Jump to content

Wade Derksen

SthSea22
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

48 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

"Hey kid, you signed a contract" Might be the response.

I get your point though, I'm still thinking the deal gets done but you're hardly losing sleep not getting Wade Derksen to the club.

How good do you know he might be in2/3 years ? 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    Just now, 58er said:

    How good do you know he might be in2/3 years ? 

    No idea just running the law of averages over a  23 year old mid season selection who hasn’t played a game yet. Always happy to be wrong on these hunches.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

    No idea just running the law of averages over a  23 year old mid season selection who hasn’t played a game yet. Always happy to be wrong on these hunches.

    He’ll be out of contract next year, so if we’re still looking for a player of his type, I’m sure we’ll be able to land him. It’ll be interesting to see if GWS play him next year, if for no other reason than to see why they didn’t let him go 😁.

    Edited by hardtack

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
     

    Looks like end of next year deal now.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Sad 2

    As many other posters have said, I can't see anyway this now gets done. 

    Whilst I completely understand that a club has a prerogative to keep a contracted player, I think GWS' decision here is pretty ordinary. Given the potential ins to the club, i.e. Stringer, and the glut of contracted forwards on their list who are being played or seemingly in-front of Derksen, holding him to the final year of his contract is frustrating.

    I'll be keeping a watch on him next year and I think it will be an interesting scenario if we look to re-attempt the trade next year, noting we've traded our future third, or if it now becomes a one-and-done type of scenario. 

    A disappointing outcome for both parties IMO. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Clap 2

    1 minute ago, Roost it far said:

    If Stringer lands at GWS which seems more than likely does that open the door for Derksen or is it shut? 

    We only have 1 pick left to trade (excluding 5 & 9 of course), which is apparently for Sharp

    Not sure if we're allowed to trade anymore future picks 

    Edited by adonski

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    On 13/10/2024 at 16:59, rjay said:

    It held Max's development back...wasn't a good move by the the FD but then not much was good from them at the time.

     

    I disagree, Max was in need of an attitude adjustment. Some tough love from Roosy was the making of him. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    6 minutes ago, adonski said:

    We only have 1 pick left to trade (excluding 5 & 9 of course), which is apparently for Sharp

    Not sure if we're allowed to trade anymore future picks 

    There's always picks if you want them bad enough as we proved today. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    10 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    I disagree, Max was in need of an attitude adjustment. Some tough love from Roosy was the making of him. 

    It was before Roosy's time...he did need an attitude adjustment but was played out of position.

    I saw him playing for Casey down at Werribee against Willy I think and he more than held his own against Hudson.

    ...but will still tried to make a forward of him.

    Was never going to be...

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    44 minutes ago, adonski said:

    We only have 1 pick left to trade (excluding 5 & 9 of course), which is apparently for Sharp

    Not sure if we're allowed to trade anymore future picks 

    We could do a future pick swap. A swap of F2s and/or F3s could probably benefit GWS.

    Alternatively we could do 9 for 15 + 21 + Derksen if we wanted to get radical.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    34 minutes ago, rjay said:

    It was before Roosy's time...he did need an attitude adjustment but was played out of position.

    I saw him playing for Casey down at Werribee against Willy I think and he more than held his own against Hudson.

    ...but will still tried to make a forward of him.

    Was never going to be...

    Might’ve happened at other times too but in 2015 the Russian played rounds 1-5, Spencer was the main ruck at Casey and got next crack at first ruck after Jamar got injured from from rounds 6-9.

    Roosy was putting the foot down at Max and not letting him ruck at Casey until he got his fitness up.

    The moment he got his chance in 2015 he was a star.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    If we do not get Derksen in this trade period I would keep Tomlinson.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    18 minutes ago, CHF said:

    If we do not get Derksen in this trade period I would keep Tomlinson.

    How does it work if he wants to go somewhere else but no one trades for him (and we still want to keep him).  They no longer have the pre-season draft do they?  

  • Quote
    2 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

    How does it work if he wants to go somewhere else but no one trades for him (and we still want to keep him).  They no longer have the pre-season draft do they?  

    I think that we are in a position that if he is not picked up in the next couple of days he could be picked up at a later stage as a UFA by any club. We could make him a contract offer at any time a I understand it.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    I hope the club don't give up on the pursuit of the DDD (Derk Diggler Deal), looks like an interesting cat.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

    I hope the club don't give up on the pursuit of the DDD (Derk Diggler Deal), looks like an interesting cat.

     

    I dunno how a deal gets done.

    But if GWS get Jake Stringer than it may still be a possibility?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    7 minutes ago, brendan said:

    Didn’t we get a future 3rd back in bombers trade could use that 

    AFL rules don't allow you to trade future 2+ round picks if you've traded out your future first. Because we used our future third in the Adelaide trade, and our future first in the pick 9 trade, our other future picks are currently untradeable 

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    4 minutes ago, Mickey said:

    AFL rules don't allow you to trade future 2+ round picks if you've traded out your future first. Because we used our future third in the Adelaide trade, and our future first in the pick 9 trade, our other future picks are currently untradeable 

    you can, AFL just needs to tick it off. With 2 year future pick trading coming in next year, i doubt it wouldnt be signed off

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Gut feel is that GWS will relent once Stringer deal goes through. Derksen's trade value should be no more than a late pick swap. A pick in the 60's should suffice.

    Not sure who his agent is, but if he's desperate to leave for family reasons, the agent would be putting pressure on GWS with threats of future dealings with the club.

    Edited by mo64

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    7 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

    you can, AFL just needs to tick it off. With 2 year future pick trading coming in next year, i doubt it wouldnt be signed off

    I thought that related just to trading F1s? I.e., you haven't taken at least 2 1st round picks in 4 years, so you can't trade another future 1st. I may be wrong.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    22 minutes ago, mo64 said:

    Gut feel is that GWS will relent once Stringer deal goes through. Derksen's trade value should be no more than a late pick swap. A pick in the 60's should suffice.

    Not sure who his agent is, but if he's desperate to leave for family reasons, the agent would be putting pressure on GWS with threats of future dealings with the club.

    It would require a bit of work at this stage to complete IMO, given our current draft hand and that we've offered Pick 49 to the Lions. We also have the consideration of needing points for the potential acquisition of Kalani White next year, should he nominate us, so I'm not too sure how we'd wrangle a mid-late future next year for Derksen (especially given the changes to the draft index). 

    I'm not definitively stating it can't be done, but it's precariously placed should GWS relent. 

    Edited by BLWNBA

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Only option we have to play with is future picks swaps. 

    Melb F2 and F3 for GWS F2 and F3. We need to end with a F2 and a F3 no matter who's pick it is.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      • 170 replies
      Demonland

    • 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
      • 46 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 328 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All