Keep because i want them

Clint Bartram, 20

Matthew Bate, 20

Daniel Bell, 22

Simon Buckley, 20

Cameron Bruce, 28

Nathan Carroll, 27

Aaron Davey, 24

Lynden Dunn, 20

James Frawley, 19

Colin Garland, 19

Brad Green, 26

Paul A. Johnson, 23

Travis Johnstone, 27

Nathan Jones, 20

James McDonald, 32

Brock McLean, 21

Brent Moloney, 24

David Neitz, 33

Michael Newton, 20

Ricky Petterd, 19

Jared Rivers, 23

Russell Robertson, 29

Colin Sylvia, 22

Isaac Weetra, 18

Matthew Whelan, 28

Matthew Warnock, 23

Paul Wheatley, 26

Jeff White, 31

On the list because they are contracted or have a specific role/depth, but are likely to go the following year:

Simon Godfrey, 27

Ben Holland, 30

Adem Yze, 30

Trade Possibilities? (either trade these players or keep them on the regular list. millers size is worth keeping, CJ is young. only delist is we are sure we'll get something worthwhile)

Chris A. Johnson, 22

Brad Miller, 24

Promote from rookie list

Jace Bode, 20

Shane Neaves, 20

Rookies

Daniel Hughes, 21

Daniel Hayes, 19

Gone or should go (all should be offered for trade (except retirees) and if not traded, delisted)

Clint Bizzell

Nathan D. Brown

Byron Pickett

Mark Jamar

Ryan Ferguson

Heath Neville

Daniel Ward

anyone else on the list is up for trade if the price is right. if you are young the price automatically gets heaps higher.

next year will be the last year for holland, neitz, yze, mcdonald and white imo. with five forced delistings on the horizon, we need to dump deadwood this year to ensure we dont lose 12 players this time next year, or get stuck with these players we dont want.

assuming no trades, and that we only draft 18 year old players, we will have to draft 5 players this year (two rookie promotions), and 5 next year.

assuming we keep cj miller and godfrey, our list average will be 23.17 next year, and 22.4 the year after. if we draft some decent kids in the next two years i think our next good shot at a flag is not until 2010, but 2008 we have one more chance with the old guard (if everyone stays fit) and 2009 we only have a chance if the mclean, sylvia, bate, newton, dunn, bell core stands up a treat.

You are a deadset Goose. Absolute trash talk that you have completely fabricated with no thought what so ever.

your brilliant analytical skills and freely-given opinions are valuable and encouraged.

Clint Bartram... Keep, but assess injuries going forward

Matthew Bate ...Keep

Daniel Bell.... Keep

Simon Buckley.. Keep ( for moment )

Nathan Carroll... Retain but trade if viable return

Aaron Davey.. . Retain, evaulate at years end.. possiblke trade going forward

Lynden Dunn.. Keep

James Frawley.. Keep

Colin Garland... Keep ( evaulate for trade in year if not up to scratch..or good fit for us )

Simon Godfrey.. I year..then delist

Brad Green.. Keep..or trade

Ben Holland... Keep I year

Mark Jamar Trade

Paul A. Johnson Trade

Nathan Jones Keep

James McDonald Keep

Brock McLean Keep

Brent Moloney Trade

David Neitz nothing to say ...lol

Michael Newton Keep

Ricky Petterd Keep

Jared Rivers Keep

Colin Sylvia Keep ( evaulate maturity at years end )

Isaac Weetra Keep...for now

Matthew Whelan Trade, or I year

Adem Yze ... Trade, keep if cant

Daniel Ward Trade, delist

Matthew Warnock Keep

Ryan Ferguson Trade

Heath Neville delist

Cameron Bruce.. Trade or keep

Chris A. Johnson... Keep

Travis Johnstone... Trade or Keep

Brad Miller Trade

Russell Robertson Trade or keep

Paul Wheatley Keep

Jeff White Trade or Keep ( unlikely to be able to be traded as reaoity though )

Rookies

Jace Bode... not overly impressed. ..leave as rookie if no one to take place

Daniel Hughes .. leave as rookie, delist if better replacement

Shane Neaves.. promote to list

Daniel Hayes..delist

On the list because they are contracted or have a specific role/depth, but are likely to go the following year:

Simon Godfrey, 27

Ben Holland, 30

Adem Yze, 30

What category does Godfrey fall under, contracted or specific role/depth? And why did Warnock get promoted to our senior list last year, which guaranteed him a 2 year contract?

CC is a very good recruiter, but his list management skills leave a lot to be desired.

.........

So bub, let me get this straight, you are looking at getting rid of (trade or delist) up to 15 players in one fair swoop?

Doesn't that seem like just a touch too many to let go in one go?

Now I am all for the need to re-generate our list, it is a necessity, at this point, but I simply can't see any more than six to eight changes being made this year (three already of course) and then in all likelihood the same number could be made again at the end of the following year if that is required then.

Besides I would have thought that the preference would be to build through the draft, rather than top up in trade.

I am certainly not opposed to trading one of our bigger name players (Bruce would be my preference, but I guess we should look at Johnstone, but I would hold onto Green above these two if I had a choice), but only if something equally as valuable and necessary to the improvement of our list is on the other end.

To me any changes made during trade week will only be done if we can guarantee something better or more important to us in return.

How many players that causes us to lose is totally speculative and even irrelevent, given we have actually got no idea what other teams may want from us or are willing to give us. And we certainly have no idea at this point in time who our new administration could put on the table or what they want or expect in return.

The thing is you wont get rid of that many...as there simply wont be that many deals to go around. But the point is...they are there to be traded. All things on their merits

There wil lbe opportunities for th eclub to deal at various levels of ability and experience. It will just depend on the direction this club wants to go>

as an afterthought...Id change everyone if it would contribute to a Premiership...i really dont care who plays..who wears the jumper..its irrelevent to me.

So whether 5 go..10 go..Im not concerned No ones going to convince me we have 44 at present who will win us a flag.

My goodness, can't we put all these trade/delist topics under one topic?

Bruce won't be traded. He is contracted till 2010.

He is highly paid. We made that huge commitment to him. Deal with it. He is not going anywhere unless he agrees (chance) and another team agrees to give up alot of money (Not likely).

Or we will be forced to partially pay his salary. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT AGAIN.

Bruce won't be traded. He is contracted till 2010.

He is highly paid. We made that huge commitment to him. Deal with it. He is not going anywhere unless he agrees (chance) and another team agrees to give up alot of money (Not likely).

Or we will be forced to partially pay his salary. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT AGAIN.

We trade to improve the list. Your issues are all easily resolvable. They were with Woewodin.

My goodness, can't we put all these trade/delist topics under one topic?

I merged three threads yesterday which were all hitting on the same topic.

We trade to improve the list. Your issues are all easily resolvable. They were with Woewodin.

We pretty much paid for Collingwood in getting him, he did come 2nd in a best and fairest and averaged over 15 possesions a game for them. He wasn't pathetic. Correct if im wrong but surely paying the contract out of someone so highly paid does not at all help your side in the salary cap and year end profit.

We pretty much paid for Collingwood in getting him, he did come 2nd in a best and fairest and averaged over 15 possesions a game for them. He wasn't pathetic. Correct if im wrong but surely paying the contract out of someone so highly paid does not at all help your side in the salary cap and year end profit.

At the end of the day, you trade for the benefit of the list though. While watching Woey run around in a Pies jumper for a couple of years was painful, and we helped fund his Collingwood wage, we now have Daniel Bell. Bell will hopefully be on Melbourne's list for another eight or so years. In hindsight, the trade was fantastic for Melbourne.

We pretty much paid for Collingwood in getting him, he did come 2nd in a best and fairest and averaged over 15 possesions a game for them. He wasn't pathetic. Correct if im wrong but surely paying the contract out of someone so highly paid does not at all help your side in the salary cap and year end profit.

I will.

At the end of 2002, MFC took the brave decision that the structure of the current side was not going to take us further and that changes had to be made. One of them was the make up of our midfield. We had a player who after having workmanlike effort to win the BM in 2000 had been unable to sustain that form and in fact was a 3rd or 4th rung player in the midfield. Furthermore we paying roll royce fees for a camry performance.

The footy department took the view we would seriously challenge for 2 to 3 years and that an overpaid deteriorating footballer had more market in 2002 then once he his contract was up in 2004.

He joined Collingwood and played a fourth rung role behind a better midfield in Buckley, Burns and Licuria. He lived well that year off them (like he had done off the unsung heroics of Powell, Rigoni and Leoncelli in 2000).

But as he his time went on with the Pies, the game got quicker and Woey got slower and slower. He was slow in a midfield that was getting slower.

It was a good move for MFC it acted when it did.

At the end of the day, you trade for the benefit of the list though. While watching Woey run around in a Pies jumper for a couple of years was painful, and we helped fund his Collingwood wage, we now have Daniel Bell. Bell will hopefully be on Melbourne's list for another eight or so years. In hindsight, the trade was fantastic for Melbourne.

Correct Pants

I will.

At the end of 2002, MFC took the brave decision that the structure of the current side was not going to take us further and that changes had to be made. One of them was the make up of our midfield. We had a player who after having workmanlike effort to win the BM in 2000 had been unable to sustain that form and in fact was a 3rd or 4th rung player in the midfield. Furthermore we paying roll royce fees for a camry performance.

The footy department took the view we would seriously challenge for 2 to 3 years and that an overpaid deteriorating footballer had more market in 2002 then once he his contract was up in 2004.

He was let go because we couldn't afford under the cap. It was never said that we did to improve list. At the time we preffered paying Yze big bucks than Woey.

It was never said that he was dead wood and we were trying to fix our list. He originally agreed to a pay cut but we still could not afford him so we partially paid what we could afford of his salary at Collingwood. It was a money issue, not as much a list one.

He was let go because we couldn't afford under the cap. It was never said that we did to improve list. At the time we preffered paying Yze big bucks than Woey.

It was never said that he was dead wood and we were trying to fix our list. He originally agreed to a pay cut but we still could not afford him so we partially paid what we could afford of his salary at Collingwood. It was a money issue, not as much a list one.

He was let go because he had deteroriated as a player and was also being paid well above what he was delivering. He has become a one paced midfielder who could not win contested ball in the midfield.

Yze was paid big bucks because he was performing as a top line midfielder in 2002 and was AA in that year. Its a pity that from 2003 onwards we saw a different Yze. However it is not relevant.

ND and MFC made a deifinitive comment that the side that went into the 2002 final against Adelaide would not take us to a flag and changes had to be made. One of the components was the lack of hard inside midfielders (the likes of McLean, Sylvia and Moloney). In addressing that need Woey did not fit that requirement.

MFC did not accept Woey as a pay cut because he did not fit the criteria the Club wanted to address the shortcomings. For the record, MFC were contracted to pay Woey the higher back ended amount and they were able to afford it. Part of the problem was the back ended contract could be paid but it had to come at the sacrifice of some other player on the list. MFC did not want to make that sacrifice for a player whose performance was rightly assessed as deteriorating.

Your revisionism would make an ardent Creationist blush.

didnt g train retire?

and kosi will prob be out injured anyway...

That's why i wrote their team this year. Because i knew if i didn't write that someone would have tried to correct me.

He was let go because he had deteroriated as a player and was also being paid well above what he was delivering. He has become a one paced midfielder who could not win contested ball in the midfield.

Yze was paid big bucks because he was performing as a top line midfielder in 2002 and was AA in that year. Its a pity that from 2003 onwards we saw a different Yze. However it is not relevant.

ND and MFC made a deifinitive comment that the side that went into the 2002 final against Adelaide would not take us to a flag and changes had to be made. One of the components was the lack of hard inside midfielders (the likes of McLean, Sylvia and Moloney). In addressing that need Woey did not fit that requirement.

MFC did not accept Woey as a pay cut because he did not fit the criteria the Club wanted to address the shortcomings. For the record, MFC were contracted to pay Woey the higher back ended amount and they were able to afford it. Part of the problem was the back ended contract could be paid but it had to come at the sacrifice of some other player on the list. MFC did not want to make that sacrifice for a player whose performance was rightly assessed as deteriorating.

Your revisionism would make an ardent Creationist blush.

I never clamied to be 100% on this.

Just what I thought had occured. I still don't think it was all about ability and the list. I do think money was the major factor.

But I don't know 100% and id be a scummy liar if I claimed to.

Anyway, still on my original point, I really do not think Bruce will be traded, still, due to his contract and he is obviously our best player. However like many needs a kick up the bum.

He was let go because he had deteroriated as a player and was also being paid well above what he was delivering. He has become a one paced midfielder who could not win contested ball in the midfield.

This comment is not correct.

Shane Woewodin, was let go due salary cap reasons.

Someone had to go & because he was being paid the most at our club, it made sense to let him go.

He won a brownlow. Nobody in that category can be called worthless. He struggled at Collingwood because he ran out of heart.

Melbourne will not trade Cameron Bruce. He is our best player. The only reason your even contemplating this is because you have obviously forgotten about his talent & on ground performances. He has been injured all year - He will be back in the Red & Blue next year & will play like he's paid. I assure you.

Trade Possibilities? Where to & for what?

Daniel Bell - Adelaide for first round draft pick / second round and a Victorian kid or perhaps third round plus Meesen?

Cameron Bruce - lower end of the first round in the draft / higher end second round (perhaps Hawthorn, Footscray, Brisbane) or perhaps Cameron Wood directly from the latter?

Chris A. Johnson - West Australian team, hopefully 3rd or 4th round of draft

Brad Miller - don't expect any offers, imagine he's under contract. Will stay on if so.

Colin Sylvia - first round draft pick or similar not-quite-there player from another's list (such as one of Hawthorn's current ruckmen, Fisher from Carlton, etc)

DA. Daniel Bell would be worthy of a low first round draft pick but what's the point of trading a youngster for another. Bell's still got 10ish years left. Meesan will be delisted. Stay clear. A less talented young Mark Jamar.

Bruce will get mid first rounder and anything less, we'll be selling ourselves short. Trade/Stay. Not fussed.

CJ. Will go to any club willing to pick him up.

Miller. Other clubs will enquire as he is a KPP but they won't offer much. I'll take whatever but keep if can't.

Sylvia. Hawks Ruckmen They are Solid but they would laugh and laugh and laugh. Fisher's a decent trade considering Carlton have a lust for high draft picks but I'll probably stick with him and designate a babysitter for him.

your brilliant analytical skills and freely-given opinions are valuable and encouraged.

Thanks buddy.

Not that your alone in this thread but many have no idea how the trade process works.

How many player trades where made in the whole trade period last year?

Yet you and many others are calling for the Dees to make 5-6 in one year.

Ok granted year to year drafts do vary .... However, one club make 5 in one year!!!!!

I make no comment about any of our players because I'm a Melbourne supporter that refuses to belittle any of our players. I take the opinion anybody that crosses that line in a Melbourne guernsey deserves my support ... dont know if you have noticed but AFL football is a damn physical game these days.

Many players play week in week out with serious injuries and WHAMOH at the end of the season you have all these so called "supporters" calling for trades. Half the trades they call for make absolutely no sense ... there one-sided nonsense trades.

Instead I prefer not to jump at shadows and talk facts.

Its nothing to do with "analytical skills and freely-given opinions". I prefer to treat our players with respect.

Fantastic post hangon.......

I agree with you, so well done for articulating what tends to be an unpopular opinion so well.

And keep up the good work :D !!!

they're called 'trade possibilities' for a reason, hangon.

as i see it, the ones i mentioned would be the only ones on our list that perhaps could be valuable to other sides, and get us someting valuable in return.

so the very reason that i suggested the players that i did is that i see them as being potentially valuable to another side, much as they have the possibility to be potentially valuable to us (if they get their 'heads' right, if they learn how to hit a target and not just blaze away, if they can kick more than 35m per foot, if they can learn to use their right side of their body, etc, etc).

i'm certainly not advocating them all, by any means. but perhaps one, two, or three of them could be potentially beneficial for both our club and others too.

you have to give something in order to get something.

they're called 'trade possibilities' for a reason, hangon.

Unfortunately you only have to equate a name with the notion of tradability and some will come running at a gait with foot in mouth lambasting anyone who suggest more than a handful might be tradebait..

As DA suggests..youre simply tagging them ( whomever is looked upon as tradable ) as a "POSSIBILITY" as opposed to some others who you may not want to put onto the table. I tagged more than a dozen...They're just possibilities. In reality ANYONE is for the right deal.

What category does Godfrey fall under, contracted or specific role/depth? And why did Warnock get promoted to our senior list last year, which guaranteed him a 2 year contract?

CC is a very good recruiter, but his list management skills leave a lot to be desired.

i had him in 'depth', and i wasnt sure of his contract status. in the short/medium term i wouldve had godfrey gone, but thought there were many worse performed than him. we seem to have started the cleanout, and i hope there are a few more...

regarding warnock, he is young compared to holland and ferguson...he appears serviceable as a 2nd tall without setting the world on fire. again, there are worse performers than warnock for mine, and as a KPD he has a specific depth role, while some of our depth runners lack the skills required to hurt the opposition...

they're called 'trade possibilities' for a reason, hangon.

as i see it, the ones i mentioned would be the only ones on our list that perhaps could be valuable to other sides, and get us someting valuable in return.

so the very reason that i suggested the players that i did is that i see them as being potentially valuable to another side, much as they have the possibility to be potentially valuable to us (if they get their 'heads' right, if they learn how to hit a target and not just blaze away, if they can kick more than 35m per foot, if they can learn to use their right side of their body, etc, etc).

i'm certainly not advocating them all, by any means. but perhaps one, two, or three of them could be potentially beneficial for both our club and others too.

you have to give something in order to get something.

Yip ... I understand 'trade possibilities' ... I'm not trying to pick on you. Please I'm honestly not.

However, I just cant see as a Melbourne supporter talking about "trade possibilities", "valuable to other sides" or contribute to idle draft "trash talk" is constructive. I personally just dont feel it is constructive at this very tender and fickled time of the football year. Trade period can divide a football clubs membership, some "supporters" belittle our players because they want "change". Many times the "change" they are calling for makes no sense.

Not to mention the "modern day media" has a way of blowing stupid baseless rumours out of all proportion.

However, we must place our faith in CAC & our football department, trust their judgement and move forward together.

IMHO we should use these boards promoting our players, talking constructively about our club. IMHO creating a constructive culture here can lead to positive initiatives designed towards building our membership.

Lets face it we all want the same thing. Now that only my personal opinion I stress again I'm not having a go at you.