Would definitely prefer to try and trade Garland, than lose him to FA. I reckon we'd get shafted on the compo, particularly in such a weak draft.

I have seen Jones look very despondent and drop his head, not often but it does happen. I agree though that he still gives his all even when he does.

No point discussing Garland as you clearly have it in for the bloke.

I think we're both getting pedantic now and losing perspective on the overall point which for me is improving our playing list in general.

There are of course many things we need to address in order to improve the playing list and many seem to think keeping Garland will have no effect as to whether or not we will improve or slide.

I beg to differ and stand by my belief that his position both as a senior figure and a back pocket can easily be filled and I see value in many ways including what we could receive back for him via FA, the value in him leaving for further rejuvenation and growth to the team 'feel' and 'culture' in general, value in the fact that him leaving will create an opportunity for us to make our backline more dynamic which is what we're crying out for, etc.

I'm going to leave it now. There's one game to go and we'll find out soon enough, but I'm certainly sensing that Roos now knows there are certain players who simply must be moved on for the betterment of the club itself. Not just dead-wood. But problematic players.

Edited September 1, 201510 yr by stevethemanjordan

Would definitely prefer to try and trade Garland, than lose him to FA. I reckon we'd get shafted on the compo, particularly in such a weak draft.

If Brisbane get pick 2 for Leuenberger then we should get pick bloody 6 for Garland.

The guy is a disaster with the footy in hand. He doesn't know what to do. You don't win a GF with this spaced out cadet in your team.

But I do respect you as a MFC player - if that makes sense. I'll think of you more fondly in years to come.

Please go.

Would definitely prefer to try and trade Garland, than lose him to FA. I reckon we'd get shafted on the compo, particularly in such a weak draft.

Don't know if anyone gives us a better draft pick than what the AFL will in compensation. The attraction for clubs would be signing him for nothing. We won't match if another club pays overs for him.

We should get a 2nd rounder if he goes as a FA, and despite the talk of it being a weak draft, there are number of players I think will be available in the 2nd round who I think are worth drafting. Beyond pick 30 it's not good, but before then, there's a bit of potential.

Wasn't last year meant to be a weak draft?

The first round was a goldmine. I bet Roosy wishes he'd done more to get Cockatoo and Lever right about now.

Garland is an interesting one. As a one on one defender he is usually quite dependable and has done the job on several occasions this year.

There are probably two main knocks on him I think.

1. He provides hardly any benefit for us on the offence. Surprisingly as he is quite athletic.

2. Although he helps spoil the ball well and sometimes comes in third man up, he doesn't do this consistently enough and he doesn't seem to take intercept marks.

Jeremy Howe for example has played that role when playing in the backline quite well. If he does go third man up, he does have the confidence to either intercept mark or go for the spoil depending on the situation. His intercept marking is definitely important for rebounding forward.

Difficult because we have too many players in the backline that can defend but doesn't provide anything forward. McDonald although tries to be offensive shouldn't be the one doing it, Garland seems to mainly bomb it long when going forward and Dunn is similar.

Difficult one to put a finger on because he has been one of our most consistent one on one defenders this year.

The guy is a disaster with the footy in hand. He doesn't know what to do. You don't win a GF with this spaced out cadet in your team.

But I do respect you as a MFC player - if that makes sense. I'll think of you more fondly in years to come.

Please go.

I completely agree PD, but I hope he finds a home somewhere else.

The worry is that if we let him go, there is a good chance we will only get a 3rd round pick. FA compensation is based on the value/length of their new contract, and I can't see many clubs offering Garland good money

The worry is that if we let him go, there is a good chance we will only get a 3rd round pick. FA compensation is based on the value/length of their new contract, and I can't see many clubs offering Garland good money

If Roosy and the FD determine he's one of those mentally scarred players mentioned previously (and he clearly is - Exhibit A, the Hawthorn game), I think we should move him on irrespective of the compensation we get. Yeah, we need players in his age bracket, but if they're contributing to a veil of negativity (and let's be honest, it's the players that drive this), moving them on is more important than giving them games simply because they're of a certain age and experience.

If Brisbane get pick 2 for Leuenberger then we should get pick bloody 6 for Garland.

Seriously would any team pay Leuey 600K+ for 4+ years? Because that's what it will take to get them band 1, as he's 27.

Seriously would any team pay Leuey 600K+ for 4+ years? Because that's what it will take to get them band 1, as he's 27.

You can guarantee the AFL's secret formula will give them band 1...

Garland is a good defender, his problem has always been that he gives us no drive at all from the backline. In the modern game you could almost consider him a liability.

What our club needs more than anything else is above-average footballers with leadership qualities.

Garland is average at best, and has no leadership qualities. He opted out of the leadership group at the start of the year - that says it all.

He has yet to commit to a club whose playing group has performed so badly since 2007, and he has been a member of that playing group for most of those years.

I cannot think of a single sensible reason to keep him - he wants to go, so let him go.

So to be clear you think we should let him go?

If you compare Garland's good games (and there have been a number) to Oscar McDonald on debut I think you'll find there still is a fair gap there.

With Cross gone and Howe likely going I think Garland should be kept and the perfect structure would be a 2 year deal with the 2nd year based on a number (say 11) of games in the first year.

This is all dependent on Garland getting some of fitness back over preseason of which the club would be well placed to judge. If he gets his fitness back his kicking and attacking output will improve.

If you compare Garland's good games (and there have been a number) to Oscar McDonald on debut I think you'll find there still is a fair gap there.

With Cross gone and Howe likely going I think Garland should be kept and the perfect structure would be a 2 year deal with the 2nd year based on a number (say 11) of games in the first year.

This is all dependent on Garland getting some of fitness back over preseason of which the club would be well placed to judge. If he gets his fitness back his kicking and attacking output will improve.

Why would Garland be lacking fitness? And if you want to give him a conditional 2 year deal, then surely you must have question marks about his ability?

And I hope that O Mac develops into a KPB, which Garland is not. Sam Frost can replace Howe if he leaves.

I too suspect that jettisoning Cross means retaining Garland.

I'd rather get an end of second round compo pick for garland and have cross in 2016.

Wasn't last year meant to be a weak draft?

The first round was a goldmine. I bet Roosy wishes he'd done more to get Cockatoo and Lever right about now.

Journos rehash articles all the time. That or they blow things way out of proportion. Welcome to fast-food media 2015.

Because there's no high points in this draft pool, it's immediately called a 'weak draft'. But what's a low point ? It's all conjecture until we look back in hindsight. I mean, we're those 'superdrafts' hyped up as such in August that year ?

Why would Garland be lacking fitness? And if you want to give him a conditional 2 year deal, then surely you must have question marks about his ability?

And I hope that O Mac develops into a KPB, which Garland is not. Sam Frost can replace Howe if he leaves.

I do have doubts on his ability. But I'm not a fan of replacing a C+ level player that Garland probably is with an F grader. Not when we have the list spots to keep Garland.

For whatever reason since his bad ankle injury (or maybe before) Garland doesn't have great fitness. I've been told by a reliable source that his ability to play up the ground on resting midfielders and rebound off them is limited due to fitness.

I too suspect that jettisoning Cross means retaining Garland.

I'd rather get an end of second round compo pick for garland and have cross in 2016.

As would I, but I presume the FD has spoken to Garland's manager and assessed the interest in him and determined we aren't getting that level of compensation should he leave.

.

Wasn't last year meant to be a weak draft?

The first round was a goldmine. I bet Roosy wishes he'd done more to get Cockatoo and Lever right about now.

Think we did okay with Petracca and Brayshaw.

He has done some unbelievably frustrating things all year. But who on our list has not? Maybe young Brayshaw has impressed everytime. Having said all that I think Id like to keep him. But then having said that maybe I'd like him to move on. But having said that now, I think I'd like to keep him. f*&^%ed if know really. If he doesn't ask for to much keep him. Actually...no, move him on. Hang on a sec... nah, Cols alright, S%$t! I don't know.

I just wanna play finals f&^%ing footy!!

Think we did okay with Petracca and Brayshaw.

Hope so....

Roos said that he believes Garland's contract talks are progressing well in his press conference

I for one would be glad to see him stay. Have always been a fan.

Roos said that he believes Garland's contract talks are progressing well in his press conference

I for one would be glad to see him stay. Have always been a fan.

"The talks are progressing well, we haven't offered him a contract which is great for us so they are going really well."

I have a lot of time for Garland and all that he's been through, but I think he needs to go.

Have always been a fan.

And therein lies the problem that many supporters seem to have which can cloud judgement.

I sincerely hope 'progressing well' means 'both parties believe it would be best for player and club to part ways'.