1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Surely not.

I was disappointed that Simon Goodwin persisted in playing Harmes off half back for so long but also understand that the coach may have considered his midfield as somewhat one dimensional and was less inclined to use him as a tagger, therefore requiring Harmes to fulfill a different role. IMO that didn’t work out. 

While Tom Sparrow is also another of the same kind, we don’t know yet how far he can go with his development so clearly, if the club might feel it necessary to offload someone from the midfield, Harmes is a possibility. This would mean that the club has somebody in mind to recruit because you don’t let go lightly, a loyal player invested in the club like Harmes who supported the Demons as a kid. 

Do you have any intelligence that suggests the club is targeting a reasonably high value player that would necessitate offering Harmes as a trade?

10 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

His best position is defensive mid so play him there. Maybe he can replace Melksham but I’m not a big fan of trying to repurpose players. Just play to his strengths.

If someone gets squeezed out then my preference is Brayshaw. Nothing against Angus just think he has greater currency which can deliver a better player in a trade than Harmes can.

WOW

So you want to get rid of a better player to get greater currency???

Lets just get rid of Gawn instead of Pruess then

Wake up!!

8 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I was disappointed that Simon Goodwin persisted in playing Harmes off half back for so long but also understand that the coach may have considered his midfield as somewhat one dimensional and was less inclined to use him as a tagger, therefore requiring Harmes to fulfill a different role. IMO that didn’t work out. 

While Tom Sparrow is also another of the same kind, we don’t know yet how far he can go with his development so clearly, if the club might feel it necessary to offload someone from the midfield, Harmes is a possibility. This would mean that the club has somebody in mind to recruit because you don’t let go lightly, a loyal player invested in the club like Harmes who supported the Demons as a kid. 

Do you have any intelligence that suggests the club is targeting a reasonably high value player that would necessitate offering Harmes as a trade?

I have no intel at all.  I was just debating this with a friend. 

The club obviously rates him having signed him through to 2022 or 2023 iirc. Doesnt mean he's untradeable but I dont think the club would get all that much for him in a trade that would possibly offset the potential for him to get back to his best imo. 

He seems to be at his most damaging as a half forward with spells in the guts. Really beat me as to why they persisted with off half back this year, however to hazard a guess I think our mid-sized defender stocks was quite short until Rivers came through. I would be very surprised to see Harmes back in defence next year with that back 6-8 looking fairly settled (Hib, May, Lever, Tomo, Salem, Riv)

Has proven when played forward that he can hit the goals and be quite dangerous or when played through the centre can really negate an opposition midfieler's influence. I really see Harmes as a 5th string mid to Trac, Oliver, Viney and Gus, and whether he can squeeze his way through an occasional rotation might depend on quarter lengths next year requiring extra midfield rotations. 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

His best role is as a defensive mid, as evidenced by his stellar 2018, which was kick started when he went onto a Bulldogs player in the second half.  

He's not a wingman and we may have Smith to partner Langdon.

He's not a defender.

Will he get back into Melbourne's midfield ?  I don't think so.  There's no room for Oliver, Viney, Petracca, Brayshaw and the emerging Sparrow plus Harmes. 

Could he be a defensive half-forward who hits the scoreboard ?  He has pace, can take a mark and kick a goal.  If he stays it's about the only opportunity I see for him.

If Brayshaw stays I struggle to see room for Harmes.

This is my thoughts as well.

He showed a lot of promise as a forward. Good hands. Knew where the goals were. He did a great job as a tagger, but really failed off half back. His problem is that he is one of our most versatile players, but we have other, non-versatile, depth in his best positions, so instead of being a second stringer he underperforms in his worst position.

If we move Hannan and ANB on then there is a role for him up forward again.

Otherwise I think trading him to bring in a need (KPF, genuine HBF, wing) is probably best for us and for him.

Trade Harmes ? 

no no no and no 

 

Loves the footy club

 

Just play him in the right position. Defensive midfielder or as a half forward (he’s a good mark and ok kick for goal) 

Id rather keep Harmes than Melksham. I expect Melk costs more too.

6 minutes ago, deanox said:

This is my thoughts as well.

He showed a lot of promise as a forward. Good hands. Knew where the goals were. He did a great job as a tagger, but really failed off half back. His problem is that he is one of our most versatile players, but we have other, non-versatile, depth in his best positions, so instead of being a second stringer he underperforms in his worst position.

If we move Hannan and ANB on then there is a role for him up forward again.

Otherwise I think trading him to bring in a need (KPF, genuine HBF, wing) is probably best for us and for him.

We don't need to trade Harmes to bring in these players. So I'd be playing at half forward.

@Baghdad Bob has opened up a can of worms with this one!

Some journo on twitter later today - "Hearing whispers James Harmes could be traded.  Watch this space."

The half back experiment failed spectacularly which I do find odd given Harmes had gone there in games before and done very well. Trying to play to the game plan seemed to make him worse than when he was moved there and played on instinct. 
 

Harmes’ skills will never be great but his athleticism and competitiveness is excellent. He should tag the competitions best players and rotate between midfield, forward and wing in other games. 
 

Get the whole team playing selfless aggressive footy with rotations and roles and Harmes will be fine. The half back move was well worth trying but it’s clear he’s not worth trying to make in to something he’s not 

40 minutes ago, A F said:

We don't need to trade Harmes to bring in these players. So I'd be playing at half forward.

I'm ok with that. 

But to do so we either need to trade out other high salaries (TMac, etc.) or trade out multiple smaller salaries (ANB, OMac, Hannan), AND find an alternate HBF.

16 minutes ago, deanox said:

I'm ok with that. 

But to do so we either need to trade out other high salaries (TMac, etc.) or trade out multiple smaller salaries (ANB, OMac, Hannan), AND find an alternate HBF.

Brown and Smith will come quite cheaply. If Nev goes, there might be a way of landing Phillips and sending him to the wing and Smith to half back. Otherwise, if we can get back into the first round (via the Preuss deal), the kid Taylor likes can play off half back.

I think we need to find a home for Tom. Hannan will get to the Dogs relatively cheaply I would imagine and Oscar may well end up at the same club as his brother again.

Unless a really good deal comes up, I can't see us trading Brayshaw or Harmes.

1 hour ago, Billy said:

WOW

So you want to get rid of a better player to get greater currency???

Lets just get rid of Gawn instead of Pruess then

Wake up!!

I’m wide awake Billy

You seem to be unfamiliar with some of the basics of trading. The idea is to exchange items of equal value. The objective is to achieve a win win scenario whereby clubs exchange players which fill a need and improve their list overall.

I think Harmes can be very effective in a defensive mid role and is worthy of a spot in the best 22. Brayshaw is worthy as well, has talent no doubt but has been inconsistent. If the club has to trade to fill a need then I think trading Brayshaw for a winger or KFF would deliver a greater overall result than trading Harmes. Hence my post.

For future reference I’d prefer if you respond with an argument why you think trading Brayshaw is a bad idea. Or with an argument why Harmes should or shouldn’t be trade rather than a pot-shot.

I’m happy to hear your thoughts.

I rate Harmes but due to the one dimensional nature of a few of our other midfielders (Viney & Brayshaw in particular, and maybe Sparrow & Jordan when they're given a proper go), there's just not enough spots for them all in the centre square.

Harmes is one of the few that has the speed / running ability to play somewhere else, he's strong and also better than most overhead - but this year showed defence is not his go.  Is that decision making / skills?  Or is it inability to read the game? 

If he plays onball in 2021, who's spot is he taking?  And if not, I wonder whether he could essentially take over form ANB forward next season - can be build his running capacity to do that and be more damaging.

Ultimately his best position is in the middle - and so I thought other teams such as Geelong were trying to entice him away with the promise that he wouldn't be played out of position.

He's one of my favourite players... but I can't see much changing next year unless one of Brayshaw / Harmes / Oliver / Viney / Petracca find a spot outside the centre square where they can excel.  That's what they've tried to do this year and it hasn't worked - so it will not surprise me if he or Brayshaw aren't at the club after the trade period if it allows us to bring in some pace / finishing skills.

1 hour ago, A F said:

...

Unless a really good deal comes up, I can't see us trading Brayshaw or Harmes.

I think you are right on this.

From a culture perspective, a club like MFC can't afford to be too ruthless as we are requesting loyalty from our squad.

So in some ways the best outcome is for some of the quality but not untradable type players to ask to move. They have currency that we can use to improve other areas of our list without robbing Peter to pay Paul. And if they ask to move got more opportunity and we help them, we are the good guys RE culture.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Harmes’ skills will never be great but his athleticism and competitiveness is excellent. He should tag the competitions best players and rotate between midfield, forward and wing in other games. 

Couldn't agree more @DeeSpencer

22 minutes ago, deanox said:

From a culture perspective, a club like MFC can't afford to be too ruthless as we are requesting loyalty from our squad.

So in some ways the best outcome is for some of the quality but not untradable type players to ask to move. They have currency that we can use to improve other areas of our list without robbing Peter to pay Paul. And if they ask to move got more opportunity and we help them, we are the good guys RE culture.

Re the bolded part.

The good guys?  Not if we play them out of position or select then omit them until they get so frustrated they ask to move. 

There are some on the trade table that fall into this category.  Hopefully, it doesn't happen to Brayshaw, Harmes and a couple of others who looked 'out of favour' this year.

It could be better for the culture to cut the 'out of favour' ones lose.  Less potential for disruption among their mates and other players.

Edited October 24, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

4 hours ago, Elegt said:

No. Just play him in the right position

Criminally wasted by Goodwin, played  totally out of position. Needs to be a midfield lockdown player. I would not trade him at all. Played in correct position and he will reclaim his form.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

The half back experiment failed spectacularly

Agreed.  I actually think in the last few games he played before injuries ended his season that he was given more time on ball and inside the forward 50, so I think the penny has dropped there.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Harmes’ skills will never be great but his athleticism and competitiveness is excellent. He should tag the competitions best players and rotate between midfield, forward and wing in other games. 

Agree re his atleticisim and competitiveness, but I actually don't think Harme's skills are bad at all.  He is one of the few we have that can take a strong contested mark inside 50 and maybe his kicking isn't elite, but it's decient enough.  I'd back him in having a set shot over Fritsch and most others.

3 hours ago, A F said:

Sparrow is bog ordinary, otherwise I agree. I'd be keeping Harmes before Sparrow, but clearly Goodwin loves Sparrow. Have no idea why.

Gotta agree on this. I see others rant about Sparrow, but I've not seen him do one thing at AFL level that makes me think he has a future. 

As for Harmes, he needs to work on being flexible. He doesn't get it enough for a player of his type. He's not capable of getting 12 touches but really impacting games with something truly unique. He looks lost in the back half, so this coming year is going to be career defining for him. The good news is I think he's a hard worker.

27 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Re the bolded part.

The good guys?  Not if we play them out of position or select then omit them until they get so frustrated they ask to move. 

There are some on the trade table that fall into this category.  Hopefully, it doesn't happen to Brayshaw, Harmes and a couple of others who looked 'out of favour' this year.

It could be better for the culture to cut the 'out of favour' ones lose.  Less potential for disruption among their mates and other players.

I think they are two sides of the same coin.

If they dont get midfield minutes because Oliver Petracca Viney are ahead of them, I don't think that would be a problem.

If they are being player behind Sparrow ANB and Jordan, fair enough. 

Harmes is a valuable player that can play in a number of positions . Mid, wing,   High forward and is more than a capable stopper..

A good preseason behind him will grasp his chance and  is  good enough to come back from a poor season. 

After all he is only 25 and has plenty of  upside.    He stays  and they won't  trade him . I am sure of. that.

 

Edited October 24, 20204 yr by nosoupforme

He must be played as a tagger, in 2018 he played in the midfield as a tagger, just think since we stopped using a tagger we are not as good a side. 

If he stays, our plan has to be to use him as a mid/forward. He's not a defender and I don't want to see us try to continue pushing that square peg into that round hole.

I don't think our midfield depth is so amazing that we can afford to let Harmes go. I also think Harmes is an upgrade on most of the small/mid forwards we played this year.

Finally, I think we can think outside the box a bit in terms of using him as a defensive midfielder. I reckon there's a way to start him at centre bounces in the forward 6 but to have him push up after the opening bounce to follow someone. 6-6-6 only constrains that opening bounce, not the rest of the play, and I'm sure I recall Collingwood using Greenwood in a similar way.

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Criminally wasted by Goodwin, played  totally out of position. Needs to be a midfield lockdown player. I would not trade him at all. Played in correct position and he will reclaim his form.

Don't disagree... but who are you taking out of the centre square if he is to play that role out of Clarry, Trac, Viney and Brayshaw (and where do they go)?

 

I know others talk about the depth of other midfields.  Our problem (to date) is that our two best players (Trac and Clarry) are the only ones that can play in other positions.