Feel the mother [censored] change ya'll. It's coming.

And again...

The change is here. It's a little late to be forewarning...

Garland has been nothing but a pro, and if Roos and co. deems him as a required player I have no qualms as I can see reasons why he would be a required player.

You cannot see that and that is fine but you should stop trying to intimate that those of us who can see him getting another contract are somehow detached from, or rejecting of, reality or the issues the club faces - it demeans your argument(s) about past attitudes, talent, and skill level.

The draft is a lottery and, while pick 26 may get you a star, it is much more likely to get you a bust. The recent pick 26’s have included great selections in Darling and Edwards, but the mode selection would be lucky to net you 30 games.

Recent Pick 26's

Toby McLean

Zachary Merrett

Jack Viney (James Stewart at 27)

Todd Elton

Jack Darling

Aaron Black

Jayden Post

Brett Meredith

Shane Edwards

Garrick Ibbotson

Matthew Little

There is also the impact on the playing group of losing another senior player which I feel you are not valuing at all.

As I've said, the attraction to me of moving Garland on is not about what draft pick we are given. It's how we use it. You are assuming we'll go to the draft and I have never said we will only go to the draft with that pick and hopefully pick up a great player, (even though I believe we could.) But we have options.

I said that Roos and co have been able to use the picks we've received from losing players very wisely and I have no doubt we'd be able to do that again. Whether it be packaged with something else for a trade or going to the draft or allowing us to bring another FA in who would cover the loss of a 'senior' player etc. All bases would be covered.

We have already covered the loss of 'experienced players' in Frawley and Sylvia in Vince and Cross so I can't understand the 'losing another senior player' argument. It's invalid.

As for the draft. If you want to play games like the 'look at the recent pick 26's' then I'll challenge you to dig a bit deeper and perhaps look at some of the quality players selected around that pick. Both before and after. Also look at how many high draft picks we [censored] up during the BP years and compare those with the ones we've been getting right since Jason Taylor and the beefed up recruiting department walked through the door. The point is we're in much better hands to both get a pick right and develop the talent.

One more rebuttal. Remind me what pick Garland was?

It's a silly argument.

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I'd be extremely disappointed if Garland was to leave this club.

Quality player. Quality individual. Quality clubman.

Sign him up.

I guess it depends on where you are coming from Ron. I really like Garlo, and think he's been a very 'solid citizen' of the Melbourne Footy Club over some really tough times. Does that make him a quality player? ........ not by my preferred definition. In describing players as 'quality', I immediately think of match-winning qualities, and I just don't see them in Garlo. There are dozens of 'solid citizens' on every list (all teams needs them!), but without a healthy serve of players with match-winning qualities, teams are going nowhere in today's competition ........ and Melbourne has fewer match-winners than most. If Garlo leaves as a RFA, I will be among the first to acknowledge his good service, and to wish him well at his new club. I will also be looking forward to the prospect of adding potential match-winning qualities to our very meagre list. Of course there are no guarantees in recruiting, but we desperately need to do everything possible to raise the bar! In summary: "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got".

And again...

The change is here. It's a little late to be forewarning...

Garland has been nothing but a pro, and if Roos and co. deems him as a required player I have no qualms as I can see reasons why he would be a required player.

You cannot see that and that is fine but you should stop trying to intimate that those of us who can see him getting another contract are somehow detached from, or rejecting of, reality or the issues the club faces - it demeans your argument(s) about past attitudes, talent, and skill level.

Yes, and I'll be the first to raise my hand and say that the club clearly think he's an important player moving forward.

But we're not there yet and I'm confident he'll be gone.

I'm asking Ron why he believes Garland is untouchable and why he thought the same of Frawley even though he knew we'd receive such good compo.

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I guess it depends on where you are coming from Ron. I really like Garlo, and think he's been a very 'solid citizen' of the Melbourne Footy Club over some really tough times. Does that make him a quality player? ........ not by my preferred definition. In describing players as 'quality', I immediately think of match-winning qualities, and I just don't see them in Garlo. There are dozens of 'solid citizens' on every list (all teams needs them!), but without a healthy serve of players with match-winning qualities, teams are going nowhere in today's competition ........ and Melbourne has fewer match-winners than most. If Garlo leaves as a RFA, I will be among the first to acknowledge his good service, and to wish him well at his new club. I will also be looking forward to the prospect of adding potential match-winning qualities to our very meagre list. Of course there are no guarantees in recruiting, but we desperately need to do everything possible to raise the bar! In summary: "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got".

It's the sign of a true one-eyed Melbourne supporter. Love all senior players and back them in even to the detriment of their own club.

Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney.... The same supporters throwing out the same lines.

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

As I've said, the attraction to me of moving Garland on is not about what draft pick we are given. It's how we use it. You are assuming we'll go to the draft and I have never said we will only go to the draft with that pick and hopefully pick up a great player, (even though I believe we could.) But we have options.

I said that Roos and co have been able to use the picks we've received from losing players very wisely and I have no doubt we'd be able to do that again. Whether it be packaged with something else for a trade or going to the draft or allowing us to bring another FA in who would cover the loss of a 'senior' player etc. All bases would be covered.

We have already covered the loss of 'experienced players' in Frawley and Sylvia in Vince and Cross so I can't understand the 'losing another senior player' argument. It's invalid.

As for the draft. If you want to play games like the 'look at the recent pick 26's' then I'll challenge you to dig a bit deeper and perhaps look at some of the quality players selected around that pick. Both before and after. Also look at how many high draft picks we [censored] up during the BP years and compare those with the ones we've been getting right since Jason Taylor and the beefed up recruiting department walked through the door. The point is we're in much better hands to both get a pick right and develop the talent.

One more rebuttal. Remind me what pick Garland was?

It's a silly argument.

I think this is a very stupid way to look at trading. I would be happy to see Garland go if he were to net us pick 3, but it isn't happening. We may get pick 26, but we might get pick 43, either way it isn't a great result in a shallow draft.

As for opening up a list spot, there are a dozen players on the block before Garland.

Pig headedly stuck in the "offload Garland" camp, by the looks of it.

Willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.

The debate over Garland still isn't being framed correctly. It's not simply a matter of keep/don't keep by arguing his merits or otherwise and overlooking a relative determinant. I'll ask again. Would we be happy if the club were to trade a second round pick for a 'Garland' on half a mil a year?

The debate over Garland still isn't being framed correctly. It's not simply a matter of keep/don't keep by arguing his merits or otherwise and overlooking a relative determinant. I'll ask again. Would we be happy if the club were to trade a second round pick for a 'Garland' on half a mil a year?

Depends what you mean by 2nd round pick - pick 20 yes, pick 36 no. Don't think Garland is/ was/ will be on half a mil a year though.

Exactly. It's relative. But if he attracts that offer do we keep him i.e. - match it? And up until what point do we match?

Exactly. It's relative. But if he attracts that offer do we keep him i.e. - match it? And up until what point do we match?

We let him go because he can still leave via the draft and we get nothing.

Treloar sweepstakes appear on in ernest. Would hope that we would at least buy a ticket...

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/gws-adam-treloar-likely-to-leave-for-victorian-club-20150723-gij9i3.html

The debate over Garland still isn't being framed correctly. It's not simply a matter of keep/don't keep by arguing his merits or otherwise and overlooking a relative determinant. I'll ask again. Would we be happy if the club were to trade a second round pick for a 'Garland' on half a mil a year?

The thing is that Col, unlike, Howey, is a RFA, which means that if a club really wants him, we have to decide if we want to match the offer.

It also means that we are most likely to be given a compensation pick - it won't be first round, but it is likely to be second round pick - approx 23-26 by my reckoning as we have an easy run home. That would be almost too good in some people's eyes but a good compo for us.

If we are really unlucky the panel will gives us only a third round pick - 41-46 - that would be a real bummer and unders.

As to his salary, it's hard to see us wanting to fork out another $500K this time for him (he was coming off 2nd in B&F then), especially as we are apparently close to cap already and we want to make a big play on Prestia and also to offer Gawn some really good long-term coin which now is a priority.

To me, both Col and Howey have chosen the wrong year to be out of contract - I reckon they will have to stay loyal for less than what they are on - or will be pushed out as part of the Prestia deal.

It's not as if they have shown themselves to be indispensable this year - just useful members of a senior group that Roosy is very loyal to.

Frost, when he's fit can easily fill Garland's role, and Lumumba can also play Howe's third-man up role.

Then there's also Fitzy and A-Mac as back-ups and Pedo if necessary.

We could also make a play for Curtly Hampson with our 2nd rounder if we are worried that a potential Howe departure leaves us one short in the running department down back.

If he goes to North he's an idiot. They're going nowhere.

I've heard Collingwood have offered him $200k more than GWS have, per year. GWS offered him the same deal as Shiel.

Treloar is a very, very good mid. Would hope that we were in the mix. Will be an interesting trade period this year

Treloar sweepstakes appear on in ernest. Would hope that we would at least buy a ticket...

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/gws-adam-treloar-likely-to-leave-for-victorian-club-20150723-gij9i3.html

n-demand midfielder Adam Treloar looks increasingly likely to depart Greater Western Sydney and join a Melbourne club.

Sources have confirmed Treloar, 22, has received an offer from GWS that is significantly below that of Collingwood, Richmond and North Melbourne – each of which has made a pitch for the midfielder – and he is now more likely to leave than stick with the Giants.

Why arent we being named? Surely we have thrown a massive offer at him

n-demand midfielder Adam Treloar looks increasingly likely to depart Greater Western Sydney and join a Melbourne club.

Sources have confirmed Treloar, 22, has received an offer from GWS that is significantly below that of Collingwood, Richmond and North Melbourne – each of which has made a pitch for the midfielder – and he is now more likely to leave than stick with the Giants.

Why arent we being named? Surely we have thrown a massive offer at him

Because we clearly have Prestia, Dixon and Dangerfield locked up already, duh...

n-demand midfielder Adam Treloar looks increasingly likely to depart Greater Western Sydney and join a Melbourne club.

Sources have confirmed Treloar, 22, has received an offer from GWS that is significantly below that of Collingwood, Richmond and North Melbourne – each of which has made a pitch for the midfielder – and he is now more likely to leave than stick with the Giants.

Why arent we being named? Surely we have thrown a massive offer at him

Why?

He's a good player no doubt but I don't like the idea of throwing a lot of cash at one player.

Seems that Sydney may be paying the price for that now...

I couldn't disagree more on this. Nic Nat's chasing, tackling and smothering is first rate. As is his follow up work around clearances. He just struggles to find the ball in general play. But, IMO, he is still a star because there are nearly 80 clearances per game.

I also don't think West Coast's midfield is that strong and, indeed, he is the one making them look good.

Shuey, Gaff, Priddis, Lecras, Wellingham, Selwood, Yeo, Masten, Sheed, Hutchings and Rosa is a pretty decent midfield with good depth in anybodies language. You can tag one or two but when little work gets put into the Masten's and Gaff's because of this Masten accumulates as a conduit and Gaff has the ability to really hurt you. Hawks are devastating because of their versatility and ability to move different combinations into and out of the centre clearances and stoppages at any time during matches Lewis, Hodge, Mitchell, Rioli, Roughead, Burgoyne, Hill, Smith and Shiels. It is soemthing Simpson has taken from his time at the Hawks and developed to good effect and their boys at East Perth play the same way so they step right in if called up.

Natanui is a long way from elite doesn't have endurance to take him around the ground to take marks, find space and he doesn't have the footy nous or smarts to find space. He is a good player but certainly not worthy of all the hype or high price tag. He is a freakish athlete who can fill a highlight reel but elite IMO of the ruckman in the AFL he is a fair way behind Goldstein, Mummy, Jacobs, Lobbe and Sandilands and probably on par with Martin. As far as young ruckman go Grundy has a lot more upside than Natanui

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by Pennant St Dee

n-demand midfielder Adam Treloar looks increasingly likely to depart Greater Western Sydney and join a Melbourne club.

Sources have confirmed Treloar, 22, has received an offer from GWS that is significantly below that of Collingwood, Richmond and North Melbourne – each of which has made a pitch for the midfielder – and he is now more likely to leave than stick with the Giants.

Why arent we being named? Surely we have thrown a massive offer at him

GWS are showing their thoughts on the list wishes they have. they're priorities, who they can afford & not. they know what they are doing, IMO.

would like to hear from all, what downsides does Treloar have?

The best teams need to build their core through the draft then recruit the missing pieces.

We're still a few more drafts away from being in that position.

GWS are showing their thoughts on the list wishes they have. they're priorities, who they can afford & not. they know what they are doing, IMO.

would like to hear from all, what downsides does Treloar have?

His defensive running and accountability probably the ones that come up the most. Kicking can sometimes be untidy, and at 182cm isn't quite the big bodied midfielder that's in vogue.

That said, his positives still outweigh the negatives. Wins plenty of ball inside and outside, very good pace, aggression and goal kicking from midfield make for a very good footballer.

Because we clearly have Prestia, Dixon and Dangerfield locked up already, duh...

In all seriousness, I'd be offering $700,000 to Prestia and Treloar. Think 6 year deals. They are young and A grade talent already. Add them to Brayshaw, Hogan and hopefully Petracca, support from Jones and Vince, and that's a seriously good midfield. Then there's Viney, Tyson and VNB.

Article on AFL website about Hampton from GWS. I hope we don't chase him. He has pace and can be elusive as we weaves his way through congestion but his disposal from what I've seen is a disgrace, it's that bad. Wayward up and under kicks into the fwd line, kicks missing their target by 1-2 metres(he might fit right in). We can't afford any more players that can't dispose of the footy.

GWS are showing their thoughts on the list wishes they have. they're priorities, who they can afford & not. they know what they are doing, IMO.

would like to hear from all, what downsides does Treloar have?

Agree, Treloar has given no indication that he's not happy at GWS, but clearly he's going to get more money from a Victorian club and GWS's priorities were to resign Shiel, Congilio and Hoskin-Elliott and offer something up to get their two academy players so you do wonder whether the sort of money/terms that's been touted is slightly above the odds. He's had a very good year at the Giants though, very consistent, but like Chaser has pointed out its his defensive running and probably lack of X factor means he'll be a very good midfielder, but probably not elite.

You can't trade for everyone so you have to prioritise. We need another contested ball winner and speedy, goal kicking outside midfielder with X factor. So looking at whose available according to the rumour mill, I'd be chasing Prestia ahead of Treloar and gunning for Motlop as well.

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by grazman