Does it really matter if it's a rumour or not? It's a discussion topic. Either engage with it or don't read the thread. Pretty simple, really.

I still wouldn't be surprised to see Fitz thrown a lifeline in the rookie draft.

I was wondering about this too, especially after he appeared in the Footy Show player review for our team. You'd think if he'd been shown the door then he wouldn't be representing the club in any way right? Maybe it's the old "if nobody else offers you a spot we'll rookie you" line?

As for Dawes, Didn't like us paying that much for him when he was drafted, thought he might have improved a year or so ago, but am now utterly convinced that we were shafted. Pedersen is twice the player.

If Fitzpatrick was rookied it would just about be the end for me.

Thankfully, I know they're not that stupid.

If Fitzpatrick was rookied it would just about be the end for me.

Thankfully, I know they're not that stupid.

Lol, Fitzy taking up a rookie spot would be the end for you? Really? Come on, mate. You've hung around this long, you're not going anywhere.

If moves like this are what we are looking at doing, then I'm all for it.
No more nibbling around the edges. People who were previously 'untouchable' who haven't lived up to their abilities should be very afraid this trade period.

Does it really matter if it's a rumour or not? It's a discussion topic. Either engage with it or don't read the thread. Pretty simple, really.

You're the one making a deal out of it.

I was wondering about this too, especially after he appeared in the Footy Show player review for our team. You'd think if he'd been shown the door then he wouldn't be representing the club in any way right? Maybe it's the old "if nobody else offers you a spot we'll rookie you" line?

As for Dawes, Didn't like us paying that much for him when he was drafted, thought he might have improved a year or so ago, but am now utterly convinced that we were shafted. Pedersen is twice the player.

Georgiou was on the revue same year he was axed

It's a revue, not a prevue. Doesn't tell us anything about next year.

Lol, Fitzy taking up a rookie spot would be the end for you? Really? Come on, mate. You've hung around this long, you're not going anywhere.

Perhaps a slight exaggeration in the cool light of day

It's not Fitzpatrick per se, more-so it would signal the club is still making poor decisions.

That said, it won't happen.

Dawes has been effectively missing for most of the last 2 years, so not sure about that.

Frost, Oscar Mac and Pedersen are available, with King waiting in the wings. Think we're probably OK, you only have to look at where all Hawthorn's goals came from yesterday.

Their goals came from a team of elite AFL players.

when i saw "chris dawes on the table" i thought it meant he must have gone into surgery to soften up his hands

Scenario 1: Trade Dawes for ND75 and pay $200k of his salary to the Lions/Dockers/InsertTeamHere.

Scenario 2: Delist Dawes and pay out his salary for 2016 of ~$500k.

Scenario 3: Dawes stays and competes with Pedersen/Frost/InsertRecruitHere for the 2nd tall/Ruck option in 2016.

I just don't see any other scenario happening other than #3...

Scenario 4 : A team that needs a forward like the Bombers or Dockers might seek him. In the Bombers case we are looking at one of their players already. With Fletcher and Carlisle gone, they need Hurley and Hooker down back and that leaves only Joe as a key forward.

No, that would be one of the three. The first one.

Just guessing, but I'd say Dawseys contract was front ended just so that we could fit the minimum salary cap required that year.

That way his monetary loss to us for trading him this year is John Shite.

Whoever we recruit from here on in, must have loads of pace. Roosies Mantra.

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by Pig Dog

No, that would be one of the three. The first one.

Not if they take over the last year of his contract in full.

Plus if part of his contract was front loaded its a non issue.

His next contract if he even gets one shouldn't be anywhere near what he's been on so the first year of s possible 500k from a new club may not be an issue.

Not if they take over the last year of his contract in full.

Plus if part of his contract was front loaded its a non issue.

His next contract if he even gets one shouldn't be anywhere near what he's been on so the first year of s possible 500k from a new club may not be an issue.

Yes, but Chris has to agree to that pay cut...

And I know we used to front load under Schwab, but who knows for Dawes - it is a massive assumption some are making to make this a plausible trade for another team.

And again, how do some of you reconcile these to contradictory viewpoints;

- he is no good, not up to playing AFL anymore, 'not worth a cold pie' (shudder), and

- these 3 clubs would be interested, maybe for a second or low third round pick, his new club will give him a new contract.

Do you see how nuts that reads for the faculty-controlled neutral Demon reading this thread?

Yes, but Chris has to agree to that pay cut...

And I know we used to front load under Schwab, but who knows for Dawes - it is a massive assumption some are making to make this a plausible trade for another team.

And again, how do some of you reconcile these to contradictory viewpoints;

- he is no good, not up to playing AFL anymore, 'not worth a cold pie' (shudder), and

- these 3 clubs would be interested, maybe for a second or low third round pick, his new club will give him a new contract.

Do you see how nuts that reads for the faculty-controlled neutral Demon reading this thread?

Even if his contract wasn't front loaded it means the final year of his current contract being 2016 he will get 500k ( if that's what he's on). There' is no reason why his new club should he be traded can't pay all of that.

"Contradictory viewpoints" to who....you? How do we come up with these views? Well I can only speak for myself. I form my opinions by watching him play and watching about 5 games a week. How else would you form an opinion.

Dawes is a smart footballer but his body is now longer up to it. In recent times he has struggled with the fundamental basics of the game. If your a forward its appreciated if you can take the occasional mark. He no longer impacts games, he struggles to get involved.

The repetitive lines of big bodied/leadership/premiership player have worn thin. Creates a contest/brings the ball to ground if just a nice way of saying he can't mark it.

I'd be very surprised if he secured another 3 year contract from anyone, and even more surprised if it's anywhere near his current contract. His form doesn't warrant it. If he puts that price on his head he risks not getting a new contract. If he does, good luck to him and good luck to his new club because it won't be us.

Now I know you aren't a fan of the supposed lack of respect for current players. You need to distinguish the difference between that and constructive criticism of players currently on the list.

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

Scenario 1: Trade Dawes for ND75 and pay $200k of his salary to the Lions/Dockers/InsertTeamHere.

Scenario 2: Delist Dawes and pay out his salary for 2016 of ~$500k.

Scenario 3: Dawes stays and competes with Pedersen/Frost/InsertRecruitHere for the 2nd tall/Ruck option in 2016.

I just don't see any other scenario happening other than #3...

In your hypothetical scenario 1 - Trade Dawes and pay 2/5 of his contract.

Why? Because the the potential new club doesn't think he's worth that.

You've then gone on to ask how some of us form the opinion of "he's not worth what he's reportedly on" yet you've already alluded to we will have to pay part of his contract if traded because his new home will most likely share that view.

You've contradicted yourself.

It also won't happen. His best is behind him and his body is battered.

so we just keep him then Nash, is that what you are saying?

or do we take watt we gety on move forward - onward?

Never underestimate the stupidity of other clubs.

Richmond gave up pick 28 for Shaun Hampson.

Dawes has now become a 3rd tall plug filler.. some will need the lead up role?

I'd prefer to keep him than pay part of his salary to play for another team.

nah, this is not the way you make porridge.

clear our any who aren't up to it, is the only way to lift the list standard. we don't have the luxury of a strong culture, to sustain players like this.

WOW. Facebook say "yes"!!!

I must say Chris has been very underwhelming, but given the dumping of Tunnelball, he may be needed in 2016, unless a replacement has already been arranged.

Interesting weeks ahead.

howe do you know that Tunnelball won't be back, mc?

#edit: ------------------------

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39272-chris-dawes-on-the-table/page-2#entry1168398

I still wouldn't be surprised to see Fitz thrown a lifeline in the rookie draft.

aah.

Scenario 1: Trade Dawes for ND75 and pay $200k of his salary to the Lions/Dockers/InsertTeamHere.

Scenario 2: Delist Dawes and pay out his salary for 2016 of ~$500k.

Scenario 3: Dawes stays and competes with Pedersen/Frost/InsertRecruitHere for the 2nd tall/Ruck option in 2016.

I just don't see any other scenario happening other than #3...

I suspect this trade deal has been rubber stamped via HQ, & will be sanctioned as a lateral think/act swap/trade composite.

What's the point apart from dumping his contract on another team?

I'd have thought it would be better to keep him and then when his contract is up, let him walk. At least we get service out of him whereas trading him will get is a pick in the 40s-50s range which won't benefit us much now.

Pederson is a better option on half the coin.

Dawes' salary makes him untradeable unless he's going to a team in a rebuild focus specifically looking to top up its cap and then have room once his contract is up.

We just won't get something in return that is worth it even in light of his massive contract.

culture..... for those trying to change they'res, a leader who will shine the light forward, as they reshape theirs.

There must be something happening behind the scenes that we're not aware off.

Weve all been thinking big fish....mid....which stands to reason. We made a play for Lynch and fell short. We all subscribed to playing Dawes out of necessity.

Have we all missed something?

maybe the big fish, is a snook after all? http://www.fishingmonthly.net.au/Articles/Display/1394-The-long-and-the-short-of-pike-fishing

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by dee-luded

Yes, but Chris has to agree to that pay cut...

And I know we used to front load under Schwab, but who knows for Dawes - it is a massive assumption some are making to make this a plausible trade for another team.

And again, how do some of you reconcile these to contradictory viewpoints;

- he is no good, not up to playing AFL anymore, 'not worth a cold pie' (shudder), and

- these 3 clubs would be interested, maybe for a second or low third round pick, his new club will give him a new contract.

Do you see how nuts that reads for the faculty-controlled neutral Demon reading this thread?

There have been various posts that are not at those extremes.

- BTW Schwab was in charge when we recruited Dawes.

- If Dawes' salary was front ended (as is very highly likely) he would be on an 'average' salary in 2016 eg $300-$400k...easily accommodated by another club. Even if not front loaded, if we have to meet a portion of it for 2016 so be it...it certainly wouldn't be an impediment to moving on a player who is OOC next year. So, he will not need to take a pay cut. But he may agree to a trade if his option is as a 'depth' player and not part of the starting 22.

- he is unlikely to get us a 'decent' pick. However, it has been reported Essendon have an interest. If so, Dawes could become part of the Melksham trade eg. Our 3rd rnd pick plus Dawes for Melksham instead of (the reported) 2nd rnd pick Ess want.

The most likely trade scenario for Dawes is as part of a package of which the Melksham situation is an example.

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I'd happily trade Dawes & Pick 43 to Essendon for Melksham & Pick 59.

Then just pick up Mason Shaw or Mitch Harvey as a DFA.

Edit: DFA.

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by AngryAtCasey

There have been various posts that are not at those extremes.

- BTW Schwab was in charge when we recruited Dawes.

- If Dawes' salary was front ended (as is very highly likely) he would be on an 'average' salary in 2016 eg $300-$400k...easily accommodated by another club. Even if not front loaded, if we have to meet a portion of it for 2016 so be it...it certainly wouldn't be an impediment to moving on a player who is OOC next year. So, he will not need to take a pay cut. But he may agree to a trade if his option is as a 'depth' player and not part of the starting 22.

- he is unlikely to get us a 'decent' pick. However, it has been reported Essendon have an interest. If so, Dawes could become part of the Melksham trade eg. Our 3rd rnd pick plus Dawes for Melksham instead of (the reported) 2nd rnd pick Ess want.

The most likely trade scenario for Dawes is as part of a package of which the Melksham situation is an example.

I'd happily trade Dawes & Pick 43 to Essendon for Melksham & Pick 59.

Then just pick up Mason Shaw or Mitch Harvey as a DFA.

Edit: DFA.

Laughable to suggest Dawes has less value than Melksham.

Laughable to suggest Dawes has less value than Melksham.

just as well you've got a sense of humour then, stuie

In your hypothetical scenario 1 - Trade Dawes and pay 2/5 of his contract.

Why? Because the the potential new club doesn't think he's worth that.

You've then gone on to ask how some of us form the opinion of "he's not worth what he's reportedly on" yet you've already alluded to we will have to pay part of his contract if traded because his new home will most likely share that view.

You've contradicted yourself.

I am assuming things in my hypothetical scenarios?

You are surmising he had a frontloaded contract to better the chances he can be traded.

And yes, you can convince me and others that Dawes' has had it, but then don't tell me he has a market.

That dog don't hunt.

Laughable to suggest Dawes has less value than Melksham.

Dawes has less value than Melksham.

Melksham is a young experienced mid who will continue to improve worth an early second round pick to most sides looking to build midfield depth. He would be in the starting 22 in most sides.

Dawes is an experienced 2nd forward with a solid workrate, provides a contest and a good kick for goal but is not a goid mark and his body is letting him down so probably has 1-2 seasons of footy left in him. Sides may be interested if they lack a key forward and are looking for a stop gap or protection while they develop their own talent.

Dawes is worth less than Melksham.