WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - HARLEY BALIC

[Moonshadow 17,675]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Is he another Val Mitchie?

More like a Val Perovic

[Demon Jack 6,862]

Crozier (who's been a handy player for Freo) was just traded to the Dogs for pick 40. 

Surely Fremantle can't justify demanding anything before that for Balic?

[Adzman 2,154]

11 minutes ago, Demon Jack said:

Crozier (who's been a handy player for Freo) was just traded to the Dogs for pick 40. 

Surely Fremantle can't justify demanding anything before that for Balic?

Agreed. Freo just showed their hand and the bluff is off. 4th round Pick based for balic based on that deal

 

[Jibroni 4,987]

Reports indicate Balic is a certainity to come to the Dees:

"Melbourne is also set to secure a deal for wantaway Fremantle youngster Harley Balic. The Demons are likely going to part with Pick 46 in exchange for the 20-year-old, who has requested a return home to his native Victoria during this year’s trade period.

From: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-trades-2017-melbourne-sets-asking-price-for-jack-watts-set-to-secure-fremantles-harley-balic/news-story/648952ee6bbb9f6e4d3d266ce47b8872

[Hunt29 275]

Reckon if we are offering 46 for Balic we may be paying overs. Crozier who has proven himself somewhat for 40. We could probably get him for a pick in the 60s. Balic is worth a punt though and if we give up 46 so be it. Thought he played well against us this year. 

Although we may not use 46 if we have 26 and 35. Plus what we get for Watts. 

[DeeSpencer 25,467]

12 minutes ago, Hunt29 said:

Reckon if we are offering 46 for Balic we may be paying overs. Crozier who has proven himself somewhat for 40. We could probably get him for a pick in the 60s. Balic is worth a punt though and if we give up 46 so be it. Thought he played well against us this year. 

Although we may not use 46 if we have 26 and 35. Plus what we get for Watts. 

Paying overs is what we do. I made a thread about it 

Do we have more than 3 list spots available? We might only take the 3 picks anyway.

Not convinced that Balic isn't worth about the same as Crozier. Crozier has proven to be pretty ordinary in the 4 or 5 years he's been in the system. Balic has more time to improve.

[SFebes 4,884]

1 hour ago, Hunt29 said:

Reckon if we are offering 46 for Balic we may be paying overs. Crozier who has proven himself somewhat for 40. We could probably get him for a pick in the 60s. Balic is worth a punt though and if we give up 46 so be it. Thought he played well against us this year. 

Although we may not use 46 if we have 26 and 35. Plus what we get for Watts. 

And who besides Balic would take with the delicious pick 46? No brainer, 46 or 146, just get him here. Not going to draft talent there at 46 this year

[Red and Blue realist 2,051]

At a guess if we gave pick 64 or whatever or 4th is, then pick 46 will be used to upgrade J Smith, so in the grand scheme it doesn't matter which pick we use

[Hunt29 275]

I guess I was thinking if we didn't trade Watts we could use 46 in the draft and trade a later pick for Balic. But Watts likely to be traded anyway. 

Also we got Hannan around the 46 pick last year. That's worked out well. 

[DemonOX 8,783]

2 hours ago, Hunt29 said:

Reckon if we are offering 46 for Balic we may be paying overs. Crozier who has proven himself somewhat for 40. We could probably get him for a pick in the 60s. Balic is worth a punt though and if we give up 46 so be it. Thought he played well against us this year. 

Although we may not use 46 if we have 26 and 35. Plus what we get for Watts. 

Paying Overs = MFC

Simples!

Edited October 13, 2017 by DemonOX

[Redleg 40,834]

3 minutes ago, Hunt29 said:

I guess I was thinking if we didn't trade Watts we could use 46 in the draft and trade a later pick for Balic. But Watts likely to be traded anyway. 

Also we got Hannan around the 46 pick last year. That's worked out well. 

A couple of pick 53's have been handy for us as well.

[Tough Kent 2,137]

List update- Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy, Watts* out

Joel Smith upgrade, Lever, Balic* in. The Smith upgrade would be one of 3 compulsory draft picks. We have pick 28 and 35, so depending on what we get for JW, we probably won’t use pick 45 anyway. 

We have one rookie spot left and Corey Maynard becomes a category A rookie which means he can play round one.

Did I get that right?

Edited October 13, 2017 by Tough Kent
Grammatical error

[Hunt29 275]

2 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

List update- Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy, Watts* out

Joel Smith upgrade, Lever, Balic* in. The Smith upgrade would be one of 3 compulsory draft picks. We have pick 28 and 35, so depending on what we get for JW, we probably won’t use pick 45 anyway. 

We have one rookie spot left and Corey Maynard becomes a category A rookie which means he can play round one.

Did I get that right?

Yep sounds about right. Adding Lever Balic and having those two picks is decent. I know they're saying it's a shallow draft but we'll have players in mind. 

[Hunt29 275]

Or Geelong hand us 21 for Watts. Then we have 2 picks inside 30. But that's wishful thinking. 

[Redleg 40,834]

31 minutes ago, Hunt29 said:

Or Geelong hand us 21 for Watts. Then we have 2 picks inside 30. But that's wishful thinking. 

Which they said they won't do.

[rpfc 28,262]

4 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

List update- Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy, Watts* out

Joel Smith upgrade, Lever, Balic* in. The Smith upgrade would be one of 3 compulsory draft picks. We have pick 28 and 35, so depending on what we get for JW, we probably won’t use pick 45 anyway. 

We have one rookie spot left and Corey Maynard becomes a category A rookie which means he can play round one.

Did I get that right?

We might want to keep ND45 and package up a couple of hose other picks to get back into the first round...

Mahoney keeps doing things like that - I think it is admirable we look to get as much quality chances as possible. Sound strategy if you have identified a talent you want to be in position to select.

[ignition. 1,463]

19 hours ago, Demon Jack said:

Crozier (who's been a handy player for Freo) was just traded to the Dogs for pick 40. 

Surely Fremantle can't justify demanding anything before that for Balic?

Yep agreed.

If Mahoney an Co. fold on this one it will be infuriating.

I believe Balic has the potential to be a very good player. However, based on his track record there is no need to jump the gun. It would take away from the original concept of targeting him (maximising the success of late picks).

[MadAsHell 4,212]

6 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

List update- Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy, Watts* out

Joel Smith upgrade, Lever, Balic* in. The Smith upgrade would be one of 3 compulsory draft picks. We have pick 28 and 35, so depending on what we get for JW, we probably won’t use pick 45 anyway. 

We have one rookie spot left and Corey Maynard becomes a category A rookie which means he can play round one.

Did I get that right?

Yep,

Once Watts is traded, that's 7 list spots we've created (6 senior & 1 rookie).  Although promoting J.Smith makes it 5 & 2.

The addition of Lever & Balic (when done) leaves us at 3 & 2.  Allows us to either make one last stealth trade for an outside running midfielder (Aaron Hall/Luke Dalhaus perhaps) or pick up a delisted free agent (Zac Clarke, Sharrod Wellingham etc) .  Take 2 picks to the ND & 2 to the RD.

[Dee-licious 1,949]

aren’t all our rookie spots taken? 

[Wilson7 2,649]

5 minutes ago, Dee-licious said:

aren’t all our rookie spots taken? 

They are mate, this will be the first time we have not had a rookie draft selection

Filipovic, Tim Smith, Maynard & Keilty are the rookies. Joel Smith will be upgraded to the senior list

[MadAsHell 4,212]

5 minutes ago, Dee-licious said:

aren’t all our rookie spots taken? 

Nope.  Mitch White's been delisted.

Maynard promoted to Cat A rookie & Joel Smith promoted to senior list.

Your allowed a total of 6 Category A & B rookies.  So assuming we don't sign any Category B rookies then we can take 2 picks to the rookie draft.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

4 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

They are mate, this will be the first time we have not had a rookie draft selection

Filipovic, Tim Smith, Maynard & Keilty are the rookies. Joel Smith will be upgraded to the senior list

You sure about that DN9, my understanding was different.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players

Edited October 14, 2017 by MadAsHell
link

[Wilson7 2,649]

27 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

You sure about that DN9, my understanding was different.

Last year our list was made up of 40 primary, 4 cat a rookies and 2 cat b rookies. 46 is the list limit, which includes 2 cat b rookies. You can have 38 on primary list and 6 cat a rookies if you please,

The max on primary list is 40, which means you can have 4 cat a rookie listed players like we did last year (Keilty,TSmith,White,Filipovic. You can also add 2 cat b rookies, we had 2 last season (Maynard,JSmith).

I hope that makes sense mate

At the moment we have 3 spots on the primary list, 0 cat a rookie spots and 2 cat b rookie spots

Edited October 14, 2017 by DavidNeitz9

[Wilson7 2,649]

26 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Nope.  Mitch White's been delisted.

Maynard promoted to Cat A rookie & Joel Smith promoted to senior list.

Your allowed a total of 6 Category A & B rookies.  So assuming we don't sign any Category B rookies then we can take 2 picks to the rookie draft.

We don't have any cat a rookie spots left. Maynard & Joel Smith are cat b rookies. After promoting Maynard to a cat a rookie and Smith to the primary list we have 0 cat a rookie spots and 2 free cat b rookie spots which cannot be filled by going to the draft. All players selected in the rookie draft are cat a rookies.

[Wilson7 2,649]

45 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

You sure about that DN9, my understanding was different.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players

Hopefully someone can explain it a lot better than i have mate but we will not be having any rookie draft selections this year

Edited October 14, 2017 by DavidNeitz9
spelling