deanox

Yep missed him. 7 different, one third of the team. It's amazing, I felt like this off season we didn't have any big gains but I think we have quietly upgrade the bottom quarter of our list to add depth and will see a very different melbourne on field make up next year despite seemingly little change.

They're was even a photo of her in that post...Pretty simple really. Interestingly we will field a very different team next year if Frost, Trengove, Petracca and Salem all get on the park, not to mention Melksham and Bugg. That's over one quarter of the starting 22 as fresh faces.

I'm of the belief that the players will be found guilty, unsure what the penalties will be. That aside, I see that there is fair argument that I'd there was sufficient evidence against the essendon coaches/support staff then they would have been charged by ASADA at the sane time as the players and Dank. The only reason I can think why not is to properly isolate the players from Essendon during the hearings. Seems a bit too sophisticated. If lack of direct evidence against the support staff is correct and they aren't subsequently charged by ASADA, there is no reason why the AFL wouldn't suspend or ban them regardless. I think they'd have to. If the players are find guilty, I don't think repercussions for the support staff are dependent on ASADA charges.

I suspect the crowd will stop obsessing about draft picks once: a) we play some finals so we have other things to get excited about b) we play finals so we don't have a top 10 pick (less exciting than pick 3) c) we have 25+ regular senior players who everyone thinks are better options for round 1 than an untried 17 year old who gets drafted (will be accelerated if the 17 year old is ranked 10-15 rather than 1-7)

Minor suggestion : is it worth updating the ages so that they show the age when the player comes out of contact? Advantage to this will be that they get changed once and you won't need to update then during the year etc. I find that ages a bit confusing.

"The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code." Is he saying that the standard applied by the tribunal was quite different or that the evidence used was different?

I really enjoyed his highlights clip. A couple of things really stood out. His ability and the way he avoided tackles obviously, but also the ways he gathered the ground ball so easily, particularly the way he freed his arms and got handballs out to advantage and the number of overhead marks he took. I'm assuming the potential knock on him is fitness i.e. endurance, and perhaps pace over 2-3 steps. Pretty happy.

Yep. What in looking forward to now is the next step. PJ was always planning short term but is he now planning long term? Hopefully part of this extension he has stated if this is definitely it or if he is open to staying on. If the former, hopefully we start putting a succession plan in place. That may mean recruitment with an eye to internal stability. Or it may mean setting our sights on a target within the industry. Whatever happens, I hope PJ helps over see that transition too. It is an amazing feeling, 3 years of stability for our club with a promise of 5. I can't remember the pay tone we went that long without agitation or a coup.

Thoughts on minimal shoes suitable in appearance for office dwellers? Are there some available? Does anyone use them?

Schwab may have done a [censored] job, but Schwab is a Melbourne man who did what he thought was best for the club he loves. For that he deserves to be treated with respect. The way he exited the club, turning up to training to support the players despite being recently sacked, and never rubbishing the club or the people demonstrates a level a class as well, that deserves respect in turn. He will be alongside us celebrating our return to glory, and he'll be welcome because of it.

That being said i have no knowledge of whether this year's top 10 is stronger or weaker than last year's or next year's. It may be hard to to compare because this year's best 10 players are playing in a weaker competition (i.e. shallower).

We are discussing the quality of the top 10-15 players and which options are available. That is unrelated to discussing the quality of players 30-60+, which is considered to drop off. Thus the draft is "shallow" i.e. not deep.

Shallow means not deep.

You can't multi quote on the mobile skin.

All our interstate games are on Foxtel.

I'm not sure it is that different to this year...We have pick 3. GWS have pick 7. We want pick 7 in exchange for lower picks. Hopper (GWS), Kennedy (GWS), Mills (Sydney) are all in the mix for the top 5. Hipwood and Keayes (both Brisbane) are also in the mix for the top 15. It isn't unreasonable that part of our deal with GWS *could* involve not bidding on their academy players with pick 3 or 7. Under the old system it didn't matter who bid as long as it was the next pick that was used. But now the points matter. Similarly, essendon who have picks 4 and 5 could choose to bid at either point for the player, which may change the points: Given their are the players that might be worth a top 5 pick, what if Essendon bid on 2 players with pick 4 and 5, took their first pick at 6 then bid on the the final player for 7? They may be able to manipulate the points for one of those players to be anywhere from Pick 4 to pick 7, based on the order they bid and draft.

Why is that? We could simply re-sign Michie and go to the draft with three live picks? I think though, the way it is shaping, I wouldn't be surprised if one of Michie or Terlich are moved on. And I feel that Michie offers more. Interesting that we have a large contingent out of contact next year now. And better still, when i look at the names, I feel like after next season draft and trade, we should have a fully competitive AFL list. We will be, for the first time in 20 years, be deadwood free and ready to build a list for a premiership. That will be the Roos legacy; a platform on which to build and a clean slate for Goodwin.

Ok hypothetical. Club A has pick 3 in the draft, Club B has pick 4. Club B has an Academy Player X who is worth pick 3. There are other high rated (3-5) academy players in the draft but player X is probably the best of them. Regardless they will all go in that top couple. Club A wants both picks 3 and 4 and offers to trade lower picks for pick 4. Normally this needs to be the equivalent points. But if Club A agrees to bid on two other academy players at pick 3 (so technically pick 3 and 4) and not on player X, player X will slide from value from Pick 3 to Pick 7at most (academy players at 3 and 4, the Club A's other picks now at 5 and 6). Thus player B only costs Pick 7 points not pick 3 points. I'm not sure what the points difference is between these picks BUT if it is significant, Club B may accept unders on the original trade based on this side agreement. Seems possible and plausible but I suspect it will be an infrequent scenario.

I feel like the system is open to corruption then - we'll trade you pick 2 for those lost picks I'd you promise not to bid on our player - or is the points difference between picks insignificant to make such an agreement beneficial?

Sorry guys, amazing autocorrect. Last sevens should read something like: But if your academy player is worth a first round pick you will probably pay every other pick this year and may also decrease the value of your first pick in future years (i.e. push it back a couple of spots).

I think it's worth explaining the new system like this: Draft picks are now worth points Clubs bid on academy and f/s players with their picks and then, instead of matching with their next draft pick (which could be 17 picks away), the club must pay the equivalent points of the pick that was bid. These points can start from your next pick and keep going until pick 73. If you do not have enough points in your remain picks, you go into "debt" and keep paying next year. This if the player is worth pick 5, you play pick 5 worth of points, which is probably close to every other pick in the draft that you own. So yes, you can trade out your first round pick. But if your academy player is worth a first round pick you will probably pay every other pick this year and may decrease the value of your first pick in future years (i.e. push it back a couple of spots). Edit: removed the "pooch" reference, added a terrible "spot" pun).

If it isn't mitigated, it is only because lower picks are weighted too high (i.e. worth more points than they should be, relative to top picks). In reality, if you trade out your first pick and have a high rated academy player, you'll lose all the rest of your picks in the top 73 this year and then down grade next year's first round pick.

There has to be a flaw in that. For example GWS want academy player X and Sydney want academy player Y. It comes to pick three and melbourne think player X is worth pick 3 and name him. GWS burn through their picks, Sydneys picks become worth more. Then melbourne calls player Y and Sydney pays less than it would have both on matching pick 4 not pick 3, even though wed take either at pick 3, plus it's later picks might be worth 3 places more worth of points potentially meaning less draft debt. Surely the points value of the picks for that draft can't change during the event?

A complete list of all players (including draftees) and based on GRRM's best 22 team (which is pretty good). Assuming Harmes gets upgrades and Hunt and Michie re-sign, otherwise we may have an additional draftee or DFA. FB: Jetta Dunn Garland HB: Salem McDonald Melksham C: Stretch Viney Brayshaw HF: Kent Hogan Vanders FF: Garlett Pedersen Petracca Foll: Gawn Vince Jones Int: Tyson Kennedy Bugg Watts Backs; Lumumba Grimes Frost OMacTerlich White® Mids: ANB Harmes Trengove Michie Newton M Jones Fwds: JKH Dawes Hunt King® Rucks: Spencer Draftess: 3, 7, 46, R1, R2 The best part is that for me Lamumba, Grimes, Frost, Dawes, Spencer and Trengove are senior players who aren't getting games, which means we have at least 1 depth in each line and can potentially go to a best 26 before we start really struggling. This gives us some cover for injuries, form and kids learning. Then we have a good list of other young players who I fully expect to demand a position based on form at some point: OMac, White, ANB, Harmes, Newton, Michie, JKH. That's seven more players who will have to perform at VFL level to get a game, but have futures ahead of them if they can get in. A couple of young developers (King, Hunt) and a couple of playing for their careers (Jones and Terlich), rounds the list out, and you'd expect that after next pre-season, when we move on a handful of the following 14 who will be out of contract (and not always among our first picked): Trengove, Dawes, Grimes (RFA), Watts (RFA), M Jones, Spencer (UFA), Terlich, Newton, O McDonald,, Pedersen, Hunt, Michie, King ®, White ®, we will suddenly have an AFL list, with depth, with a few kids developing, no dud seniors and no significant list cloggers. What I do see though, is a lack of midfield depth. The core best 22 midfield is ok (if not young), but after that it gets thin. ANB and Harmes are probably next picked but they too are green. Trengove has question marks. Michie and Newton have different sorts of question marks, but at least represent depth. This is an area we will need to add to, hopefully through the draft this year, and through trades next year.

In that case there is three! (But JKH is listed as Kennedy Harris). There is a Kennedy in both 2016 and 2017.