Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
2 hours ago, Redleg said:

That’s what McCartney is probably pushing for a better deal than his profile demands.

We are quick to trade players for unders and are probably seen as a soft touch and then pay overs to trade in to get the deal done.

Imagine paying what you get for Nibbler for an untried player of 23 years old. 3rd in our B and F last night and a Premiership player who never misses a game for a maybe. 

We traded Bedford for 44 and he is now a regular in their team and as described by them one of their most important tagging/pressure/goal assist players.

I think most of us here have serious concerns over our recent recruiting decisions - hopefully our form improves dramatically on this front 

5 minutes ago, seventyfour said:

Every year there are fringe player swho wants to leave, but the clubs who hold them label them as a "required player".

They always end up being traded, often on the last day and for late picks.

It'll get done.

Adelaide refused to trade E Himmelberg to the Giants last year because they couldn’t secure a tall replacement. He was older with more exposed form as an ordinary player.

Id have this as a genuine 50:50.

 
Just now, DeeSpencer said:

Adelaide refused to trade E Himmelberg to the Giants last year because they couldn’t secure a tall replacement. He was older with more exposed form as an ordinary player.

Id have this as a genuine 50:50.

And didn’t that work out well for them. Lost him a year later for SFA

McCartney once in a while likes to play this tough guy act after letting plenty leave and then randomly tell someone they have no interest in they can’t go to send a message 

 

would be awful to do that considering their situation. I remember they did it to Bobby Hill

 

ill try find out more 


On 24/09/2024 at 14:40, 58er said:

Do you really know anything about Wade ?

Others that are posting seem to have some knowledge and are relatively keen. 

I’d back them rather than your off handed comment. 

From my view this year we had no back up for Max. He would look to offer more than others at Casey.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Adelaide refused to trade E Himmelberg to the Giants last year because they couldn’t secure a tall replacement. He was older with more exposed form as an ordinary player.

Id have this as a genuine 50:50.

He would have to offer more than those at Casey this year.

7 hours ago, 58er said:

You make some outlandish statements RIF 

He has a good profile for no AFL games so far and is very versatile in ruck back or forward. 

Probably equivalent or ahead of Jeffo in experience. Good size also. 
Hope we can lure him for next year.

Whilst I do love some outlandish statements this one regarding a 23 year old maybe ok player isn't one of them. I still think we'll get him but GWS want us to pay more it appears.

 

Just check in on this with the original source and it seems that GWS are pretty adamant they will not trade him

 

Too Important to lose a versatile tall during a window.

 

Unless they are able to find their own replacement (himmelberg already rejecting them) I’m not sure how we can get this done.

2 minutes ago, Deez21 said:

Just check in on this with the original source and it seems that GWS are pretty adamant they will not trade him

 

Too Important to lose a versatile tall during a window.

 

Unless they are able to find their own replacement (himmelberg already rejecting them) I’m not sure how we can get this done.

Maybe they should give the bloke a game if he has so much going for him 

From what Ive seen of GWS he is a long way back in the pecking order - he will likely spend another year languishing in the 2s 

Not sure he’s in our best 22 but closer than GWS imo - not great player management from them tbh 


Have there been many circumstances where a fringe/depth player nominates for another club for more opportunity or more importantly for better family support with his young children and the club simply says no?

I think what we're seeing is GWS promoting publicly that he's an important player to them they would like to keep, simply to raise the asking price.

Its all posturing I reckon. 

25 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Have there been many circumstances where a fringe/depth player nominates for another club for more opportunity or more importantly for better family support with his young children and the club simply says no?

I think what we're seeing is GWS promoting publicly that he's an important player to them they would like to keep, simply to raise the asking price.

Its all posturing I reckon. 

Might get pick 50 instead of pick 60 for him now

50 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Maybe they should give the bloke a game if he has so much going for him 

From what Ive seen of GWS he is a long way back in the pecking order - he will likely spend another year languishing in the 2s 

Not sure he’s in our best 22 but closer than GWS imo - not great player management from them tbh 

Yep they had periods of the season where Taylor Buckley and Aliir were out 

and ended up playing Keefe in a final

 

can see why Dersken would feel hard done by

 

Coach and list manager should have a chat 

20 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Perhaps, but what would our response be if Matthew Jefferson requested a trade elsewhere?

Well done for putting one good VFL season together, Matthew, you'll be in our plans next season if you continue to improve. Just look at the apprenticeship JVR had before coming in and getting games as well.

1 minute ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Exactly. So I think we can understand the response from GWS about a developing tall who hasn't had a chance yet then. Of course, we all know they're likely bluffing, but it's not a ridiculous response really.

Jefferson wasn't anywhere near the required standard until about half way through this VFL season though. He started in the back pocket such were his struggles...


10 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Agree that his second half of the season was far better, and given he was named emergency multiple times he was clearly close to selection - But really that is irrelevant to the point which is clubs wanting to hold on to developing talls even if they haven't had a senior chance yet.

The Jefferson comparison was in response to another poster who seemed a bit miffed by GWS not being willing to trade Derksen given he hasn't played seniors, but it's really not as simple as that is it?

Fair enough, I just think we also invested a first round pick in Jefferson. Derksen was a mid season draft pick.

Anyway, onward.

GWS know that he's way more valuable to us than he is to them......They want more for him than we're offering. If we actually have been tracking him and see further potential it's not out of the question that GWS squeeze a F2 out of us. That's called overpaying but our track record says we do that. 

On 05/10/2024 at 10:50, adonski said:

What a strange player for the Giants to play hardball on

Someone Giants-related spoke about this scenario the other day in the media (I am going to say it was Bartel but can’t remember) - they have a growing problem with young players they’re developing putting their hand up and saying they're either homesick or looking for more opportunity… the insinuation was this isn’t an issue for southern- states teams.

 

Their stance might be less about Diggler specifically and more about sending a message to their playing list. 

1 hour ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Perhaps, but what would our response be if Matthew Jefferson requested a trade elsewhere?

One was a pick 15, the other’s a mid season draft pick. Apples and oranges.

23 minutes ago, Dee Boys said:

One was a pick 15, the other’s a mid season draft pick. Apples and oranges.

But good list management means you all but disregard a players draft spot the moment the draft is finish. It’s largely irrelevant. Forget draft position, he’s a young tall who’s shown promise at both ends.

The better argument is Jeffo is 20 and Wade is 23. 

So not only has he had more time as a mature body ready to play games he’s also now at the stage where you’re almost harming his career if you don’t get games in to him.

That said, he was the one who chose financial security signing on for 2 years at the end of last year knowing he was down the pecking order. He could’ve done a 1 year deal and be guaranteed to be on the way out. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.


On 05/10/2024 at 15:35, Roost it far said:

Whilst I do love some outlandish statements this one regarding a 23 year old maybe ok player isn't one of them. I still think we'll get him but GWS want us to pay more it appears.

Posturing I would believe 

On 05/10/2024 at 08:09, Sydee said:

His CV reminds me of a slight downgrade on Fullerton 

Not sure it’s a big deal either way but I will be furious if we hand over pick 25 for this bloke 

Yes he is. Not a second round pick. 

 
13 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Perhaps, but what would our response be if Matthew Jefferson requested a trade elsewhere?

🥴😵😵‍💫🤯


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?

      • Like
    • 47 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.

    • 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.

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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? 

    • 4 replies