1 hour ago, Older demon said:

1 Jack doesn't want to go and we cannot make him go as he has a contract and doesn't have to do the clubs bidding.

2. Mahoney was very clear this morning that the club believes pick 10 and next years 2nd round pick is fair for Lever. So now we now MFC's official starting bid as opposed the Crows desire for 2 first round picks (they haven't specified which year these picks are in)

Not to nit pick, but that's not exactly what he said.

What he said is that our offer to Adelaide involves a 1st & 2nd round pick.

When asked, he added that one of those could be a future pick.

So I took that meaning this year 1st + next year 2nd or next years 1st + this years 2nd or both 1st and 2nd for this year.

The "involves" wording also suggests something extra is in the deal like a player or swap of picks.

42 minutes ago, SFebey said:

He was right about Watts leaving Melb and Coll interest. Everyone has a choice to believe/not believe.

No, he's not right yet. Watts is still at Melbourne and I thought Mahoney's interview this morning still indicated a fair chance he can still be at the club next year with a very clear set of expectations attached.

Saying Collingwood are interested is not rocket science, they are perennially interested in most players most years. It's like Nixon saying Essendon and Dodoro are hard to deal with in Trade week.

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

No, he's not right yet. Watts is still at Melbourne and I thought Mahoney's interview this morning still indicated a fair chance he can still be at the club next year with a very clear set of expectations attached.

Saying Collingwood are interested is not rocket science, they are perennially interested in most players most years. It's like Nixon saying Essendon and Dodoro are hard to deal with in Trade week.

I disagree but whatever, nobody had mentioned Watts' name up to that point. Who cares really?

I hope we've made an enquiry about Adam Saad. 

Great speed and tank and can still win his own footy.

2 minutes ago, SFebey said:

I disagree but whatever, nobody had mentioned Watts' name up to that point. Who cares really?

Fair point that Nixon identified Watts pretty early on, but I thought the smoke started with that first thing that Jones put out about Watts a week or two back....

Why would we trade Brayshaw?

12 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Why would we trade Brayshaw?

Are you responding to a poster? I hope it's not something the club is considering.

Edited October 4, 20177 yr by Nascent

10 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Are you responding to a poster? I hope it's not something the club is considering.

A poster, no mention from club. He's very much required for mine

Can somebody tell me why we are chucking the Southern Stand at a 50 game player and paying him more than anybody else in the club. He seems to be good player, but not in superstar class.

Plus we have a few we will need to spend a bit just to keep them in a year !!

Who is he going to kick it to.and what value is it if we do not fix our delivery into the Fwd line . Or is the theory we get rid of our best deliverer or trade a kid who has been injured over the last two years. (he was still a no 3 draft pick and played all the first year.). The mind boggles.

And the main thrust of this thread is complicating the deals. At this rate we will not be able to go to the draft next year because we will have no picks higher than 92

Quote

Did the same with White and Clarke

 

7 minutes ago, Roost It said:

A poster, no mention from club. He's very much required for mine

Cannot believe anyone would consider it. Kid is a jet.

7 minutes ago, dimmy said:

Can somebody tell me why we are chucking the Southern Stand at a 50 game player and paying him more than anybody else in the club. He seems to be good player, but not in superstar class.

Plus we have a few we will need to spend a bit just to keep them in a year !!

Who is he going to kick it to.and what value is it if we do not fix our delivery into the Fwd line . Or is the theory we get rid of our best deliverer or trade a kid who has been injured over the last two years. (he was still a no 3 draft pick and played all the first year.). The mind boggles.

And the main thrust of this thread is complicating the deals. At this rate we will not be able to go to the draft next year because we will have no picks higher than 92

Primarily because of the new EBA - this is the new cost of players who currently are not on your list, that you want to obtain (who are highly rated, or highly rated for potential) - in 4 years time 500k will be 3-4th year player averages who are themselves average... So currently we paying over and above (hate the saying overs/unders...anywho) to have him now...and an inflated rate which will in due course, become the norm, for similar quality players.

Edited October 4, 20177 yr by Danelska

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

How would we get the second first round pick next year?

Unless JW is swapped for a late first round next year. Swans would do that, maybe with a bit of juggling, but he apparently wants to stay in Victoria ( and with us).

How about this:

Melb lose picks 10, 27, 45  + Watts to Gold Coast and receive picks 2 and 24.

Adelaide lose pick 52 + Jake Lever to Melbourne and receive our 2018 first-rounder + pick 24.

Melbourne draft Cam Rayner this year at pick 2.

We win the next five flags.

I'm a genius.

Cheers.

 

Edit : To your initial question, Adelaide would already have their first-round pick for next year. My proposal is based on the idea that Adelaide may want another first-rounder for next year rather than ours from this year given the rumoured strength of next years crop.

Edited October 4, 20177 yr by stevethemanjordan

5 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Edit : To your initial question, Adelaide would already have their first-round pick for next year. My proposal is based on the idea that Adelaide may want another first-rounder for next year rather than ours from this year given the rumoured strength of next years crop.

Plus there are a few good Adelaide boys in next years draft...

2 hours ago, Roost It said:

A poster, no mention from club. He's very much required for mine

 Any update about that story you heard @Roost It?

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

How about this:

Melb lose picks 10, 27, 45  + Watts to Gold Coast and receive picks 2 and 24.

Adelaide lose pick 52 + Jake Lever to Melbourne and receive our 2018 first-rounder + pick 24.

Melbourne draft Cam Rayner this year at pick 2.

We win the next five flags.

I'm a genius.

Cheers.

 

Edit : To your initial question, Adelaide would already have their first-round pick for next year. My proposal is based on the idea that Adelaide may want another first-rounder for next year rather than ours from this year given the rumoured strength of next years crop.

Ricky Nixon on twitter has mentioned this also.

 

2 hours ago, dimmy said:

Can somebody tell me why we are chucking the Southern Stand at a 50 game player and paying him more than anybody else in the club. He seems to be good player, but not in superstar class.

Plus we have a few we will need to spend a bit just to keep them in a year !!

Who is he going to kick it to.and what value is it if we do not fix our delivery into the Fwd line . Or is the theory we get rid of our best deliverer or trade a kid who has been injured over the last two years. (he was still a no 3 draft pick and played all the first year.). The mind boggles.

And the main thrust of this thread is complicating the deals. At this rate we will not be able to go to the draft next year because we will have no picks higher than 92

750k isn't that much these days and I'm sure it will be frontloaded. You pay extra to get a guy, there's no doubting that and it doesn't necessarily throw out your payment schedule for the rest of the players.

In terms of established senior players I think the likes Jones, Hibberd, Jetta, Garlett, Tommy Mc, Gawn, Lewis, Viney and Tyson should be signed and sealed on generous contracts, why should they complain about getting in a good player?

There's room to sign Petracca, Oliver and Hogan to deals worth more than Lever's if they prove superior players. Lever is already one of the best in his position and in the AA squad. A versatile intercepting defender might not be as flashy as a key forward or midfielder but it might be just as important the way footy is played these days.

The Dogs paid a lot more for Tom Boyd and it didn't stop them winning a flag.

7 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

750k isn't that much these days and I'm sure it will be frontloaded. You pay extra to get a guy, there's no doubting that and it doesn't necessarily throw out your payment schedule for the rest of the players.

In terms of established senior players I think the likes Jones, Hibberd, Jetta, Garlett, Tommy Mc, Gawn, Lewis, Viney and Tyson should be signed and sealed on generous contracts, why should they complain about getting in a good player?

There's room to sign Petracca, Oliver and Hogan to deals worth more than Lever's if they prove superior players. Lever is already one of the best in his position and in the AA squad. A versatile intercepting defender might not be as flashy as a key forward or midfielder but it might be just as important the way footy is played these days.

The Dogs paid a lot more for Tom Boyd and it didn't stop them winning a flag.

and converted to pre-cba $s it's about what we (reportedly) payed for dawes 

42 minutes ago, MikeAlphaTango said:

Ricky Nixon on twitter has mentioned this also.

 

Whoa! Has anybody ever seen Ricky Nixon and our own STMJ in the same room?

6 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Oh wow really? Read the post D, its not about hindsight, i was talking to Earl about what was said at the time. I was living in Castlemaine back then, where he is from or around there, and the entire town was talking about him before he had even played an afl game. My point was i wonder what the MFC were told prior to the draft selections, since they didnt even look at him....and yes we know Richmond tried to sell him off......perhaps if you read Earl Hoods original post that may clarify.

What was Martin like back then? Were there obvious signs he would be, shall we say, a singular individual?

The Nixon Tweet is a nice way of putting a rocket under Adelaide.

I thought the bummers were bad to deal with in the sheedy days but this mob have taken the number one for d*%& heads.

22 minutes ago, deebug said:

I thought the bummers were bad to deal with in the sheedy days but this mob have taken the number one for d*%& heads.

They are [censored] that they lose so many players.

They must have a culture problem at the Crows.

Port dont bleed players. 

Just now, Petraccattack said:

They are [censored] that they lose so many players.

They must have a culture problem at the Crows.

Port dont bleed players. 

True maybe they should grow up and start acting like a football club instead of a bunch of f^#* witts?

1 hour ago, dieter said:

What was Martin like back then? Were there obvious signs he would be, shall we say, a singular individual?

Regarding drafting 'difficult' prospects, an ex afl listed player whose wines I represent told me last year Oliver was regarded as a psycho case in the North East area where Oliver played a lot of Junior footy. He said most recruiters stayed well clear of him.

It seems they were wrong. It also seems Melbourne took a gamble. Or they knew something other recruiters didn't.