WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - MICHAEL HIBBERD

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

On 8/30/2016 at 2:36 PM, Fifty-5 said:

10 wins 90+% is more attractive than 2 wins 50% - I'm keen to hear your argument against this?

We don't have a 1st round pick, our 2nd round pick is destined for the Hibberd trade and we don't have any players with obvious value that we'd be prepared to trade, therefore we don't have a lot of currency to trade.

Essendon won 3 @60% and Richmond won 8 @80% and i reckon most would much rather go to the Bombers

[old55 23,593]

3 minutes ago, mo64 said:

There's no evidence of a high profile player nominating us as a preferred destination, hence you can't say that we've improved our attractiveness.

Collingwood don't have a 1st round pick yet are gunning for O'Meara. There's always ways of getting the deal done, but you have to land the fish first.

I said "we improved our attractiveness", I didn't say that "we are a preferred destination for a high profile player".  Are you seriously suggesting that we are not now more attractive than we were at 2 wins and 50%?

News report of Collingwood interest in O'Meara apparently passes your stringent evidence based approach though?

3 minutes ago, Abe said:

Essendon won 3 @60% and Richmond won 8 @80% and i reckon most would much rather go to the Bombers

I said "WE improved OUR attractiveness" i.e. relative to our previous unattractiveness, not relative to Essendon or Richmond.

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

On 8/30/2016 at 2:47 PM, Fifty-5 said:

I said "we improved our attractiveness", I didn't say that "we are a preferred destination for a high profile player".  Are you seriously suggesting that we are not now more attractive than we were at 2 wins and 50%?

News report of Collingwood interest in O'Meara apparently passes your stringent evidence based approach though?

I said "WE improved OUR attractiveness" i.e. relative to our previous unattractiveness, not relative to Essendon or Richmond.

not disputing the idea that we are more attractive with more wins, simply stating that it's not a clear rule for every side, 

[mo64 5,874]

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I said "we improved our attractiveness", I didn't say that "we are a preferred destination for a high profile player".  Are you seriously suggesting that we are not now more attractive than we were at 2 wins and 50%?

News report of Collingwood interest in O'Meara apparently passes your stringent evidence based approach though?

I said "WE improved OUR attractiveness" i.e. relative to our previous unattractiveness, not relative to Essendon or Richmond.

I can't speak for the 800 odd players, but until an A Grade player nominates us as a preferred destination, there is no evidence that your statement is correct.

In fact, we're still trying to get our highest profile player to extend his contract. Based on your beliefs, he should have re-signed ages ago.

BTW, when we were a basket case under Neeld, we were still able to attract high profile players in Clark and Dawes. How things turned out with them is not relevant to your argument.

Edited August 30, 2016 by mo64

[Adam The God 30,261]

1 hour ago, poita said:

Amazing that the price for Hibberd with his 80 odd so-so games (none for over a year), is about the same as what we paid for Vince (a former B&F winner at Adelaide). All you need is one bad decision (ie overpaying for Melksham last year), and that becomes the new normal.

Our list is in such a place that we don't need to bring in a heap of stars, because hopefully they're on our list already. So it's about reasonably cheap options to fill the remaining list gaps. Hibberd is this. A Brent Harvey is also this. Fills a need and comes relatively cheaply.

We need good ball users. Salem, Watts... who else? I would have said Vince but he's become a butcher. Hibberd is strong in the contest and a damaging kick. He will fit our system perfectly. A second rounder is a sensible price. We move on to strengthening other areas of our list.

Edited August 30, 2016 by A F

[Red and Blue realist 2,051]

28 minutes ago, A F said:

Our list is in such a place that we don't need to bring in a heap of stars, because hopefully they're on our list already. So it's about reasonably cheap options to fill the remaining list gaps.

This is (hopefully) 100% right, how often to true A graders leave their clubs? Very very rarely, normally they are developed from within. All things going well, Hogan, Trac, Oliver have the potential to be true A graders, with Brayshaw, Watts, Tyson, TMac not far behind. Guys like Hibberd make it easier for this to happen, because there good ordinary players, they fill and play a role.  

[old55 23,593]

18 hours ago, mo64 said:

I can't speak for the 800 odd players, but until an A Grade player nominates us as a preferred destination, there is no evidence that your statement is correct.

In fact, we're still trying to get our highest profile player to extend his contract. Based on your beliefs, he should have re-signed ages ago.

BTW, when we were a basket case under Neeld, we were still able to attract high profile players in Clark and Dawes. How things turned out with them is not relevant to your argument.

Is that the sound of a bell?

You seem to be only able to comprehend "attractiveness" as a binary concept - not attractive or attractive, vacuum or black hole.  But attractiveness is a graduated interval scale.  It is clear that Simon Goodwin's peanut butter on toast is more attractive than Mark Neeld's [censored] sandwich even if Patrick Dangerfield prefers crayfish on brioche served by Moggs Creek mermaids and wont eat either of them.  [censored] sandwich - Peanut butter toast - Crayfish on brioche.  Get it?

Anyway, you wont be the last dueler whose hand was blown off and face was blackened by the back-fire of his own malfunctioning ill-maintained muscat.  No, the fact that Jesse Hogan has not yet re-signed does not refute my argument that we are now more attractive.  In fact it's quite possibly the reverse - that he'd already be gone if we weren't.  The indisputable, uncontradictable, empirical evidence of this that you're looking for is that Jack Watts and his father both said that he would have left and not re-signed if things hadn't improved at MFC.

Apparently Michael Hibberd likes peanut butter.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Fifty-5

[Nasher 33,616]

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Is that the sound of a bell?

You seem to be only able to comprehend "attractiveness" as a binary concept - not attractive or attractive, vacuum or black hole.  But attractiveness is a graduated interval scale.  It is clear that Simon Goodwin's peanut butter on toast is more attractive than Mark Neeld's [censored] sandwich even if Patrick Dangerfield prefers crayfish on brioche served by Moggs Creek mermaids and wont eat either of them.  [censored] sandwich - Peanut butter toast - Crayfish on brioche.  Get it?

Anyway, you wont be the last dueler whose hand was blown off and face was blackened by the back-fire of his own malfunctioning ill-maintained muscat.  No, the fact that Jesse Hogan has not yet re-signed does not refute my argument that we are now more attractive.  In fact it's quite possibly the reverse - that he'd already be gone if we weren't.  The indisputable, uncontradictable, empirical evidence of this that you're looking for is that Jack Watts and his father both said that he would have left and not re-signed if things hadn't improved at MFC.

Apparently Michael Hibberd likes peanut butter.

You don't have to look very far back in to our history to see any actual evidence anyway.  Shannon Byrnes and David Rodan were the types of players we were picking up not very long ago.  

[deeflog 679]

50 minutes ago, Nasher said:

You don't have to look very far back in to our history to see any actual evidence anyway.  Shannon Byrnes and David Rodan were the types of players we were picking up not very long ago.

don't forget the fine pick up Tom Gillies was.....

[Dee1987 277]

I've been away for a bit so any news/ what's the G.O with the pig seems he is our only target is he nearly a lock??

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

Predicting the trade to be 

#27, #45 for Michael Hibberd, #55 

an early second rounder and a 10 pick upgrade should get it over the line.

[Lucifers Hero 39,822]

5 minutes ago, Abe said:

Predicting the trade to be 

#27, #45 for Michael Hibberd, #55 

an early second rounder and a 10 pick upgrade should get it over the line.

Abe, seriously?  For someone they are keen to off load because they have given his sal cap to other players?

So you really think we need to give up our 3rd round pick as well to get back their crappy 4th rnd pick?  Surely they have no leverage here and if we do that deal we are bending over.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

On 9/4/2016 at 8:26 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Abe, seriously?  For someone they are keen to off load because they have given his sal cap to other players?

So you really think we need to give up our 3rd round pick as well to get back their crappy 4th rnd pick?

It's a prediction, they will ask for our 2017 first rounder, we will offer our second rounder, it on it's own won't get the deal done because it's Essendon and we'll cough up a little more coz Goodwin absolutely loves Hibberd

It may not happen, and it's not what i'd do but it's what i think will happen.

[brendan 3,437]

If hibberd costs anymore than our second rounder then it's time to walk away 

[jackaub 1,402]

There appears to be no other team chasing this guy I wonder why?

We should low ball him and see what happens Third round pick is all and be prepared to walk

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by jackaub

[CP5 166]

39 minutes ago, jackaub said:

There appears to be no other team chasing this guy I wonder why?

We should low ball him and see what happens Third round pick is all and be prepared to walk

 

Jack, I think a prudent approach would be to accept that you and I have zero clue what is happening behind the scenes, or who clubs are or aren't discussing.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

7 minutes ago, CP5 said:

Jack, I think a prudent approach would be to accept that you and I have zero clue what is happening behind the scenes, or who clubs are or aren't discussing.

You won't get anywhere with an approach like that!

[Robbie57 2,020]

7 minutes ago, CP5 said:

Jack, I think a prudent approach would be to accept that you and I have zero clue what is happening behind the scenes, or who clubs are or aren't discussing.

I thought they were making the sandwiches for the trade period. I dont think we should get Hibberd if all he wants is peanut butter as we need to be an allergy free team. Mahony is apparantly baking some sausage rolls as well always a winner.

[jackaub 1,402]

Ok prudence prevails CP5

[CP5 166]

10 minutes ago, Robbie57 said:

I thought they were making the sandwiches for the trade period. I dont think we should get Hibberd if all he wants is peanut butter as we need to be an allergy free team. Mahony is apparantly baking some sausage rolls as well always a winner.

I assume you noted that the poster I was quoting said " There appears to be no other team chasing this guy I wonder why".

Perhaps not...

[Mach5 4,767]

7 hours ago, jackaub said:

There appears to be no other team chasing this guy I wonder why?

We should low ball him and see what happens Third round pick is all and be prepared to walk

 

Because it is not longer up for discussion; a deal has been agreed.

[Lucifers Hero 39,822]

Many players are have nominated the club they want to go to.  Hibberd requested a trade weeks ago but yet to nominate a club (us).  Goodwin was non-committal about it in his interview the other day.

It seems to me that when a player nominates a club, usually the trade is agreed in principle. 

Anyone know what the nominating a club, hold up is?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[MadAsHell 4,212]

13 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Many players are have nominated the club they want to go to.  Hibberd requested a trade weeks ago but yet to nominate a club (us).  Goodwin was non-committal about it in his interview the other day.

It seems to me that when a player nominates a club, usually the trade is agreed in principle. 

Anyone know what the nominating a club, hold up is?

Given there's still restrictions on what the banned players can and can't do, he may not be allowed to officially name a club he wants to go to.

Who knows?

[DeeSpencer 25,713]

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Many players are have nominated the club they want to go to.  Hibberd requested a trade weeks ago but yet to nominate a club (us).  Goodwin was non-committal about it in his interview the other day.

It seems to me that when a player nominates a club, usually the trade is agreed in principle. 

Anyone know what the nominating a club, hold up is?

Essendon being Essendon will probably ask for the world. No point in going overboard if you're Goodwin. Given he was talking about being appointed the senior coach I thought it was more important to get the headlines on the club and current players instead of talking too much about a recruit.

[Woodyy 26]

Hibberd and his manager officially anounced that hibberd will be playing with the dees next year, manager was confident that a deal to get him to the club will be done early in the trade period.  Sounded as if our second round pick would be enough to complete the trade. Source: Nab afl trade radio, where barret, wallace, and lloyd are the hosts, both hibberd and his manager are on the show atm

Edited September 20, 2016 by Woodyy