Jump to content

Featured Replies

Saints offer to Dougal Howard is $600k a year for five years.

 

I wouldn't be going after Hill with Langdon on the way. Seriously, you go through the stats and Langdon is equal, if not even superior to Hill. He's not as easy on the eye, but that would probably be why he is cheaper, substance over style in my mind.

Below is a summary of the two from last season:

image.thumb.png.a2636f2c0f156be2785f4b1e2d6f554e.png

 

The first week of trade window is effectively over.  There have been 6 player movements:

FA: Ellis, Tomlinson, Ellis-Yeoman, Birchall,

Trades: Frost, Langdon.

Our club enhances its reputation to gets deals done!

 

As an aside, only 2 trades for a week shows they should shorten the trade period. 

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

Where is the poster who said we haven’t done anything and Saints and Carlton are killing it. 

They have done nothing and we are the only club who has done the 2 trades predicted.


 
27 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Melbourne says it would take an extraordinary deal to trade away its No. 3 pick after locking in both of its wingmen for the long-term future.

..................followed up by a load of waffle................

But while rival clubs will come to the Demons with offers for their No. 3 pick, with players like young Victorian midfielder Hayden Young around that mark, it would have to be an amazing offer.

“Right now we are very happy to keep pick three. There are very good players at the top end of the draft and it would need to be something really attractive from a club. Right now our preference is to keep the pick,” he said.

Having missed out on Collingwood free agent Jamie Elliott, the Demons are more likely to look internally or in the national draft to try to find another small forward.

 

 


I'm pretty happy with our work so far, we have gotten who we said we would, and they fill a very big hole in the team. I don't know if it's Friday, or the drinks I had after work, but if the boys takea good look at themselves and work hard in the offseason, and play to a good gameplan, I think we have a big 2020 ahead.

A lot of IFS, sure, but I've had a lot of drinks.

 
s3PJqO1n_x96.jpeg
 
A lot of clubs are trying to move up the draft order, including proposing using future picks. Melbourne and Carlton were im told close on a deal that fell over today. Indicative that talent good at top of draft, then falls off, possibly around 7 or 8
7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:
 
s3PJqO1n_x96.jpeg
 
A lot of clubs are trying to move up the draft order, including proposing using future picks. Melbourne and Carlton were im told close on a deal that fell over today. Indicative that talent good at top of draft, then falls off, possibly around 7 or 8

That is disappointing if we were looking to trade pick 3 with Carlton as it suggests that GWS hasn’t approached us with a very good deal. On the other hand what could Carlton offer other than 9 and a player.

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is disappointing if we were looking to trade pick 3 with Carlton as it suggests that GWS hasn’t approached us with a very good deal. On the other hand what could Carlton offer other than 9 and a player.

9 and Walsh!


1 hour ago, Rocky said:

9 and mckay. 

I'd totally do that. McKay is going to be a star. Not sure Carlton would do it though.

I would suggest that our club knows who they would like to target in the draft. Pick 3 would assure that choice. Lower picks probably won’t. Surely for all the pain we went through this past season, the only benefit was assuring ourselves of the best (or 3rd best) available choice at the draft. Keep pick 3.

50 minutes ago, Rocky said:

9 and mckay. 

 

Can't see them parting with McKay. He and Curnow will be twin towers for 8-10 years. They'd offload Casbolt well before that

Edit. would we consider 2019 pick 9 and their future 1st for our 3?  

Edited by Moonshadow

54 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Can't see them parting with McKay. He and Curnow will be twin towers for 8-10 years. They'd offload Casbolt well before that

Edit. would we consider 2019 pick 9 and their future 1st for our 3?  

No. Get pick 3 locked away. 

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Can't see them parting with McKay. He and Curnow will be twin towers for 8-10 years. They'd offload Casbolt well before that

Edit. would we consider 2019 pick 9 and their future 1st for our 3?  

I would. Could be two picks inside 10. If King (or someone else) is up for grabs next year, it's a handy chip. 


2 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

I would. Could be two picks inside 10. If King (or someone else) is up for grabs next year, it's a handy chip. 

Good call mate.

Edited by A F

carlton need pick 9 in order to ensure they have collateral for swans with papley - i can't see what they would have that would tempt us to part with pick 3 from a draft pick perspective

10 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

carlton need pick 9 in order to ensure they have collateral for swans with papley - i can't see what they would have that would tempt us to part with pick 3 from a draft pick perspective

Agreed, unless they were going to part with Harry McKay or Sam Walsh which is not going to happen i can't see what they have to offer

 
42 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

Agreed, unless they were going to part with Harry McKay or Sam Walsh which is not going to happen i can't see what they have to offer

I'd take that dreadful Paddy Cripps bloke off their hands too if they want.

1 minute ago, A F said:

I'd take that dreadful Paddy Cripps bloke off their hands too if they want.

Gee wiz he's a good player, any chance he heads back to Perth though? or are we thinking the Blues have got themselves together enough that he'll stick around?


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 719 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies