Yes, the one year contract is a clear indicator that the FD think there's a chance he'll flop, for whatever reason (be it off field or on). Again though, my response would be 'who cares?' - he clearly has the talent for AFL footy and we cost ourselves nothing to get him.

Freo might've been more insistent on pick 47 if it was a 2 year contract too. A win all round.

On ‎22‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:25 AM, Skuit said:

I'm all ears.

 

 

On ‎22‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:56 AM, Rafiki said:

I've heard some not so good stories about him from people in the business, hopefully he can come good for us

yes we are all ears ???

On 10/20/2017 at 3:11 PM, Wiseblood said:

We'll give Balic 9 years like we did with the bloke you're referring to, then.  If he isn't up to scratch after 9 years then we can move him on.

But... that guy only got 9 years because he went No 1 and our expectations were so high that he was the Mesiah.......

What guy?

4 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

 

yes we are all ears ???

Already been deleted.

On 20/10/2017 at 6:36 PM, Redleg said:

I predict he will be the best pick 66 we have ever used.

 

On 20/10/2017 at 8:43 PM, beelzebub said:

Who are any others ? 

If memory serves me correctly...

1997 Doggy Brown

2002 Ryan Ferguson

2007 Tom McNamara

2009 Not Utilised 

We've made pick 66 our own over the years, although probably with decreasing effectiveness.

Red, hoping your prediction comes good, and good luck to the young fella. 

On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:36 PM, Unleash Hell said:

Agree. Look at the news on the gibbs trade.

Id rather Mahonet who gets the job done then squabble over late picks.

Seems a waste

Ive been harsh to a few on this thread but people need to move on from crap they don't agree with and don't understand.

And anyone who thinks it's only Mahoneys decision alone also falls in to that boat above as being dumb

 

On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:28 PM, buck_nekkid said:

Really?  How do you judge that his negotiating skills are horrible when you have NO IDEA what his desired outcome, or minimal negotiating position, actually is?  It is not life and death, FMD!  He is not a hostage negotiator.  I would prefer that the Dees are known as decent to deal with - the first step in building trust to establishing a frame for negotiation.

you slag him off and have not one f’ing clue.

 I couldn't care less if we are nice to deal with. Gees. that is the last thing id care about. I want the best deal for the club. Hold your ground. i'll give Mahoney something, he was honest when explaining the positions of the deals in his running commentary. this is what I base it off. He stated in the lever deal a first and second round was fair and the crows wanted two first rounders. what did we give up? 2 first rounders with some loose change.

 

With watts - despite the club really treating the whole situation poorly and diminishing your trade position by being so public, what did he think in the watts deal was fair? early second round. What did we get? a late second round? and no pick upgrades to compensate. Deals were done in record time and basically gave in. it was as if he didn't want to have the conversations. I'm sure he did. but gave in far to easily. Look at carlton. all their deals were done in the last few hours and on their terms and in their favour. take a lesson from SOS.

 

End

But on the balic deal. I think pick 66 was fair for a talented kid but with some question marks on whether he is suited to the afl lifestyle. 1 year contract is also a good thing from the clubs perspective

9 hours ago, hillie said:

 

 I couldn't care less if we are nice to deal with. Gees. that is the last thing id care about. I want the best deal for the club. Hold your ground. i'll give Mahoney something, he was honest when explaining the positions of the deals in his running commentary. this is what I base it off. He stated in the lever deal a first and second round was fair and the crows wanted two first rounders. what did we give up? 2 first rounders with some loose change.

 

With watts - despite the club really treating the whole situation poorly and diminishing your trade position by being so public, what did he think in the watts deal was fair? early second round. What did we get? a late second round? and no pick upgrades to compensate. Deals were done in record time and basically gave in. it was as if he didn't want to have the conversations. I'm sure he did. but gave in far to easily. Look at carlton. all their deals were done in the last few hours and on their terms and in their favour. take a lesson from SOS.

 

End

Yawn, What was the Gibbs deal again? Didn't Carlton get more because the crows held out?

No offence i agree with you in principle but  without better evidence i don't know what your talking about 

Edited October 23, 20177 yr by Unleash Hell

He seems to be quite clearly stating that the deals that we ultimately agreed to didn't reflect the terms that Mahoney stated very publicly prior to each trade that he regarded would represent reasonable terms in each case.

That said, I like the fact that the club doesn't play North Korean brinkmanship and seeks to execute the deals quickly and efficiently and within an acceptable range (from the club's perespective).

 

21 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

He seems to be quite clearly stating that the deals that we ultimately agreed to didn't reflect the terms that Mahoney stated very publicly prior to each trade that he regarded would represent reasonable terms in each case.

That said, I like the fact that the club doesn't play North Korean brinkmanship and seeks to execute the deals quickly and efficiently and within an acceptable range (from the club's perespective).

 

Do you think these keyboard heroes taking potshots know the difference between a public position and a private position when it comes to negotiating? Do you think other clubs would have thrown the kitchen sink at Lever? I do.

Picks are overated compared with proven talent.

People seem to want to get caught up with speculation and winning or losing trades.

If you compare the Gibbs and Lever trades on face value one would agree a 21 to AA nominee was traded for the same value as a 29 yo A grade mid.

One club made their trade happen, the other waited 12 months.

2 questions 

Who would  u prefer for 2 first rd picks? The 21 yo or the 29 yo?

And, was the 12 months worth the wait for the crows? Some might even argue they paid more

Why do people rate draft picks so highly on this site when clearly the strategy to accumulate high picks over a long period of time has not reaped rewards?

 

Edited October 23, 20177 yr by Unleash Hell

28 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

He seems to be quite clearly stating that the deals that we ultimately agreed to didn't reflect the terms that Mahoney stated very publicly prior to each trade that he regarded would represent reasonable terms in each case.

That said, I like the fact that the club doesn't play North Korean brinkmanship and seeks to execute the deals quickly and efficiently and within an acceptable range (from the club's perespective).

 

No arguement with the principal arguement from you and @hillie

But who determines the trade value of these players in the argument?

 

Edited October 23, 20177 yr by Unleash Hell

On 10/20/2017 at 5:03 AM, demoniac said:

Kicking wise his longs irons sem good, but work needed on short irons. Nice intensity and footy smarts.

He does look like he jumps in the air to kick the ball in a toe pokey kind of way but in the middle of the boot (Middle poke?) - Reminds me of Tyson, with the chip kicks. But that jumping kick style looks as though its propelling his body forward for the one two which Tyson doesnt really have the burst for. Excited to see that he looks like he does have some natural acceleration and athletic power.

Edited October 23, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

10 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

People seem to want to get caught up with speculation and winning or losing trades.

If you compare the Gibbs and Lever trades on face value one would agree a 21 to AA nominee was traded for the same value as a 29 yo A grade mid.

One club made their trade happen, the other waited 12 months.

2 questions 

Who would  u prefer for 2 first rd picks? The 21 yo or the 29 yo?

And, was the 12 months worth the wait for the crows? Some might even argue they paid more

Why do people rate draft picks so highly on this site when clearly the strategy to accumulate high picks over a long period of time has not reaped rewards?

 

at no time have I said Adelaide didn't pay overs for gibbs. of course you'd rather lever than gibbs. I don't think it is a choice between 2 first rounders or lever or gibbs either. I have argued that trading next years first rounder so as to give Adelaide exactly what they wanted was not great negotiating. Carlton's definitely benefitted from our negotiating that is for sure.

I heard on the radio peter Jackson talking about the points value of picks. The points value of picks only really matters when your are trying to claim a father son or academy player. The odds of a first round pick are much better than the odds of a second round pick in turning out to be a 200 gamer. And in the context of what many in the industry judge to be a strong draft next year, i believe we should have stood firmer than we did. 

I do hope with our 2, 3rd rounders next year that we may be able to benefit as we have in the past from the points and bidding system in jumping up the draft. There are a lot more father sons and academy players on offer next year for us to take advantage of this.

A few years down the track as always we will be able to judge the lever and watts deals with greater knowledge. I look forward and really hope that picks 31 and 36 are wisely selected and so that these deals can be judged a success for us.  I also hope that Adelaide's selection from us is pick 18 next year, in which case these deals will be long forgotten or considered a masterstroke.

 

 

1 minute ago, hillie said:

at no time have I said Adelaide didn't pay overs for gibbs. of course you'd rather lever than gibbs. I don't think it is a choice between 2 first rounders or lever or gibbs either. I have argued that trading next years first rounder so as to give Adelaide exactly what they wanted was not great negotiating. Carlton's definitely benefitted from our negotiating that is for sure.

I heard on the radio peter Jackson talking about the points value of picks. The points value of picks only really matters when your are trying to claim a father son or academy player. The odds of a first round pick are much better than the odds of a second round pick in turning out to be a 200 gamer. And in the context of what many in the industry judge to be a strong draft next year, i believe we should have stood firmer than we did. 

I do hope with our 2, 3rd rounders next year that we may be able to benefit as we have in the past from the points and bidding system in jumping up the draft. There are a lot more father sons and academy players on offer next year for us to take advantage of this.

A few years down the track as always we will be able to judge the lever and watts deals with greater knowledge. I look forward and really hope that picks 31 and 36 are wisely selected and so that these deals can be judged a success for us.  I also hope that Adelaide's selection from us is pick 18 next year, in which case these deals will be long forgotten or considered a masterstroke.

 

 

I have no problems with what you have said at all.

My point about the bolded bit is - you like others have thought the initial MFC offer was fait accompli

Without knowing the exact specifics of the negotiation (which your saying should have been take it or leave it), I prefer the deal to be done and Lever's fate and respect for the club in tact then his fate being in limbo and the potential for him to go elsewhere.

What is your blind faith that Adelaide would fold and accept our offer rather then let him go to the draft? They were very vocal in their hard line stance for 'fair' compensation at the start of negotiations.

Also Lever as a restricted free agent could have his contract matched or re-offered by Adelaide, if he wasn't traded he would have to be de-listed by Adelaide then enter a draft (being the ND or pre season).

North, Pies, Blues and Dogs were all before us and especially the Pies and Dogs would have been very keen

 

 

23 minutes ago, hillie said:

at no time have I said Adelaide didn't pay overs for gibbs. of course you'd rather lever than gibbs. I don't think it is a choice between 2 first rounders or lever or gibbs either. I have argued that trading next years first rounder so as to give Adelaide exactly what they wanted was not great negotiating. Carlton's definitely benefitted from our negotiating that is for sure.

I heard on the radio peter Jackson talking about the points value of picks. The points value of picks only really matters when your are trying to claim a father son or academy player. The odds of a first round pick are much better than the odds of a second round pick in turning out to be a 200 gamer. And in the context of what many in the industry judge to be a strong draft next year, i believe we should have stood firmer than we did. 

I do hope with our 2, 3rd rounders next year that we may be able to benefit as we have in the past from the points and bidding system in jumping up the draft. There are a lot more father sons and academy players on offer next year for us to take advantage of this.

A few years down the track as always we will be able to judge the lever and watts deals with greater knowledge. I look forward and really hope that picks 31 and 36 are wisely selected and so that these deals can be judged a success for us.  I also hope that Adelaide's selection from us is pick 18 next year, in which case these deals will be long forgotten or considered a masterstroke.

You are obsessed with "winning" the trade period. My humble suggestion is you focus on Melbourne winning games and don't worry about what other clubs do or don't do.

1 minute ago, Unleash Hell said:

I have no problems with what you have said at all.

My point about the bolded bit is - you like others have thought the initial MFC offer was fait accompli

Without knowing the exact specifics of the negotiation (which your saying should have been take it or leave it), I prefer the deal to be done and Lever's fate and respect for the club in tact then his fate being in limbo and the potential for him to go elsewhere.

What is your blind faith that Adelaide would fold and accept our offer rather then let him go to the draft? They were very vocal in their hard line stance for 'fair' compensation at the start of negotiations.

Also Lever as a restricted free agent could have his contract matched or re-offered by Adelaide, if he wasn't traded he would have to be de-listed by Adelaide then enter a draft (being the ND or pre season).

North, Pies, Blues and Dogs were all before us and especially the Pies and Dogs would have been very keen

 

 

Lever was not any kind of free agent. just out of contract.

and yes if i were the dogs or pies i would take him in the draft if it got that far.

 

but Melbourne stated offer of a first and second was about right. Even if it cost a bit more but avoiding the loss of next years first rounder i could understand. However, using the arbitrary points associated with the pick  to equate it to pick 5 i don't really agree with. As i said before, that only comes into things when father sons or academy players are up for grabs.

Anyway. it's done now and there was and is nothing i can do about it.

 

Go Dees.

On 22/10/2017 at 2:59 AM, Late Draft Pick said:

Rafiki said: "I have heard some not so good stories about him from people in the business"

Hakiyamungu Rafiki. Wewe rafiki mbaya. Good gratious 'rafiki' you are a bad friend.

Change your name to Shetani,  Satan, though its pretty hard to not pass on those stories eh,? lol.

I'm really very happy with Balic and from what I have read only I am pretty sure he will fit in and will play good games for us next year.

 

 

 

On 22/10/2017 at 1:43 PM, Skuit said:

This is a cool post. I wish I had posted it.

?. Had I done so, it would at least give my psychiatrist something to work on to earn his money. 

 

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

You are obsessed with "winning" the trade period. My humble suggestion is you focus on Melbourne winning games and don't worry about what other clubs do or don't do.

Mate, This time of year and from about june onwards, the draft is all we have had to look forward to the past 10 years.

 

a good trade/draft period helps with that outcome. i barrack for the MFC in everything. and i am sick of losing and the club being a laughing stock. i'll support a red and blue painted fly climbing up a wall if i thought it'd help us achieve a flag.

21 minutes ago, hillie said:

but Melbourne stated offer of a first and second was about right.

Defeats the purpose of making a starting offer if thats where you eventually want to compromise to. Next time offer 10 and a 3rd round eh?

Edited October 24, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

1 minute ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Defeats the purpose of making a 'starting offer' if thats where you eventually want to compromise to. Next time offer 10 and a 3rd round eh?

you're kind of helping my point ...

3 minutes ago, hillie said:

you're kind of helping my point ...

Not that i'm debating with you, i'm not fussed one way or the other, but i'm pointing out that a starting offer shouldn't be about right, but unders. But i misread 'stated' for 'started' so don't mind me.

All the Melb Clubs were standing around for the first four days of the draft waiting for the biggest transfer of the year to fall over, and it didn't, even with the inordinate amount of pressure put on by the rabble. Cool heads prevailed same as last year........

Forget the write ups about who won, they all picked up replacement crumbs. We built onto our side.....