59 minutes ago, johndemons said:

Bachar Houli hasn't re-signed. Interested? Garland + Dawes for Houli and Vickory? I'd take it in a heart beat, even throw in a late draft pick sweetener. Though maybe they're still interested in Trengove as he's now passed the foot examination and would be interested in him for Houli ? Anyway, they'll need salary cap space if they're to fit in the big fish they're trying to land.

Dawes + Garland for Vickery

Trengove for Houli

No, why would we want players that are part of the Richmond problem????

9 hours ago, SPC said:

It's obvious... We need a Nathan D Brown type running defender... Just not too sure who could fill the role!!

Nathan Brown could.

11 hours ago, Viscount Cardwell said:

H is contracted, why not offer up some other contracted players to cut, Viney, Brayshaw, N. Jones !!!!

Viscount, I'm not sure what you're reacting to, but I don't believe I said anything about cutting any contracted player. My comment solely was that an older player with the lingering effects of concussion might choose to retire. I even went as far as saying I was neither proposing or opposing the idea of Lumumba retiring. How you interpreted that to mean that I favoured termination of his contract escapes me.

On 7/26/2016 at 10:09 PM, Viscount Cardwell said:

If you don't want garland, how many clubs will be lining up for him, obviously hawthorn and Geelong will give a first round or early second round pick for someone you believe is useless, or will you be happy with a late fourth rounder ?

If a club offered up a second round pick for Garland i reckon we should take it and run. 

I can't see him getting back into the side now, i reckon we should and will persist with Mcdonald, Mcdonald and Frost going forward, i'd prefer if we keep one of the older blokes we keep Dunn

10 hours ago, johndemons said:

Bachar Houli hasn't re-signed. Interested? Garland + Dawes for Houli and Vickory? I'd take it in a heart beat, even throw in a late draft pick sweetener. Though maybe they're still interested in Trengove as he's now passed the foot examination and would be interested in him for Houli ? Anyway, they'll need salary cap space if they're to fit in the big fish they're trying to land.

Dawes + Garland for Vickery

Trengove for Houli

Can't see Dawes or Trengove playing anywhere next year. I think we're stuck with Garland, curious as to what the thought process was there.  If the coaches thought he was going to be surpassed so easily why give him 3 years. 

Vickery and Houli would be a step backwards for this club.

 

6 minutes ago, Abe said:

If a club offered up a second round pick for Garland i reckon we should take it and run. 

I can't see him getting back into the side now, i reckon we should and will persist with Mcdonald, Mcdonald and Frost going forward, i'd prefer if we keep one of the older blokes we keep Dunn

Run as far as we can and never look back.

There is no way Garland is worth a second rounder.. Clubs would offer no more than a 4th rounder for him.

6 minutes ago, juzzk1d said:

There is no way Garland is worth a second rounder.. Clubs would offer no more than a 4th rounder for him.

Hence the running.

17 hours ago, rjay said:

Surely you are not serious????

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

On 7/27/2016 at 10:33 AM, drdrake said:

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

An interesting stat to throw at you is when we win games this year we average around 45 points scored as a result of intercept turnover, meaning it's accounting for around 40% of our winning scores, Tom is by a mile our best intercept player, so i'd argue that for us to win we need Tom and we need him playing well with this game plan.

2 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

Yes he has currency and it's greater than a pick 15 to whatever in this years draft. That's why I'm questioning your post.

If Tom goes then we need to replace him and not with a speculative kid in this draft, we need to replace him with better.

20 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yes he has currency and it's greater than a pick 15 to whatever in this years draft. That's why I'm questioning your post.

If Tom goes then we need to replace him and not with a speculative kid in this draft, we need to replace him with better.

And as you know rjay, they don't grow on trees. 

59 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

Tmac is very close to A grade, not quite, but certainly among the better tall defenders, especially at his age. Yeah he may turn it over once or twice but if he is going to continue to cost us 2 goals and save 5/6+ goals I'm happy to keep him in. He keeps improving, and the team keeps improving suddenly it drops to a goal a game or less. There isnt a single KPD in the league that goes through every game turnover free.

His work at ground level is fantastic for a big guy, his tank is elite, his spoiling is close to if not already elite, his a very strong intercept mark. People need to start understanding that you dont have to be flawless to be  among the best. Trading away our only developed KPD will cause us to finish bottom 4 again next year.

Just because a player has currency doesnt mean we should trade him. You trade out what you have in excess not what you lack. Reality is we would be more likely to continue rising if we lost Hogan than if we lost TMac. We have Weid, Hulett, Watts all as potential young forwards for next year. Take out Tom we have who? 

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.

Well, I'm more interested in the 'ledger'. What does he give the team, for example saved goals and goals scored from intercept marking?

I suspect they're a lot more than the goals he 'costs' us. There is not a single A Grade defender in the AFL who does not 'cost' a goal or two every week, otherwise teams would have zero points against.

In my opinion, Tom McDonald is one of the non-negotiables at our club. Experienced 100-game defenders like him don't grow on trees. I can't see where we would actually gain by literally swapping him for, say, Hurley, or another good midfielder like Prestia. And especially for another B Grade midfielder like Mitchell.

This is not swap cards, although many on here think trading and drafting is.

We should be focusing on RFA and FA this year to add experience and resilience to the team while our young list develops.

We have no serious picks to trade and few players with currency that we should trade, talk of trading TMac is bizarre and would be self-defeating, as to do so would only set us back or expose us to low percentage risks (or both).

Hibbert if we can get him as a FA, tick.

Otherwise if we can pick up a Suckling type etc to fill specific holes.

Our upswing will come from within.  

17 hours ago, rjay said:

No, why would we want players that are part of the Richmond problem????

 

6 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Vickery and Houli would be a step backwards for this club.

 

I'm inclined to think we're trading like for like on this matter. Vickery and Houli have more currency across the AFL than Dawes, Garland and Trengove which shows you it's not a step backwards. They're not getting what they want out of their players and we're not getting what we want out of ours. Considering our players have no real currency than it would be advantageous to swap them for some players to see if our club CLICKS with Vickery and Houli's style of play and if our players work for them. How are we losing anything or taking a step backwards? Vickery isn't going to infect our club if he tries his [censored] act, i think we will clean him up if anything and Houli's run out of defence and leadership attributes would be beneficial for the club I think. He had a great season last year.

If Garland fits into what they want, maybe something can be done in terms of his contract with Melbourne in the next 2 years. And as for Dawes the 500k man? He'd be better served over at Richmond as he is the only player that might have currency with them and Trengove they showed interest, so perhaps we could have an instant KPF/Ruck for a few years, it would be way more valuable that what Dawes is contributing right now.

There are a few positions in my opinion that are available after this years draft. We should be delisting more than previous years and so it will be an opportunity to try out another clubs discards and the other club trying out ours.

 

I didn't see Hawthorn leaving a spot empty or draft a young kid in their list instead of taking Jack Fitzpatrick

 

1 hour ago, johndemons said:

I'm inclined to think we're trading like for like on this matter. Vickery and Houli have more currency across the AFL than Dawes, Garland and Trengove which shows you it's not a step backwards.

Putting an old horse in a different paddock still makes it an old horse.

31 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Putting an old horse in a different paddock still makes it an old horse.

Cross played the first eight games of 2013 before being dropped from the senior side,^[9] where he played for the Bulldogs reserves side,Williamstown, before earning a recall in round 19 against Sydney. In the week leading to the final round clash with Melbourne, it was announced the Bulldogs would not renew Cross' contract, ending his 11-year playing career with the club,^[10] 

8 hours ago, drdrake said:

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

In violent agreement.

8 hours ago, drdrake said:

Yep, I'm serious.  Tom McDonald has currency and if we want to attract an A grade player to our club you might need to give up a B grade player to make it happen.  For all the good Tom does he costs us at least 2 goals a game.  We read these posts but as a club you need to be prepared to give someone up to make trades happen.  We don't have many players out of contract with any currency

TMac + OMac for Rance ?

If we're serious about finals next year we need experience.  Richmond need to rebuild.

I rate TMac and OMac massively- Rance is ahead in age, development and will bring Frost, Hunt, Salem into maturity.

Garland, Dunn, Grimes all look lost.

On 23 July 2016 at 10:22 AM, willmoy said:

I would be getting stuck into Hawks bigtime. Their (Melb) Football staff need repositioning back to us asap. Well, the ones that are worth it strategy wise.

This has got to stop before we have no records left too.

So is that any different to the Sydney staff we have 

4 minutes ago, No10 said:

TMac + OMac for Rance ?

If we're serious about finals next year we need experience.  Richmond need to rebuild.

I rate TMac and OMac massively- Rance is ahead in age, development and will bring Frost, Hunt, Salem into maturity.

Garland, Dunn, Grimes all look lost.

why would they trade Rance??? 

4 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

So is that any different to the Sydney staff we have 

three flags and counting

4 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

why would they trade Rance??? 

Tyson + Salem = Kelly.   We need a hero, they need young players.

TMac on track to be every bit as good as Rance.  Oscar possibly better if you believe the MFC spin.

57 minutes ago, No10 said:

TMac + OMac for Rance ?

If we're serious about finals next year we need experience.  Richmond need to rebuild.

I rate TMac and OMac massively- Rance is ahead in age, development and will bring Frost, Hunt, Salem into maturity.

Garland, Dunn, Grimes all look lost.

No way. Rance is a very good player but TMac is not that far behind him and he is younger with more improvement to come. While OMac is in our starting 18 and is a skinny kid who the club clearly see has a future and we hardly have great depth for key backs so giving two for one would be crazy.