQR player, we could see all 4 rookies upgraded. Then bring in 4 new rookies that we can groom and have a good look at.

Would be quite happy with all 4 rookies to be upgraded to seniors eos.

BTW Bernie was asked about the 'mansion' he has bought a few doors from Roos' house. In his cheeky style Bernie said it was the old wooden shack at the back. Allowing for any sort of house in the area is $1m+ it was interesting that Bernie is settling into Melb.

or just astute investing. I dont read much into that as such.

[Adam The God 29,950]

Well you hadn't quoted that post so forgive me for not reading your mind.

That aside, I don't share your thoughts on Garland, and even if he is shutting down the third tall, if they're the third best then we need to be asking more from a senior player than that. I don't mind if McDonald and Dunn are playing pure defensive games when they're being given numbers 1 and 2, but for most opposition sides number 3 shouldn't be such a threat to stop Garland from peeling off, linking up, and once in a blue moon taking the first option when he gets the ball.

The other issue I see is that I don't think we can go long term with Dunn as the second tall defender. Frost may end up being that player, and Dunn then becomes the third defender. I'd take that before I take the current set up. I'd like to see Garland get some attacking flair into his game. At least Grimes had developed that this year.

Agreed, mate. At least, Dunn is a nice, pretty accurate kick. Ideally, I think that's where the FD are looking. Tommy Mac takes the best forward, Frost takes the second and Dunn the third. And whether or not they've stamped Fitzy's papers, the theme here is tall, mobile, athletic defenders that take the game on. Fitzy less so, but we shall see where he ends up at the end of the year. On this, Fitzy should have been brought in for the Essendon game.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Why is it you keep comparing posters you disagree with to women? The sexist subtext is starting to get annoying.

Oh please. I made two comparisons that happened to be about women. Well done on drawing the longest bow possible about someone you don't know. I hope it made you feel better Adam, keep fighting the e-fight about absolutely nothing.

[Dee-licious 1,949]

Watching Aish play for Brissy makes me think. He's exactly what we'd be getting in Parish but he has a couple of seasons under his belt. Brissy will need another pick for Dixon - maybe there is something we can work out there with our first rounder. Probably a little high on what I'd want to pay - but depends on what we get back in return.

Also Patton came back from injury today. He is contracted but they have a packed forward line over at GWS. Once again, pick 4 + Howe might make them think considering they are going to need a few high picks to pay for Hopper, Kennedy et al.

[whatwhat say what 22,531]

can't believe brisbane are chasing dixon so hard, offering him $750k a year.

has he ever played more than three games in a row? he's mitch clark all over again. big, tall, strong, capable of the brilliant...and really frail.

[Adam The God 29,950]

Oh please. I made two comparisons that happened to be about women. Well done on drawing the longest bow possible about someone you don't know. I hope it made you feel better Adam, keep fighting the e-fight about absolutely nothing.

I enjoy your posts WB, but you brought women into it for absolutely no reason at all. Speaking of drawing a long bow, you proceeded to compare Steve to a fifty year old woman because he said 'Nice to hear there are some supporters who see it too'. What a very female thing to say.

[Adam The God 29,950]

Watching Aish play for Brissy makes me think. He's exactly what we'd be getting in Parish but he has a couple of seasons under his belt. Brissy will need another pick for Dixon - maybe there is something we can work out there with our first rounder. Probably a little high on what I'd want to pay - but depends on what we get back in return.

Also Patton came back from injury today. He is contracted but they have a packed forward line over at GWS. Once again, pick 4 + Howe might make them think considering they are going to need a few high picks to pay for Hopper, Kennedy et al.

You know what, if our medicos felt Patton's knee would hold up, I'd trade Howe for Patton. He's no star yet, but he'd be a good foil for Jesse.

Edited July 12, 2015 by AdamFarr

[Dee-licious 1,949]

You know what, if our medicos felt Patton's knee would hold up, I'd trade Howe for Patton. He's no star yet, but he'd be a good foil for Jesse.

I'd agree with you and make that trade but feel it would cost us our first round and Howe to get Patton. Maybe we pay a club to take Garland at a HUGE price and get a 1st round compo