1 hour ago, Abe said:

I don't understand why we can't be more mature about it. Danger was leaving a long way out and it would have been nice if we could have just known 

So 'Abe', I've heard this talked about and put up in the media but I've never understood what makes it mature.

Often it's in the context of the NRL being so mature about how they handle these player trades when players come out and give their intentions 12 months out.

However if you ask the Storm boys they don't like it. I've heard Cam Smith and their Footy ops man say this a number of times...it causes to much trouble.

To my mind a more mature approach would be to have a strict trading period at the end of the season and no one allowed to talk to players in season and no contracts to be signed outside of this period. To hold this in place there would be massive penalties for any team/player that steps outside of the rules.

No talk of player movement, no more stupid press conference questions about when are you signing.

A true mature approach...dare I say too mature for the AFL...

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

So 'Abe', I've heard this talked about and put up in the media but I've never understood what makes it mature.

Often it's in the context of the NRL being so mature about how they handle these player trades when players come out and give their intentions 12 months out.

However if you ask the Storm boys they don't like it. I've heard Cam Smith and their Footy ops man say this a number of times...it causes to much trouble.

To my mind a more mature approach would be to have a strict trading period at the end of the season and no one allowed to talk to players in season and no contracts to be signed outside of this period. To hold this in place there would be massive penalties for any team/player that steps outside of the rules.

No talk of player movement, no more stupid press conference questions about when are you signing.

A true mature approach...dare I say too mature for the AFL...

Then how can the AFL manipulate the competition for it's own benefit, Tom Scully, Chris Judd, cough, cough!!!.

The reality is, clubs need to put work into a prospective recruit at least 6 months in advance. The re-negotiation of existing contracts can't all be done in trade week. They need to plan if they intend landing a big fish.

The Storm have never been in a position to sign a big-name player from another club because a large chunk of it's salary cap has been locked into Smith, Cronk and Slater for the past 10-12 years.

37 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Then how can the AFL manipulate the competition for it's own benefit, Tom Scully, Chris Judd, cough, cough!!!.

The reality is, clubs need to put work into a prospective recruit at least 6 months in advance. The re-negotiation of existing contracts can't all be done in trade week. They need to plan if they intend landing a big fish.

The Storm have never been in a position to sign a big-name player from another club because a large chunk of it's salary cap has been locked into Smith, Cronk and Slater for the past 10-12 years.

A month will be plenty to get the deals done, no more going behind anyones back.

The only reason it stretches out now is because agents know they have time and they are hoping to increase value or see where a club is heading by the end of the season. Well guess what, they will know what they need to know and there will be no need for guess work.

Trade week can be trade month.

Clubs can set up their targets but not approach them until this time and sort out their list scenarios and get the deals and signings done...

As for Storm, they've lost big name players...it's not just them, I've heard a number of NRL people say they don't liked the implication of disloyalty attached to their system.

It's not particularly mature, in fact the way some of the situations have panned out it seems particularly childish.

4 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

If we traded Petracca for Lever and Lever ends up having the better career and we also retain our picks, then we'd win on that trade right?

We might win on the trade but we lose in the long run. We have a number of potential stars in Petracca and Lever's age bracket. Let's not trade one out for the other, we should build on them and have a crack at the premiership.

It's a moot point, Adelaide have been advised Petracca won't be involved in any deal. 

3 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

It's a moot point, Adelaide have been advised Petracca won't be involved in any deal. 

Unless it's to the 36ers, then he is all over it. Phil Smyth mark 2.

1 minute ago, Cards13 said:

Unless it's to the 36ers, then he is all over it. Phil Smyth mark 2.

Smyth had the best comb over of all time.

Edited September 20, 20177 yr by Ethan Tremblay

We are not trading trac or oliver and anyone who thinks its a good idea are peanuts, lever might became the  best defender ever, however oliver is no track be as good as Joel selwood, and trac  is tracking better then Dangerfield at the same age, its never a good idea to rob Peter to pay Paul.

The day we trade Tracc and/or Oliver in the next 7 years is the day I follow St Kilda or WB. 

No effing way!!!

42 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

The day we trade Tracc and/or Oliver in the next 7 years is the day I follow St Kilda or WB. 

No effing way!!!

funny choices there, moonie

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

funny choices there, moonie

The least 2 clubs I hate dc. Could've been worse - might said the Filth!

3 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

The day we trade Tracc and/or Oliver in the next 7 years is the day I follow St Kilda or WB. 

No effing way!!!

If you'd put your foot down over Fitzpatrick and/or Toumpas you could have celebrated a premiership by now.

8 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

The least 2 clubs I hate dc. Could've been worse - might said the Filth!

I could never support another team. I would have to change sports if I gave up AFL.

9 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I could never support another team. I would have to change sports if I gave up AFL.

I'd follow  Port Melb.

You cant choose. Youre stuck forever. Suck it up.

12 hours ago, rjay said:

So 'Abe', I've heard this talked about and put up in the media but I've never understood what makes it mature.

Often it's in the context of the NRL being so mature about how they handle these player trades when players come out and give their intentions 12 months out.

However if you ask the Storm boys they don't like it. I've heard Cam Smith and their Footy ops man say this a number of times...it causes to much trouble.

To my mind a more mature approach would be to have a strict trading period at the end of the season and no one allowed to talk to players in season and no contracts to be signed outside of this period. To hold this in place there would be massive penalties for any team/player that steps outside of the rules.

No talk of player movement, no more stupid press conference questions about when are you signing.

A true mature approach...dare I say too mature for the AFL...

I think the clubs actually do a good job of only speaking to the players when acceptable. I'd hope Melbourne aren't attempting to speak to Lever at present whilst he has far bigger things to worry about. 

I think the thing that get's forgotten is the majority of the information we're pushed is fake. The media create a story to comment on it, drum up two days worth of radio, reporting and back-slapping from their other media cronies to move on in 2 days to the next fake story and have no accountability for the dribble. Blokes like Sam Maclure frustrate the bejesus out of me because 95% of their 'reports' prove to be incorrect yet nothing is said of it.

IMO too many uneducated, irresponsible media personalities now that it's become more Daily Mail than news.

14 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I think view typifies the stereotypical one-eyed supporter.

You talk clarry up, yet only rate Lever against Rivers without expressing the same level of love or confidence that he could too similarly be a star of the comp.

I don't doubt Clarry's talent and I certainly think what he achieved and produced this year was very special for a second year player. But as Melbourne supporter, I'm used to players not reaching or fulfilling their potential. So as I said, at this point in time I would take the hypothetical swap. Ask me in a couple of years or even at the end of next year and my answer may be different.

I see a lot of potential with our young group but it genuinely irks me that some think it'll just happen for us.

Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight.

You recognize Clarry talent and his achievements but you'd trade him for two picks inside the top 10 and one outside it because you want a star. Therefore you think three 1st rounders have more chance of procuring a star than having Clarry.  Really?

You're used to MFC not developing it's talent (despite Oliver success) so you'd trade Clarry out for picks to be developed by the same people who are developing Clarry in the hope of getting someone better than Clarry.

To be honest Steve I think this is a really silly proposition given how hard it is to find rare talent (which I obviously think Clarry is).  Of course if you don't think Clarry is a rare talent then your position is reasonable although I think the "bird in the hand" argument is compelling even so.

And you think that despite saying "And on a completely different topic" and "I loved Rivers ,,  (getting Lever) would be gold for this club" I for some reason don't think Lever could similarly be a star of the comp and this makes me a "stereotypical one-eyed supporter".

Obviously my comment on Lever was utterly positive and I do think Lever can be a star of the competition. 

But in addition to the above and not to confuse issues I would say that a midfield star of the competition is more valuable than an intercept mark player of the competition so I'd have Oliver and Petracca well ahead of Lever.  To be clear that is no slight on Lever.

Steve you've said elsewhere that you are involved in scouting for an AFL club.  That will make you privy to information and exposed to some serious football people and I assume if you're scouting for them they value your input.  That's why I'm having this discussion because I'm genuinely interested in your view.

 

18 hours ago, Redleg said:

Maybe just maybe Jack Watts has been ruined by this club with its poor standards and constant changes and now that we are getting it together he just needs to refocus.

One thing we know for sure and that is that he has better skills than most of his team mates and is the best set shot for goal on our list.

He also has the ability to set up play and deliver the ball accurately to team mates.

Perhaps instead of throwing him out with the rubbish, we try and get him to fit into our plans and get the best out of him.

This is the same bloke who was composed enough to kick the winning goal on the run against the Pies, on QB and then run down the other end, to grab a mark and save the game. He is also the same bloke who was thrown into the ruck and ran himself into the ground for us earlier this year. 

He has talent, lets try and get it used for our benefit.

Ur best post yet redleg. 

Well said. 

17 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Ur best post yet redleg. 

Well said. 

maybe not his best...but it's up there.

 

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

What will make him a better star is to have a couple of quick mids running past for his handballs.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

What will make him a better star is to have a couple of quick mids running past for his handballs.

He will evolve as player in the next couple of years and we will see more of his kicking, marking and goal kicking game. He's already given us a taste of these attributes.

That will take him to the elite level, quick mids or not.

4 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight.

You recognize Clarry talent and his achievements but you'd trade him for two picks inside the top 10 and one outside it because you want a star. Therefore you think three 1st rounders have more chance of procuring a star than having Clarry.  Really?

You're used to MFC not developing it's talent (despite Oliver success) so you'd trade Clarry out for picks to be developed by the same people who are developing Clarry in the hope of getting someone better than Clarry.

To be honest Steve I think this is a really silly proposition given how hard it is to find rare talent (which I obviously think Clarry is).  Of course if you don't think Clarry is a rare talent then your position is reasonable although I think the "bird in the hand" argument is compelling even so.

And you think that despite saying "And on a completely different topic" and "I loved Rivers ,,  (getting Lever) would be gold for this club" I for some reason don't think Lever could similarly be a star of the comp and this makes me a "stereotypical one-eyed supporter".

Obviously my comment on Lever was utterly positive and I do think Lever can be a star of the competition. 

But in addition to the above and not to confuse issues I would say that a midfield star of the competition is more valuable than an intercept mark player of the competition so I'd have Oliver and Petracca well ahead of Lever.  To be clear that is no slight on Lever.

Steve you've said elsewhere that you are involved in scouting for an AFL club.  That will make you privy to information and exposed to some serious football people and I assume if you're scouting for them they value your input.  That's why I'm having this discussion because I'm genuinely interested in your view.

 

We're on a bit of a merry-go-round here but I'll try to be more clear.

I recognize that Clayton is a highly talented inside mid who has had a superb second year as a developing player.

Having said that, I also recognise that as a midfield, most of our talent is concentrated in a contested-heavy group comprised of Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca and to a lesser extent Tyson and Salem. All are top 10 picks, (Viney would have been) and all (bar Salem) were elite contested ball winning mids during their 18's year and imo share similar weaknesses as players.

Now obviously it's completely subjective as to where one rates Oliver within that group of talent at this early stage in their careers. Petracca has already done an ACL, Brayshaw has had concussion and knee troubles, Salem hamstring and Thyroid issues and Jack had an interrupted year this season after having an unbelievable year in 2016, arguably as good as Clayton's 2017.

Aside from Viney for his first two years, Oliver is really the only player of that group to have had true continuity in both his training and playing from the day he was drafted. The rest are still largely unknown but in my view the talent levels and potential are hard to separate with the exception of perhaps Tyson. (My whipping boy). 

Hypothetically speaking, if an opposition club were to come to me as head recruiter of the MFC with three first-round picks on offer for Clayton at this point in 2017, I would happily shake hands on the deal. Two picks inside the top 10 and one outside. Clarry's unique attributes imo are how clean he is around the ball, his vision in close and his hand-ball execution to the right target in close. Both Trac and Brayshaw are similarly strong over-overhead and as far as everything else goes, I think we possess enough inside talent to let Clarry go for three first round picks at this point in time. That's one reason. 

The second would be these factors: Given the recruiting team we have now, the type of characters we seem to target, the development coaches and leaders we have at the club presently, I would back the club in to successfully identify three players - (who once developed) - would provide a better and more even balance to our list given we can target positional players and greater attribute diversity. It would allow us to have a more even spread of high-end talent across the entire list. One only needs to look at GWS this year to see how important that is when injuries strike.

A risk? Of course. It's all a risk. Rejecting three first-round picks for Clarry would also be a risk.

But I would do the deal given the reasons I have provided.

Edited September 21, 20177 yr by stevethemanjordan

Also, @Rhino Richards seems to only 'like' posts these days that are either quoting mine, or someone else that he seems to take issue with.

So on behalf of all of us that irk you Rhino Richards, I'd like to say hi.

I miss talking football with you.

Steve.

 

23 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I love Clarry as much as anyone, but I want us to unearth a genuine star of the competition. And we haven't done that yet or ever for as long as I've followed the club.

 

22 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I was expecting "three players are better than one", I wasn't expecting "if we had three picks we'd get on that's better than Clarry".

 

 

19 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

.

I don't doubt Clarry's talent and I certainly think what he achieved and produced this year was very special for a second year player. But as Melbourne supporter, I'm used to players not reaching or fulfilling their potential.

 

Steve I'm afraid I'm now more confused than ever.

You're reply to me is based around "we have plenty of inside mids and having 3 top picks would help us round out our lists and diversify our (injury) risks".  That's what I took from it anyway. Your reply failed to address the "star" issue (and where Clarrie sat in that discussion) which is what we were debating.

Further it adopts the exact position I thought you'd originally argue.  You can see that from the posts above and hopefully why I'm confused.

So is it fair to say you are now saying "look, I was wrong, Clarrie is more likely to be a star than three fresh picks and the real reason I'd do it is that three picks are better than one".

That's a whole different discussion and absolutely valid but you appear to have totally abandoned your initial position.