As interest in the AFL grows, so do the insiders. There are a couple of twitter accounts which summarise the trade news from all of the reputable sources. The three that have been the best so far in backing up their claims have been Trade Whisperer AFL Trade News First and NAB Trade Radio.

I bring this on to a separate thread as this morning, there was the first solo post regarding Garland and the Lions. Lions have picks 2, 20, 24, 48, 56, 74 and right now I don't think 48 gets it done. Maybe it is a 20's pick and something back to them. But I don't know if that is best for their development. 

I'll post anything else that is Melbourne related on here. 

If Melbourne got pick 48 for Garland they've made off like bandits.

4 minutes ago, CP5 said:

If Melbourne got pick 48 for Garland they've made off like bandits.

As long as they take on his full contract yep. He'd be on 400K wouldn't he?

2 minutes ago, TheoX said:

As long as they take on his full contract yep. He'd be on 400K wouldn't he?

That's not a huge contract by today's standards. The average is around about 380k this year.

 

Does anyone think we should go for Witts from Collingwood and just play both he and Gawn and rest one forward at all times?

I know he is not in the mold of a ruck/fwd but having both of them would mean we would hardly ever lose a centre bounce contest and if we can train them to be Ok forwards could result in a huge dominance and point of difference for us.

The Eagles have shown you can play two rucks and succeed as long as you have good runners around them. And no one say Natanui is a decent forward.... he is not.

Witts is a spud. No.

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

That's not a huge contract by today's standards. The average is around about 380k this year.

 

No, but it's a fair bit for a guy playing VFL and not looking like a seniors game.

Says the lions are looking at Dunn as well, wouldn't want to lose him as well as Garland. We'd need backup if a Mac or Frost goes down.

15 minutes ago, CP5 said:

If Melbourne got pick 48 for Garland they've made off like bandits.

Pick 27 and Garland, for pick 24 and 48. Then we use 24 for Hibberd.

Pick 48 for Garland is probably a little unders IMO.

 

2 minutes ago, TheoX said:

No, but it's a fair bit for a guy playing VFL and not looking like a seniors game.

Says the lions are looking at Dunn as well, wouldn't want to lose him as well as Garland. We'd need backup if a Mac or Frost goes down.

Yeah I agree, would be good to keep one of them, other trades depending of course (Marchbank, Tomlinson etc).

Can't see Garland agreeing to go to Brisbane for less than 400k, and they're in a position where they have to offer overs, just like we did a few years ago.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Witts is a spud. No.

He is a 23 year old ruckman who is 209cm. He is always going to take time to develop but I don't think he is a spud.

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

Pick 27 and Garland, for pick 24 and 48. Then we use 24 for Hibberd.

Pick 48 for Garland is probably a little unders IMO.

 

 

Why would we want to give Essendon a boost in the draft order? Stuff `em they can have 27!

 

12 minutes ago, stuie said:

Pick 27 and Garland, for pick 24 and 48. Then we use 24 for Hibberd.

Pick 48 for Garland is probably a little unders IMO.

 

Why do we need to spend 24 or 27 on Hibberd Stuie? No body else wants him apparently

We should play hard ball with Essendon, if Hibberd really want s to come over to MFC let him walk over

 

19 minutes ago, CP5 said:

If Melbourne got pick 48 for Garland they've made off like bandits.

Really, a bloke of his age and experience should be worth a late second round pick.

During his best year that's what he would have been worth.

I feel sick thinking about how guys like Garland and Dunn have been so far from what we've needed them to be as senior and experienced players. I now firmly associate them with that 'cursed group' who seem and seemed utterly incapable of changing the course of their own careers.

Weak in the mind.

I agree though with the OP in that a deal that would see Garland go to Brissy with a fourth round pick or something similar might see us receieve a second-rounder.

I hope anyway. Would be good to get some early picks back for this draft/potential trades.

12 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

Why would we want to give Essendon a boost in the draft order? Stuff `em they can have 27!

 

Or we do that Hibberd trade straight away and then trade Garland away afterwards, to get back into the second round.

17 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Does anyone think we should go for Witts from Collingwood and just play both he and Gawn and rest one forward at all times?

I know he is not in the mold of a ruck/fwd but having both of them would mean we would hardly ever lose a centre bounce contest and if we can train them to be Ok forwards could result in a huge dominance and point of difference for us.

The Eagles have shown you can play two rucks and succeed as long as you have good runners around them. And no one say Natanui is a decent forward.... he is not.

Agree, as long as the two rucks are mobile and can take a grab. My concern is that if we go with Maxy alone with a chop out from part-time pinch hitters, we not only become over dependent on him which becomes a problem in the event of injury and game plan, we also risk running Max into the ground. He was fantastic this year but we are going to shorten his career if he asked to do the same amount of work in 2017 and beyond. 

21 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Does anyone think we should go for Witts from Collingwood and just play both he and Gawn and rest one forward at all times?

I know he is not in the mold of a ruck/fwd but having both of them would mean we would hardly ever lose a centre bounce contest and if we can train them to be Ok forwards could result in a huge dominance and point of difference for us.

The Eagles have shown you can play two rucks and succeed as long as you have good runners around them. And no one say Natanui is a decent forward.... he is not.

Would prefer Vardy or Zac Clarke.

Like this thread, seems like poor people's thread for the forgotten (not so important) footballers.

21 minutes ago, TheoX said:

No, but it's a fair bit for a guy playing VFL and not looking like a seniors game.

Says the lions are looking at Dunn as well, wouldn't want to lose him as well as Garland. We'd need backup if a Mac or Frost goes down.

We need depth true but there is only so long you can hold a player as depth. If a guy like Dunn or Garland are not given regular games they are going to become very disgruntled players, not good to have around a club (and not fair on them). A bit like ANB. Players have to believe that they are going to crack it to maintain motivation and form. So giving Trengove another year is a good plan and gives him hope but beyond that it becomes "the law of diminishing returns."

21 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

Why would we want to give Essendon a boost in the draft order? Stuff `em they can have 27!

 

 

16 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Why do we need to spend 24 or 27 on Hibberd Stuie? No body else wants him apparently

We should play hard ball with Essendon, if Hibberd really want s to come over to MFC let him walk over

 

Just making sure the deal happens quickly that way and then we can move on to other ones rather than get tied up all week by a difficult club.

 

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

He is a 23 year old ruckman who is 209cm. He is always going to take time to develop but I don't think he is a spud.

I'd play Spencer over him anytime

 

Supporters need to get used to the fact that Garland is now a VFL player, albeit an experienced one.  

Pick 48 would be very fair.  When one considers players like the McDonalds at 53 and Hunt at 57 I'd be confident in an even draft that 48 would eke a good return.

Although something creative, as mentioned by a poster above, may work.

I've heard from a mate ( no idea of reliability ) that the Doggies might be interested in Lynden Dunn, they want to add an experienced key defender at the right price.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Really, a bloke of his age and experience should be worth a late second round pick.

During his best year that's what he would have been worth.

I feel sick thinking about how guys like Garland and Dunn have been so far from what we've needed them to be as senior and experienced players. I now firmly associate them with that 'cursed group' who seem and seemed utterly incapable of changing the course of their own careers.

Weak in the mind.

I agree though with the OP in that a deal that would see Garland go to Brissy with a fourth round pick or something similar might see us receieve a second-rounder.

I hope anyway. Would be good to get some early picks back for this draft/potential trades.

I agree, They should be the mainstay of our dfence and teaching the young guys. It's a travesty for the team that they seem incapable of playing that role.

F Witts

One of the bits from the twitter, said that Miles of Richmond might want out. Interest?