Brett Anderson is known for very little other than being a self-proclaimed draft expert.

He doesn't have ANY runs on the board in regards to inside knowledge with trades as far as I know.

Fwiw I've been told Watts will stay, mostly because we're unlikely to get better value by moving him on.

So the default position is we keep an under-performing player because he is so damaged we cannot trade him out.

Says it all about our past club doesnt it? Really what an invidious position to be in. We held on to him far too long IMO and in future players really want to be showing more than potential to get more than 4 years on the liist. What a Joke!

I am awaiting Angry at Casey's " Get Michael Talia" thread.

I may have started that thread at this stage last year?

Don't want him now though. Not enough strings to jis bow and we can get Cameron Giles instead for nothing.

OK, so if we could convince Prestia to come to us, and he was happy to play alongside Bennell, would anyone consider Howe, along with our first and second round pick, for Bennell, Prestia and their second rounder? Actually it would probably take us accepting their 3rd rounder instead... that would give us Prestia, Bennell and pick 44 ish (before compo picks and assuming he is adamant he will give us his best) for Howe, pick 6 ish and pick 24 ?

I would be very tempted as it would give us an immediate and large talent boost, for Howe and 2 speculative picks.

Thoughts?

Dreaming mate Prestia and Bennell would cost this years first rounder and next years and I would do that in a heartbeat

So the default position is we keep an under-performing player because he is so damaged we cannot trade him out.

Says it all about our past club doesnt it? Really what an invidious position to be in. We held on to him far too long IMO and in future players really want to be showing more than potential to get more than 4 years on the liist. What a Joke!

Watts/Grimes/Dawes/Toupmas need to show more this year or risk next year being their last in the game.

so boring at the moment with us being linked to anybody significant

I know its early days but come onnnnn. Hopefully its a good sign we have something going on behind the scenes and arent leaking, instead of a precursor to a big let down this trade period

so boring at the moment with us being linked to anybody significant

I know its early days but come onnnnn. Hopefully its a good sign we have something going on behind the scenes and arent leaking, instead of a precursor to a big let down this trade period

Why don't you just make up a rumour ??

So the default position is we keep an under-performing player because he is so damaged we cannot trade him out.

Says it all about our past club doesnt it? Really what an invidious position to be in. We held on to him far too long IMO and in future players really want to be showing more than potential to get more than 4 years on the liist. What a Joke!

Under-performing according to whose metric?

What is your alternative to keeping him? Delist him? Trade him for a 4th round pick?

These options do not improve the list.

I don't think you've considered the implications, or you don't understand them.

You don't get better by getting rid of every player that isn't a superstar.

Right now he's in our 22. If we can't use him to improve our list, the aim is to persevere until he either develops into an even better player, or other players go past him and push him out of our best 22 or 25, then if his value is that low, you might move him on for little to no return.

Why don't you just make up a rumour ??

I did the other day, I had Ablett Jnr coming to the Demons

Still could happen btw

Half of trade period will be locked down by Geelong and Adelaide nutting out the Danger deal. The other half locked down by GWS and Collingwood nutting out Treloar deal.

Can't see much happening this year for us Tbo

Purple reporting that Bennel is keen on Freo.

So now it's looking

Danger to Geelong

Selwood to Geelong

Henderson to Geelong

Aish to Hawks

Bennell to Freo

Treloar to Collingwood

Melksham to the Demons...

Harley may be keen on them, but I'd be amazed if Freo took that risk given their success with Josh Simpson & Colin Sylvia recently, plus Ross Lyon's success with Andrew Lovett at St Kilda.

Ross Lyon has been burnt three times already recruiting talented, yet questionable (for one reason or another) characters. Would he really roll the dice again?

so boring at the moment with us being linked to anybody significant

I know its early days but come onnnnn. Hopefully its a good sign we have something going on behind the scenes and arent leaking, instead of a precursor to a big let down this trade period

that's simply not true. We are mentioned as inquiring about everybody, to which we receive a prompt and polite, "thanks, but no thanks."

You don't get better by getting rid of every player that isn't a superstar.

Right now he's in our 22. If we can't use him to improve our list, the aim is to persevere until he either develops into an even better player, or other players go past him and push him out of our best 22 or 25, then if his value is that low, you might move him on for little to no return.

Trading 101. Well said.

Very good point Mach5.

We can see what happened when Neeld came in and had a fire sale where we got nothing for most of our players. Not sure what the point of that was? Was he trying to make a point to the other players because it really screwed us.

The players may not be the best option for the future but there is no point selling an 'asset' for under the value you can get from it.

Very good point Mach5.

We can see what happened when Neeld came in and had a fire sale where we got nothing for most of our players. Not sure what the point of that was? Was he trying to make a point to the other players because it really screwed us.

The players may not be the best option for the future but there is no point selling an 'asset' for under the value you can get from it.

I agree. If we lost Watts, Howe and Toumpas for Melksham and some middling draft picks, we've had a poor trade period. They all have their weaknesses, but there is still something to work with. If we don't get a high profile recruit, would it be worthwhile paying out Terlich and M. Jones?

Very good point Mach5.

We can see what happened when Neeld came in and had a fire sale where we got nothing for most of our players. Not sure what the point of that was? Was he trying to make a point to the other players because it really screwed us.

The players may not be the best option for the future but there is no point selling an 'asset' for under the value you can get from it.

Yep, I was not happy Stef Martin was traded for pick 52 (Matt Jones) & 71 (Dan Nicholson - Rookie elevation)

Brent Moloney leaving to Free Agency, I assume he was pushed out.

I agree. If we lost Watts, Howe and Toumpas for Melksham and some middling draft picks, we've had a poor trade period. They all have their weaknesses, but there is still something to work with. If we don't get a high profile recruit, would it be worthwhile paying out Terlich and M. Jones?

I am sure that their fate rests on how we go with FA and trading and how much talent we see in the draft.

Very good point Mach5.

We can see what happened when Neeld came in and had a fire sale where we got nothing for most of our players. Not sure what the point of that was? Was he trying to make a point to the other players because it really screwed us.

The players may not be the best option for the future but there is no point selling an 'asset' for under the value you can get from it.

Not sure about "fire sale". Perhaps getting "nothing for most of our players" was what those players were worth at the time...and why Neeld moved them on.

It constantly amazes me that people want to blame Neeld for everything.

Yep, I was not happy Stef Martin was traded for pick 52 (Matt Jones) & 71 (Dan Nicholson - Rookie elevation)

Brent Moloney leaving to Free Agency, I assume he was pushed out.

Yes, I remember noting at the time of the Martin trade that we did not get value and it was very poor trading - that Pick 71 was essentially not used because we could have used Pick 133 to upgrade Nicholson.

Nicholson, by the way, I am told was given that contract under Bailey and prior to Neeld so it was a carry over. Perhaps a similar thing happened with Terlich's contract under Roos? These things can happen long before they are announced.

Not sure about "fire sale". Perhaps getting "nothing for most of our players" was what those players were worth at the time...and why Neeld moved them on.

It constantly amazes me that people want to blame Neeld for everything.

You can't tell me that Martin was worth that. The Lions took us for a ride - I know that Martin had some personal issues he was dealing with but we didn't get value there. We sold simply to sell and it backfired, it didn't backfire on Morton, Gysberts, et al but that is more a commentary on their talents than our trading acumen.

Under-performing according to whose metric?

What is your alternative to keeping him? Delist him? Trade him for a 4th round pick?

These options do not improve the list.

I don't think you've considered the implications, or you don't understand them.

You don't get better by getting rid of every player that isn't a superstar.

Right now he's in our 22. If we can't use him to improve our list, the aim is to persevere until he either develops into an even better player, or other players go past him and push him out of our best 22 or 25, then if his value is that low, you might move him on for little to no return.

Keeping him doesn't improve the list or the culture of underperforming lightweights and soft c%4ks either does it?

You can't tell me that Martin was worth that. The Lions took us for a ride - I know that Martin had some personal issues he was dealing with but we didn't get value there. We sold simply to sell and it backfired, it didn't backfire on Morton, Gysberts, et al but that is more a commentary on their talents than our trading acumen.

I don't disagree regarding Martin. But the comment I was responding to was about "most of our players" not "all of our players", so I can be magnanimous in allowing you that one.

I don't disagree regarding Martin. But the comment I was responding to was about "most of our players" not "all of our players", so I can be magnanimous in allowing you that one.

I'm not blaming Neeld for everything as there were a lot of other issues. But surely it would have been smarter to try and get more for our players rather than just selling them off. It just seemed so poorly handled at the time.

Damian Barrett's 'sliding doors' piece on AFL.com:

MELBOURNE

"IF... there's a team we feel is keeping its cards close to its chest as trade period looms ..."

"THEN... it is this one. Predicting a massive play from left-field."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-25/sliding-doors-finals-week-three


Hurry up and get these finals out of the way and bring on trade week!

Damian Barrett's 'sliding doors' piece on AFL.com:

MELBOURNE

"IF... there's a team we feel is keeping its cards close to its chest as trade period looms ..."

"THEN... it is this one. Predicting a massive play from left-field."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-25/sliding-doors-finals-week-three

Hurry up and get these finals out of the way and bring on trade week!

If Paul Roos can't land a young U 26 star mid in this period he has failed miserably in that department