Jump to content

Featured Replies

I was vocal at the time that two first rounders for Lever was overs. I'm yet to be proven wrong.

Having said that, Roo would be better served keeping his mouth shut. Their culture is so poor that even club great Andrew Mcleod is speaking out about it now.

Sure, Lever and McGovern trades have worked out OK, but how about the raft of other players the Crows have lost that didn't work out so well? Players like Dangerfield, Cameron, Gunston, and Davis amongst others have all been big losses for the Crows. The Crows are essentially a feeder club at this point.

Edited by Lord Travis

 
11 hours ago, deanox said:

This is a great point. We traded for Lever when we were playing a purely zone defense. No one on one's. The 666 meant we needed to rethink that and we traded for May.

West Coast have done pretty well with Hurn and McGovern as great intercept defenders along with Collingwood and Howe, not to mention Richmond with Rance and Grimes. The intercept defenders remains instrumental in the modern game, regardless of 6-6-6.

Our problem has been a lack of cohesion due to injury and our defensive 6-7 not playing many games together.

Edited by chookrat

16 hours ago, picket fence said:

Yeah Recuiito would say that.... By the way Mark, Why not put your players on PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS 

Gee, you won't need to shell out more than a couple of Hundred per game!! IMAGINE your saving!!

It was also a rallying call-out to their members to get on board,  as the borders were starting to open.

 

Did Ricciuto say how much they are paying Gibbs? 

Very strange comments.


Don't care about Riccuito's opinion on this or any other subject, but the Lever trade has been a disaster for Melbourne. I never liked the deal from the start and Lever has been a passenger since he got to the club. A 195cm defender on $700K plus a year minding small forwards because he doesn't have the strength to take key forwards - only at Melbourne. But hey, at least he can point well.

However you want to frame the deal, we gave up two first round draft picks, one in 2017 and one in 2018. Later picks are immaterial and irrelevant because they hold so little value. The opportunity cost of giving up two first round picks is massive, either viewed in terms of young talent we didn't take or other experienced players we couldn't bring to the club.

 I don't like his salary or the length of his deal, but it is no more stupid than the contracts given to Kolodjashnij, Vandenberg or Goodwin in recent times. It is about time we started equating contracts with performance.

Could have tried to keep Howe on half that amount.

That sort of money for an unaccountable intercept marker is insane.

He has a LOOOONG way to go to prove he was worth that much

Will probably end up being one of the worst deals MFC ever made considering the price in $$'s and draft picks.

Hindsight 'eh. ?

 

It’s funny the crows are in all sorts of a mess and the one person who has overseen this is Mark Ricciuto. 
 

He has got rid of a fair few people there but he seems to be the Teflon man  nothing sticks to the [censored]  

He needs to go imo. 

1 hour ago, ding said:

Could have tried to keep Howe on half that amount.

 

Howe didn't want to stay, though.  He wanted to play at the Pies because Buckley promised to play him forward... and look where he ended up.  In the backline.

Not much we can do about that.


1 hour ago, poita said:

Don't care about Riccuito's opinion on this or any other subject, but the Lever trade has been a disaster for Melbourne. I never liked the deal from the start and Lever has been a passenger since he got to the club. A 195cm defender on $700K plus a year minding small forwards because he doesn't have the strength to take key forwards - only at Melbourne. But hey, at least he can point well.

However you want to frame the deal, we gave up two first round draft picks, one in 2017 and one in 2018. Later picks are immaterial and irrelevant because they hold so little value. The opportunity cost of giving up two first round picks is massive, either viewed in terms of young talent we didn't take or other experienced players we couldn't bring to the club.

 I don't like his salary or the length of his deal, but it is no more stupid than the contracts given to Kolodjashnij, Vandenberg or Goodwin in recent times. It is about time we started equating contracts with performance.

Interesting take. 
Jake has talent, but we haven’t seen it yet, i have always been a fan of Performance Based Contracts

There may well be a lot of love for JL in the room at the MFC, and that is all fine and good

But the bottom line is we paid Top $$$ for a player to do a critical job. 
 

That’s the part i am interested in

17 hours ago, McQueen said:

Wasn't Lever nearly BOG when we smashed the Crows in the Alice by 90 pts?

Mark?

Hello?

?

And Matthew newton won mark of the year...whats your point?

We paid over the top for him but it was a worthwhile gamble. Hopefully contract money front-ended so it's less of an issue when we're paying megabucks for Oliver, Petracca etc... later.

Rotten timing for him to do his knee when he'd just played his first A-grade game for us... against the Crows.

17 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Lever, Pick 37 and Pick 47.

FOR

Pick 10 (2017), pick 19 (2018) and Pick 59 (2018)

 


So, it ended up being...

Jack Lever, Harrison Petty and Matthew Parker (StKilda)

FOR

Lochie O'brien (Carlton), Liam Stocker (Carlton) and Brett Bewley (Fremantle).

 

Looks fine to me.

Petty looks good to me. what did we get from St Kilda ?


2 hours ago, poita said:

Don't care about Riccuito's opinion on this or any other subject, but the Lever trade has been a disaster for Melbourne. I never liked the deal from the start and Lever has been a passenger since he got to the club. A 195cm defender on $700K plus a year minding small forwards because he doesn't have the strength to take key forwards - only at Melbourne. But hey, at least he can point well.

However you want to frame the deal, we gave up two first round draft picks, one in 2017 and one in 2018. Later picks are immaterial and irrelevant because they hold so little value. The opportunity cost of giving up two first round picks is massive, either viewed in terms of young talent we didn't take or other experienced players we couldn't bring to the club.

 I don't like his salary or the length of his deal, but it is no more stupid than the contracts given to Kolodjashnij, Vandenberg or Goodwin in recent times. It is about time we started equating contracts with performance.

based on what ? before his knee he was producing elite levels. had a good round 1, so so round 2.

and I think 1 first rounders is a stretch when we got Harrison Petty at pick 37 as part of the deal.

and I rate Lever miles ahead of Stocker and O'Brien so far.

Lever, Pick 37 and Pick 47.

FOR

Pick 10 (2017), pick 19 (2018) and Pick 59 (2018)

2 hours ago, poita said:

Don't care about Riccuito's opinion on this or any other subject, but the Lever trade has been a disaster for Melbourne. I never liked the deal from the start and Lever has been a passenger since he got to the club. A 195cm defender on $700K plus a year minding small forwards because he doesn't have the strength to take key forwards - only at Melbourne. But hey, at least he can point well.

However you want to frame the deal, we gave up two first round draft picks, one in 2017 and one in 2018. Later picks are immaterial and irrelevant because they hold so little value. The opportunity cost of giving up two first round picks is massive, either viewed in terms of young talent we didn't take or other experienced players we couldn't bring to the club.

 I don't like his salary or the length of his deal, but it is no more stupid than the contracts given to Kolodjashnij, Vandenberg or Goodwin in recent times. It is about time we started equating contracts with performance.

I disagree.  The opportunity cost of what we paid isn't as high as you think it is. 

You'd need 1.7 of those picks to get a 100 gamer. On exposed form, Lever will be a 100 game player.

You'd need 6 of those picks to get an AA caliber player. Lever has already been named in the squad.

Holding on to the picks in the hope that we got 2 100+ gamers or even that we got one player better than Lever was the real gamble play here. We took the statistically smart decision. 

2 hours ago, old dee said:

Why has almost ever interstate recruit jumped ship? 

Remember the early days when players would walk over hot coals for a chance to play there?

17 minutes ago, deanox said:

I disagree.  The opportunity cost of what we paid isn't as high as you think it is. 

You'd need 1.7 of those picks to get a 100 gamer. On exposed form, Lever will be a 100 game player.

You'd need 6 of those picks to get an AA caliber player. Lever has already been named in the squad.

Holding on to the picks in the hope that we got 2 100+ gamers or even that we got one player better than Lever was the real gamble play here. We took the statistically smart decision. 

this

he turned 24 earlier this year; it's hardly like he's washed up

shouldn't even be at his peak, and should develop nicely alongside the other 18-25 year olds on our list:

image.thumb.png.f4df73196483be79dcc83fea0069172c.png

13 of them played in our side's most recent win, and i'd hope that at least ten should be in our best / current 22 when the eldest turns 30

if i was doing a team with them all, right now...

B: Lockhart - O Mac - Smith
HB: Salem - Lever - Rivers
? Langdon - Petracca - Harmes
HF: Hunt - Weideman - ANB
F: Jackson - Fritsch - Pickett
Foll: Preuss - Oliver - Brayshaw
I/c: Hore - Petty - Sparrow - Bedford

that's not a completely terrible 25 and under side by any stretch of the imagination


19 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

There are guys at his club that would walk over hot coals for that sort of coin. Or maybe not. 

 

36 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Remember the early days when players would walk over hot coals for a chance to play there?

Wasn’t a smart idea at all. 

Yikes....I’m out.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Howe didn't want to stay, though.  He wanted to play at the Pies because Buckley promised to play him forward... and look where he ended up.  In the backline.

Not much we can do about that.

Which is why i said "we could have tried".

Yes he initiated the trade by asking if one could be worked out with C'Wood, but we didnt exactly bend over backwards to keep him.

Lever has not been worth anything like the price we paid so far. Most AFL fans would recognise that as a reasonable summary based on what the has produced for us to date.

We can always just keep crossing our fingers though. No harm in hoping for the best.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

On exposed form, Lever will be a 100 game player.

I'm glad about that,  'dox'    ☺️   ?  He's only got 23 to go.

 
50 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Wasn’t a smart idea at all. 

Jeez, not only had that gag about hot coals already been posted, I gave the original post a 'like' at the time as well.

Hello darkness, my old friend...

12 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Jeez, not only had that gag about hot coals already been posted, I gave the original post a 'like' at the time as well.

Hello darkness, my old friend...

Now I know for certain you are old ds.

S and G song 


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

  • 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
    • 123 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
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 381 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies