Rate our Trade Period

[Slartibartfast 15,724]

Yes it could, we could have landed an A grader, we could have moved out more dead wood. so B it is. And a very good B well done JM and team.

Which A grader could we have got? Do you think we didn't try? Reality is the A graders didn't want to come to us so we couldn't get one.

And who says we've finished moving out the dead wood as you've so politely described them? There are more list lodgement dates. Or are you suggesting we should have traded out the dead wood? If it's dead wood it don't trade.

[hemingway 7,583]

As well as past foot problems, the name Weideman and the MFC do not go. They are polar opposites.

Like linking the name Barassi or Flower with Collingwood.

Call me old fashioned but any association would end badly . Important that we maintain proper standards here and give thought to the long history with our mortal enemy.

Very bad karma to select Weideman..

[rjay 23,851]

Which A grader could we have got? Do you think we didn't try? Reality is the A graders didn't want to come to us so we couldn't get one.

And who says we've finished moving out the dead wood as you've so politely described them? There are more list lodgement dates. Or are you suggesting we should have traded out the dead wood? If it's dead wood it don't trade.

...and also that only one true A grader moved this trade period. They're pretty hard to dislodge.

[ManDee 7,073]

Which A grader could we have got? Do you think we didn't try? Reality is the A graders didn't want to come to us so we couldn't get one.

And who says we've finished moving out the dead wood as you've so politely described them? There are more list lodgement dates. Or are you suggesting we should have traded out the dead wood? If it's dead wood it don't trade.

BB I think you missed my point.

Could this draft have been better for the MFC? The only true answer is yes.

As for an A grader - I am not suggesting we didn't try but we didn't succeed. So it could have been better.

As for the dead wood (unproductive employees ) some still on the list IMO. We did a swap on a delisted player Fitzy so one can only presume those remaining on the list have a greater value and therefore could be traded for late pick or part of another trade. So it could have been better.

Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I am a hard marker, so it could have been better. B+ with a gold star.

Edit: If the A grading did not include the phrase - "couldn't have been better", and used something like "One of the best trade results for a team this year" then I would give them an A. As if my score means anything.

Edited October 23, 2015 by ManDee

[Slartibartfast 15,724]

BB I think you missed my point.

Could this draft have been better for the MFC? The only true answer is yes.

As for an A grader - I am not suggesting we didn't try but we didn't succeed. So it could have been better.

As for the dead wood (unproductive employees ) some still on the list IMO. We did a swap on a delisted player Fitzy so one can only presume those remaining on the list have a greater value and therefore could be traded for late pick or part of another trade. So it could have been better.

Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I am a hard marker, so it could have been better. B+ with a gold star.

Fitzy was delisted because he was out of contract. I think if Terlich and Jones had been out of contract Fitzy might have been retained but I doubt Terlich and Jones would be picked up by other clubs. He certainly wasn't the lowest rated player on our list. The fact he's been picked up by Hawks says he can play.

But I accept your point. Having said that I measure things against what is possible not against what is unrealistic.

I'm glad I wasn't in your class at school! (you were/are a teacher aren't you?)

[ManDee 7,073]

Fitzy was delisted because he was out of contract. I think if Terlich and Jones had been out of contract Fitzy might have been retained but I doubt Terlich and Jones would be picked up by other clubs. He certainly wasn't the lowest rated player on our list. The fact he's been picked up by Hawks says he can play.

But I accept your point. Having said that I measure things against what is possible not against what is unrealistic.

I'm glad I wasn't in your class at school! (you were/are a teacher aren't you?)

No just very anal. But I will give you a B+ for being prompt and neat.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,168]

We didn't get an A grade player which we were all hoping for at the start of the trade period but getting the two picks in the top 10 made up for it.

We better not finish lower on the ladder next year otherwise giving up our future pick will be very disappointing.

And remember we have Petracca who can be regarded as a new draft pick for next season. 3 in the top 10, not too bad I reckon.

[DubDee 20,337]

Which A grader could we have got? Do you think we didn't try? Reality is the A graders didn't want to come to us so we couldn't get one.

And who says we've finished moving out the dead wood as you've so politely described them? There are more list lodgement dates. Or are you suggesting we should have traded out the dead wood? If it's dead wood it don't trade.

A B graded would have been nice at least. we ended up with just C graders with hopefully some potential to be B grade

a lot of good players were traded and its pretty disappointing we didnt land any.

Im staggered a lot of people are rating our trade period as 'couldn't have been better'. Trading picks and getting 2 top 10 was the only real positive I can see. but I guess it is the off season, time to be positive

[Bobby McKenzie 2,168]

A B graded would have been nice at least. we ended up with just C graders with hopefully some potential to be B grade

a lot of good players were traded and its pretty disappointing we didnt land any.

Im staggered a lot of people are rating our trade period as 'couldn't have been better'. Trading picks and getting 2 top 10 was the only real positive I can see. but I guess it is the off season, time to be positive

Are we being positive or you negative? You are a hard marker if you rate Melksham and Bugg C graders. I reckon they are at least B graders. But we are all entitled to our opinion aren't we. Cheers.

[mo64 5,208]

Are we being positive or you negative? You are a hard marker if you rate Melksham and Bugg C graders. I reckon they are at least B graders. But we are all entitled to our opinion aren't we. Cheers.

If Melksham and Bugg are "at least B graders", we have 10-15 A graders on our list. They are C graders at best.

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

I wouldn't have a clue how the new system works.

But those that know.

Gave Geelong and the Dee's an A+

Now I don't have a high IQ but is "A+" good?.......

[sue 8,409]

The wording of the poll options has led to a lot of pointless arguing. There should have been an option between A and B. A is a bit over the top. Even if we landed an elite player, some pedants (me included) might not want to tick "couldn't have gone better". After all, we could have landed 2 elite players(!), or more realistically one player who to some was not their preferred elite player, or potential injury concerns etc.

So in light of the wording of the options, I'd say A-. Anywhere else, A.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

We've taken a huge risk giving up our first round pick next year in what will be a high quality draft. We'll either look smart or silly.

Typically you only have one first round pick in it (i.e. one player only) - so what's the big deal about depth next year if this year we have two top ten picks and the top ten this year is as good as any draft, even if beyond that it's a little more shallow.

Don't think we're targeting the spoon next year either, so our picks this year are enviable.

[deeflog 679]

The thing that impressed me the most leading up and during trade period was how little info was leaked out of the club

[G-max 154]

Love the trade period and am pleased we are (presumably) making a play for Parish at 3. Hope we can get who we want at 7.

I'm nervous about next year's first round pick. I like that the football department is backing the team to improve their ladder position but if it all goes pear shaped bottom 4 is a sad place to be without the subsequent top 4 pick. That's obviously what Gold Coast are gambling on. If it ends up being 10, they've come up short, but if we regress from last year they have won the trade. We still have a ton of young players so even though we're seeing improvement, with young legs a drop-off is never far away. This year Collingwood had a stacked list but their young guys couldn't hold the team together. By the same token, the Bulldogs young guns could hold it together. We shall see.

I think we'll improve next year but everyone (media and DL) is singing the praises of the Gold Coast trade without acknowledging what we've potentially given up. It will take years to play out but the storyline will always be "That's the player Gold Coast took with the Melbourne pick." If said player turns out to be a star, this doesn't look so good. Of course, if Darcy Parish is a superstar and we get a gun at 7 it will be Gold Coast who lose out.

I'm not trying to be negative, I've just seen a ton of NBA teams mortgage their future by trading future picks for short term gain. The LA Clippers traded a future first rounder to Cleveland to offload Baron Davis' contract and the pick it turned out to be the number one pick with which Cleveland drafted Kyrie Irving. Brooklyn traded a first rounder to Portland for Gerald Wallace and that pick turned out to be number six pick with which Damian Lillard was taken. The NBA has a lottery so the outcomes are more random but the outcome has the potential to be similar.

The NBA actually have rules in place to prevent teams from trading their own future picks in consecutive years, so you can only trade your 2014, 2016, 2018, etc. This is because teams went stupid with it back in the 80s. They also restrict contract lengths, restrict salary amounts for rookies. There are no Buddy Franklin deals, and not since Chris Webber have their been Tom Boyd style contracts for NBA players. The AFL are following in the footsteps of the US sports but they're failing to learn from their mistakes.

[/end of NBA tangent]

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

can someone correct me if I'm wrong re: our likely list changes:

OUT: Cross, Jamar, Howe, Toumpas, Fitzpatrick, Riley, Bail, McKenzie (8)

IN: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg, J.Smith, Pick3, Pick7, pick46, pick50 (8)

???

Edited October 23, 2015 by Curry & Beer

[What 18,810]

can someone correct me if I'm wrong re: our likely list changes:

OUT: Cross, Jamar, Howe, Toumpas, Fitzpatrick, Riley, Bail, McKenzie (8)

IN: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg, J.Smith, Pick3, Pick7, pick46, pick50 (8)

???

Depsnds if youre talking the senior list or just all the ins and out. Joel Smith wont be on the senior list..

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Depsnds if youre talking the senior list or just all the ins and out. Joel Smith wont be on the senior list..

ok so vandemon, harmes, white and king were our rookies

the first two to be upgraded(?) j.smith takes one of their spots... does that mean we won't use pick50?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Love the trade period and am pleased we are (presumably) making a play for Parish at 3. Hope we can get who we want at 7.

I'm nervous about next year's first round pick. I like that the football department is backing the team to improve their ladder position but if it all goes pear shaped bottom 4 is a sad place to be without the subsequent top 4 pick. That's obviously what Gold Coast are gambling on. If it ends up being 10, they've come up short, but if we regress from last year they have won the trade. We still have a ton of young players so even though we're seeing improvement, with young legs a drop-off is never far away. This year Collingwood had a stacked list but their young guys couldn't hold the team together. By the same token, the Bulldogs young guns could hold it together. We shall see.

I think we'll improve next year but everyone (media and DL) is singing the praises of the Gold Coast trade without acknowledging what we've potentially given up. It will take years to play out but the storyline will always be "That's the player Gold Coast took with the Melbourne pick." If said player turns out to be a star, this doesn't look so good. Of course, if Darcy Parish is a superstar and we get a gun at 7 it will be Gold Coast who lose out.

I'm not trying to be negative, I've just seen a ton of NBA teams mortgage their future by trading future picks for short term gain. The LA Clippers traded a future first rounder to Cleveland to offload Baron Davis' contract and the pick it turned out to be the number one pick with which Cleveland drafted Kyrie Irving. Brooklyn traded a first rounder to Portland for Gerald Wallace and that pick turned out to be number six pick with which Damian Lillard was taken. The NBA has a lottery so the outcomes are more random but the outcome has the potential to be similar.

The NBA actually have rules in place to prevent teams from trading their own future picks in consecutive years, so you can only trade your 2014, 2016, 2018, etc. This is because teams went stupid with it back in the 80s. They also restrict contract lengths, restrict salary amounts for rookies. There are no Buddy Franklin deals, and not since Chris Webber have their been Tom Boyd style contracts for NBA players. The AFL are following in the footsteps of the US sports but they're failing to learn from their mistakes.

[/end of NBA tangent]

Despite all the talk of depth in next year's draft, other than if it's for trade value only, it's unlikely that the one player we'd get to pick from that draft would be massively better than Parish, Curnow or Francis.

Further to this, the players we land with picks 3 and 7 will have an additional year in the system.

And we'll be finals bound next year(?!) so our first round draft pick won't even be that high.

So, in short, it's a no brainer that the club has done the deals that it has this year.

A+.

[rjay 23,851]

Despite all the talk of depth in next year's draft, other than if it's for trade value only, it's unlikely that the one player we'd get to pick from that draft would be massively better than Parish, Curnow or Francis.

Further to this, the players we land with picks 3 and 7 will have an additional year in the system.

And we'll be finals bound next year(?!) so our first round draft pick won't even be that high.

So, in short, it's a no brainer that the club has done the deals that it has this year.

A+.

Could be, there are some very good kids coming through and in the couple of games I watched it was those kids that impressed me more than this years crop.

Having said that we seem to have a plan and are again adding a couple of prospective A graders so that's at least 6 since Roos and co came on board.

[Macca 16,173]

ok so vandemon, harmes, white and king were our rookies

the first two to be upgraded(?) j.smith takes one of their spots... does that mean we won't use pick50?

There might be a delisted free agent or 2 who we might bring in. At a guess I reckon we'll look at 1 player but it might be 2 (at a stretch)

The delisted free agents become available on Oct 31 ... until Nov 9 with a 2nd period between Nov 11 & 20.

I reckon we'll use picks 46 & 50 on a couple of young prospects rather than pass on either of those picks (rookie upgrades are no longer part of the ND - as from last year)

Remembering that last year we used 2 later picks on ANB & O-Mac so we could well have our eye on 2 more spec picks in that region of picks. It shouldn't also be forgotten that we delisted Evans last year despite him being contracted.

With 8 out and 3 in already that leaves 5 spots unless we delist another player or 2.

Here's how I read it going forward ...

Out - Cross, Jamar, Howe, Toumpas, Fitzpatrick, Riley, Bail, McKenzie, ???????, ???????.

In - Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg, ND3, ND7, ND46, ND50, vandenBerg (rookie upgrade) , Harmes (rookie upgrade), DFA x 1.

10 primary list changes but it might only be 9. Or even just the 8 as it stands right now.

.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Macca

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

I'm not too worried about trading next year's 1st rnd pick. The club would know exactly who will be in the top 20.

So for mine, it was more than a bargaining chip. It was a very considered decision knowing what is needed and who will be available. eg If we could fulfill our need this year why wait till next year, type thinking.

Of course we can always trade up into rnd 1 as we so as astutely did this year.

eg we may lose 1 or two FA's which gives 2nd/3rd rnd comp picks...exactly what academy, F/S clubs want.

Effectivey, 2 FA's + another pick become a 1st rnd pick...probably equal to where we finish on the ladder in 2016.

Even if FA comp picks are scrapped we can still trade pics for a 1st rnd but losing FA's eg Grimes, Spencer will make it easier.

All teams will copy-cat our innovative 'trade up pick' strategy next year but that we have good rapport with GWS and GCS bodes well for us to do it again.

.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[jnrmac 18,914]

From the HS: The Demons were one of the big winners, converting a package of four draft picks for Nos.3, 7 and GWS defender Tom Bugg. Football boss Josh Mahoney told the Herald Sun the Dees identified the loophole about a month ago and planned to exploit it to rise up the draft order.

“That was one of the things we spoke about and we’re really happy the plan has come through,” Mahoney said. “The key thing is you’ve got to learn how the system works and how the points work and I think as the trade period has gone on the influence of points is certainly coming through.”

Good to see the club actually was ahead of the curve in recognising the opportunities that the academy points system provided as well as the trading future picks.

We have to improve immediately. Its been 10 yrs seasons we played finals. This year should have seen us improve more but we were held back by players that either didn't have the talent or didn't have the competitiveness required. To lose four first quarters/first halves we did from rds 19-22 in the manner we did was simply unacceptable and we needed players that would stand up when the chips were down. Hence the drafting strategy this year.

We also needed talent and are in the position where the Dangerfields of this world dont want to come to us (hopefully prestia will). Our talent simply has to come from within and with 6 top 10 picks from the past 3 drafts we will hopefully have filled that home-grown talent requirement. ONly after real improvement and a genuine sustained chance at finals can we see external talent pick Melbourne as a club to want to come to.

I think this draft sets us up if we nail the top 2 picks. We can win 10-11 games if we eliminate the pathetic quarters from our game and create belief within the group. The Dogs have shown how momentum is so important for belief. We have shown in patches how the opposite is true.

Trading a future pick was a necessary strategy for us. In essence we have used the pick for this year to target someone that we clearly want. If we can get trengove on the park and petracca shows us what he is capable of we will be a much harder side to play in 2016 than we were in 2015.

Edited October 23, 2015 by jnrmac

[M C 221]

ok so vandemon, harmes, white and king were our rookies

the first two to be upgraded(?) j.smith takes one of their spots... does that mean we won't use pick50?

Just a minor thing, but Smith won't take one of their spots. He will be on his own list (as he is a category B rookie).

[bing181 8,149]

This year should have seen us improve more but we were held back by players that either didn't have the talent or didn't have the competitiveness required.

.... and injuries. Lots of 'em. Petracca, Trengove, Frost, Salem, Viney, Pedersen, Kent all missed (big) slabs of the season (or most of it). Even having a player like ANB miss most of the pre-season didn't help.

OK, injuries are part of the game, but we don't have the depth to cover the above outs.