Delistings

[P-man 13,367]

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,403]

8 minutes ago, P-man said:

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

I watched that. He has no idea.... hopefully he becomes the Essendon list manager one day

[MadAsHell 4,217]

10 minutes ago, P-man said:

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

Maybe he knows of someone coming in?

[P-man 13,367]

4 minutes ago, AngryAtCasey said:

Maybe he knows of someone coming in?

Possibly. That would be his only defence.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,071]

1 hour ago, P-man said:

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

Did he actually say that Dawes and Pedersen are list cloggers AND both should be delisted? If he didn't add those last five words it's an arguable proposition. If he did add the last five words, it is still arguable, but on more tenuous grounds.

[P-man 13,367]

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Did he actually say that Dawes and Pedersen are list cloggers AND both should be delisted? If he didn't add those last five words it's an arguable proposition. If he did add the last five words, it is still arguable, but on more tenuous grounds.

Can't recall if he did (and have no desire to watch the segment again to confirm either way). It sort of goes without saying that if you think a player is a list clogger then you also think they should be delisted/traded, doesn't it? 

Personally I think getting rid of both of them with no ready replacement would be almost as dumb a decision as we could make, and I don't see it happening.

Edited September 7, 2016 by P-man

[old55 23,847]

If we can pick up a fwd-ruck then both Dawes and Pedersen can be delisted IMO.  If not then we must retain Pedersen.

• Stuck with: Lumumba
• Delistable: Dawes, Newton, Terlich, Michie (R), Max King (R)
• FA leave: Grimes
• Possibly delistable depending on who comes in: Pedersen, M.Jones, White (R)
• Tradeable: Dunn, Garland, Kennedy-Harris, Neal-Bullen, Harmes, Wagner (R)

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Fifty-5

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

I'd keep Pedo regardless, we're only 1-2 injuries away from trouble, we still lack depth in some areas. 

[P-man 13,367]

44 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

If we can pick up a fwd-ruck then both Dawes and Pedersen can be delisted IMO.  If not then we must retain Pedersen.

• Stuck with: Lumumba
• Delistable: Dawes, Newton, Terlich, Michie (R), Max King (R)
• FA leave: Grimes
• Possibly delistable depending on who comes in: Pedersen, M.Jones, White (R)
• Tradeable: Dunn, Garland, Kennedy-Harris, Neal-Bullen, Harmes, Wagner (R)

I get that some of these groupings are conditonal, but I can't for the life of me understand why some supporters want to do major pruning of the list. Is it force of habit? I don't get it.

We have the strongest Casey side in more than a decade. Our depth as a result is as strong as it has been for a similar amount of time. If we cut loose all of Grimes. Michie, Newton and ANB, that's basically the core of the second string midfield gone. We'll be back to having a crap Casey side applying no pressure to the seniors. It just makes no sense to me.

It's worth emphasising again, we had a charmed run with injuries this season. We may not be so fortunate next year.

[Grapeviney 9,914]

Please leave the Facebook / Big Footy rumours where you found them. I've removed all posts relating to it. 

 

[Ted Lasso 19,564]

On 9/7/2016 at 4:24 PM, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I'd keep Pedo regardless, we're only 1-2 injuries away from trouble, we still lack depth in some areas. 

I still think he's the best forward/ruck we have

[Mach5 4,768]

4 hours ago, P-man said:

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

Hold on, only one is a must keep if no one else is coming in.

If we had, for argument's sake, Sam Reid coming in, they are then both relegated to list clogger status.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

If we see Garland traded this year, that has surely got to be the biggest fall from grace I've seen from any individual on the back of a three year extension deal.

It's a real concern.

Him and Dunn. 

I don't get it.

 

[Mach5 4,768]

17 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

If we see Garland traded this year, that has surely got to be the biggest fall from grace I've seen from any individual on the back of a three year extension deal.

It's a real concern.

Him and Dunn. 

I don't get it.

I agree, but I think it is the PTSD spoken about in terms of the players being conditioned to playing a non-attacking, fear-stricken style of football.
They had it drilled into them for years.
I'd dearly love to see Garland do better, and thought I would.
His malaise in particular has really surprised me.

[DeeZee 7,463]

Leadership group then out of favour very quickly , what's the thinking behind it?

[P-man 13,367]

29 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Hold on, only one is a must keep if no one else is coming in.

If we had, for argument's sake, Sam Reid coming in, they are then both relegated to list clogger status.

Yep, on the condition they're not replaced. Honestly I'd keep Pedo regardless. More than handy role player to have at our disposal.

[Fingers 0]

Speaking of which - if-when Grimes goes, who deserves to wear 31? 

[Lucifers Hero 40,557]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-07/trade-state-of-play-what-moves-will-your-club-make-in-the-offseason?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

RE Brisbane:  Who are they targeting?
Although not outwardly chasing names at this stage, the Lions are desperate for key defenders to bolster a weak part of the ground. Don't be surprised if they hunt the likes of Eric Mackenzie, Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn or even throw a lifeline to discarded Kangaroo Michael Firrito to help their youngsters for a season or two.

They may have got Garland and Dunn's names from Demonland...

If they were targetted by Brisbane, whether they agree to move their families interstate to a club with its own mental scars and stuck at the bottom of the ladder (again) is another matter entirely. 

[DeeZee 7,463]

Rockliff for Garland and Dunn?

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

3 hours ago, P-man said:

I get that some of these groupings are conditonal, but I can't for the life of me understand why some supporters want to do major pruning of the list. Is it force of habit? I don't get it.

We have the strongest Casey side in more than a decade. Our depth as a result is as strong as it has been for a similar amount of time. If we cut loose all of Grimes. Michie, Newton and ANB, that's basically the core of the second string midfield gone. We'll be back to having a crap Casey side applying no pressure to the seniors. It just makes no sense to me.

It's worth emphasising again, we had a charmed run with injuries this season. We may not be so fortunate next year.

Having a strong VFL side doesn't always equate to real AFL depth. 

Grimes : if not sitting on 98 games would he have even played? His VFL numbers mean little when you consider how long he's been in the system and how they stack up when playing senior footy. Age 27

Newton :  2 games. Age 24

Michie : 4 games. Age 24

Dawes : 6 games (was injured but has been passed by others) Age 28

Garland : 6 games. Age 28

Lamumba : 5 games. Age 29 turning 30 in November. 2 years to run on what we would assume to be a reasonable contract. Concussion issues, may never play again.

Spencer : 0 games. Age 27 turning 28 next month. 

Trengove : 3 games. Age 25. It's a big wait and see.

Are any of the above really going to have any kind of substantial impact at the top level at any club again?

M Jones, Dunn may get a look in at another club.

JKH and ANB both are contracted for next year and could be argued both are still developing.

Ben Kennedy would be considered a quality depth player. 

Yes there are others I may have missed but it's late and I'm tired. When I look at like this I seriously question what depth we really have.

[P-man 13,367]

2 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Having a strong VFL side doesn't always equate to real AFL depth. 

Grimes : if not sitting on 98 games would he have even played? His VFL numbers mean little when you consider how long he's been in the system and how they stack up when playing senior footy. Age 27

Newton :  2 games. Age 24

Michie : 4 games. Age 24

Dawes : 6 games (was injured but has been passed by others) Age 28

Garland : 6 games. Age 28

Lamumba : 5 games. Age 29 turning 30 in November. 2 years to run on what we would assume to be a reasonable contract. Concussion issues, may never play again.

Spencer : 0 games. Age 27 turning 28 next month. 

Trengove : 3 games. Age 25. It's a big wait and see.

Are any of the above really going to have any kind of substantial impact at the top level at any club again?

M Jones, Dunn may get a look in at another club.

JKH and ANB both are contracted for next year and could be argued both are still developing.

Ben Kennedy would be considered a quality depth player. 

Yes there are others I may have missed but it's late and I'm tired. When I look at like this I seriously question what depth we really have.

Not going into this. Safe to say we disagree on the quality of certain players.

Minimal list changes are required. There is no cause for a panicked slash and burn.

[Macca 17,120]

Garland & Dunn would be well known players to the FD's of other clubs ... a legacy of getting better is that certain players become excess to needs and therefore become real tradable players who may bring the club a decent return.

Players want to play so it may not be the club trying to offload these types of players ... those type of players being told their chances might be limited could be the catalyst moment for those players possibly requesting a move.

A few of our younger players may become targets too ... there are obviously a number of untouchables but we may end up trading quite vigorously to offset the lack of a first round pick in the draft.

Taylor looks like he's got a real eye for talent and he may have his eye on a few players that may end up being drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round ... and if we want more draft picks in that area we'll need to trade in a clever manner. 

Trading up to picks 3 & 7 in last year's draft caught most by surprise but 3 off-seasons ago we were also creative in securing Tyson & Salem.  I expect more of the same but we'll have to make the odd tough decision to be a real player.

Even when we did the obvious in drafting Petracca & Brayshaw we used some creative thinking in the Frost trade (ANB & Oscar were drafted as a result) ... and in that same trade period we picked up Garlett at a bargain price (basically pick 61)

Another important aspect to remember is that Goodwin was coached by Blight and Blight made some tough decisions on certain players before he coached his first game for Adelaide.

[DeeSpencer 26,479]

6 hours ago, P-man said:

I get that some of these groupings are conditonal, but I can't for the life of me understand why some supporters want to do major pruning of the list. Is it force of habit? I don't get it.

We have the strongest Casey side in more than a decade. Our depth as a result is as strong as it has been for a similar amount of time. If we cut loose all of Grimes. Michie, Newton and ANB, that's basically the core of the second string midfield gone. We'll be back to having a crap Casey side applying no pressure to the seniors. It just makes no sense to me.

It's worth emphasising again, we had a charmed run with injuries this season. We may not be so fortunate next year.

I think 55's delistings/FA were all pretty reasonable. Which of the following do you have a problem with:

• Possibly delistable depending on who comes in: Pedersen, M.Jones, White (R)
• Tradeable: Dunn, Garland, Kennedy-Harris, Neal-Bullen, Harmes, Wagner (R)

I'd say Pedersen and Matt Jones are just depth, if we had someone for free who was better to fill the same positions we'd move them on. Mitch White probably gets another year but with Hibberd and Melksham back if we were to find another back flanker he'd go.

Trading one of Dunn and Garland makes sense. I expect Wagner gets promoted to the senior list with a 1-2 year deal or at least retained as a rookie, he's not going anywhere. 

I doubt the other 3 in Harmes, ANB and JKH are going anywhere, but they are the type of players who you'd listen to trade offers for. The latter 2 might even seek trades although we've heard little from them and I hope they stay. 

Yes Grimes, Michie, Newton probably go from Casey, but Spencer, Matt Jones, ANB, JKH, Harmes, Trengove, Kennedy probably form the basis of Casey's midfield next year. Weideman, Hulett and both King's played a lot for Casey this year. They'll be a year older next year. So you might lose a little from the midfield but gain in other spots.

The Trengove contract told me that the footy club is certainly interested in keeping leadership, culture and strong VFL performances. 

[DV8 2,271]

10 hours ago, P-man said:

Lloyd described all of Dawes, Dunn, Garland and Pedersen as list cloggers in the club review on the AFL website.

Anyone who wants to delist both Dawes AND Pedersen isn't fit to comment on Melbourne's playing list. Keeping one of them (Pedersen) is a must.

Lloyd is no list management expert P-man.  His thinking is just 'inside the box', & that's about it.

[P-man 13,367]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think 55's delistings/FA were all pretty reasonable. Which of the following do you have a problem with:

• Possibly delistable depending on who comes in: Pedersen, M.Jones, White (R)
• Tradeable: Dunn, Garland, Kennedy-Harris, Neal-Bullen, Harmes, Wagner (R)

I'd say Pedersen and Matt Jones are just depth, if we had someone for free who was better to fill the same positions we'd move them on. Mitch White probably gets another year but with Hibberd and Melksham back if we were to find another back flanker he'd go.

Trading one of Dunn and Garland makes sense. I expect Wagner gets promoted to the senior list with a 1-2 year deal or at least retained as a rookie, he's not going anywhere. 

I doubt the other 3 in Harmes, ANB and JKH are going anywhere, but they are the type of players who you'd listen to trade offers for. The latter 2 might even seek trades although we've heard little from them and I hope they stay. 

Yes Grimes, Michie, Newton probably go from Casey, but Spencer, Matt Jones, ANB, JKH, Harmes, Trengove, Kennedy probably form the basis of Casey's midfield next year. Weideman, Hulett and both King's played a lot for Casey this year. They'll be a year older next year. So you might lose a little from the midfield but gain in other spots.

The Trengove contract told me that the footy club is certainly interested in keeping leadership, culture and strong VFL performances. 

As I said, I get that 55's groupings are conditional. I guess it depends on how many of those options were enacted. The sum of the parts so to speak. It also is hugely contingent on what we actually are getting in return.

White's performance against Footscray doesn't do him in any harm in his quest to remain on the list, but I don't think we'd suffer too greatly from moving him on. My delistings would be Newton, Terlich, Dawes, King(R) and maybe White(R) with Lumumba retiring potentially. I agree that only one of Dunn or Garland should be traded, as trading both would be a crazy given the depth of our key defensive stocks. Out of the two I'd say keep Dunn.

I'm resigned to the fact that Grimes will likely seek greener pastures which I think is a shame as I honestly believe he has some good years ahead of him. They will probably be played at another club and so be it. I wish him luck.

With Grimes and Newton going I'd keep Michie. He has assets as a player that are undersold and he hasn't had ample opportunity at AFL level in roles that suit him. I understand I'm pretty much on my Pat Malone there and I'm okay with that.

ANB and JKH might be on the trade table but I'd want them used only as part of a deal for a certified gun in return. I believe in both being able to become quality players, ANB moreso. Harmes won't be going anywhere and I doubt Wagner will either. M Jones and Pedersen provide points of difference. Their spot would want to be filled by a player that betters them in those areas.

My underlying point is I'm obviously okay with strenghtening the list, but we are in a precarious position with the ages of the players being thrown up for delisting and trade. A lot of them are senior players in an already VERY young squad. If we are replacing these guys with speculative picks in the 50s and 60s then I'm not okay with that. We have stability and we have a Casey side about to challenge for a flag. I don't want to see that stability disrupted unnecessarily.