deanox

Are any of these players actually mates of Hogan or just mates he played footy with? Knowing someone reasonably well and for a length of time might help you settle in but doesn't necessarily make them the type of mates you'd make life decisions on.

Just looking at mine above and wrote it looks better when the midfield depth on the bench is Cross, Tyson and Jones not Nicholson, Evans and Bail. Also note, would not be surprised if Kent or Dunn miss out to allow genuine midfielders like Michie or pick 9 into the team, even if they don't play midfield. One thing I see on my team is a restriction on options to rotate in except for the three on the bench and maybe Grimes. This is probably a fiction of having lots of tall forwards and of having "tall" medium/small defenders (Garland and Dunn) not "short" medium defenders who also rotate midfield when needed.

May as well have a crack MELBOURNE B: Frawley Garland <I>Terlich</I> HB: Grimes McDonald <I>Dunn</I> C: <I>Toumpas</I> Jones Watts HF: Dawes Hogan Trengrove* F: <I>Kent</I> Clark Howe R: <I>Gawn</I> Viney <b>Vince</b> I/C: Fitzpatrick? <i>M Jones</I> <b>Tyson</b> <b>Cross</b> Others (Fringe or worth persevering with next year at least): <b>Michie</b>, Blease?*, Clisby, McKenzie, Byrnes, Tapscott, Bail, Spencer, Jamar?*, <b>Pick 9</b>, Others (not considered unless great preseason, on the list only due to youth and/or lucky not to get cut): Evans, Nicholson, Barry, Taggart, Strauss, Jetta Out: Sylvia ? = can they be a consistent AFL player? Bold = New players Italic = MFC players who weren't listed * = MFC players I've moved to another position. Terlich and Dunn are my uncertainties. If Terlich can learn to defend he will be great but history with Roos is interesting. Dunn deserves his spot until he is usurped and I don't see anyone in the reserves last who takes his spot.

tell him we are interested gauge his reaction of we did draft him in psd, start discussions with Brisbane (ie what would need to satisfy you) to take their eyes off other negotiations, bail at the last minute then pick him up you reckon?Or simply start talking about usurping pa in their 14 for 2 picks by shopping around 9 for 2 picks. Disrupt their ability to get the picks to get him...

How innocent we were in 2003. After the highs of 2000 who could have predicted the last 7 years...

Haha you beat me to it. Wow that was a throw back! It certainly puts this current good feeling about coach and recruiting into perspective doesn't it...

I would assume so but remember, we had no word about the Tyson + picks trade until it happened, so you never know what will happen in trade week even if it is most likely nothing.

Probably removed because there was already a thread on him on the drafting and trading board!

Assuming Kennedy sits Sydney down and says "I want out right now" could Howe+9 for Kennedy+35 be a possibility? It would be laughed at if we were trying to buy him but if the rumours are true we may have a bit of an upper hand in negotiations. At 25 Kennedy isn't too old to spend on, and with that sort of purchase we would be hoping to look to be fighting for the 8 and the top 4 in 2015/2016. We have Hogan this year so we are still adding genuine youth, and got Toumpas and Viney last year, so I'm not too concerned about trading out early picks especially in a weak draft. Next year we'd need to make sure we keep the youth rebuild coming or only buy middle aged players (24-26 not 28+) so our list doesn't age too quickly. It would be a coup, but what could we afford to give up is the question. Note I can't see Sydney letting him go, with buying Buddy they expect to challenge next year, so won't want to lose him. The only chance is that Kennedy goes strong now and the trade happens while Sydney have a chance to on trade picks for other immediate impact players.

I think he will rotate with Watts, and Howe add tall players on the wing and into the forward when required. Ideally moving forward we have Gawn in the ruck. If we want to play Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Fitz, one of then had to be our relief ruck as you could not carry another ruck without effectively playing with one less on the bench. Dawes doesn't pay Rick. Hogan would be wasted and we have concerns about Mitch. My big question is can you develop both Fitzpatrick's ability to play as a midfielder AND develop his ruck work? Or are the differences in skill sets and mind sets too great? It would be great if he could use his speed and height on a wing then drop into the centre as a relief ruckman. The only other option long term is if Hogan ends up down back, which fees up a forward pocket/flank for Fitz whet he can rotate between forward and ruck.

to be honest I reckon Howe is worth more than the difference between pick 9 and pick 5, especially in this year's draft, and especially to us. The difference between pick 11 and pick 6 was pick 33 for Collingwood I think. I would want more than that for Howe; he is probably only worth pick 25-30 but I'd want a pick sub-20 because he is worth that to us.

Not disputing that Gawn will need to improve massively bit I expect him to improve massively!Not to the extent that he will surpass Minson but with a preseason under his belt for the first time I expect much higher fitness and endurance. He has had a horrible run with injuries the past couple of years, but barked through to the best of his ability last year. It was actually great to see him so stuffed, it showed he was truly giving 100%.

Note: I'd like to see FA compo picks have a 5 year expiry like the expansion club compo picks. Would be fantastic for trading and staying. More assets to shuffle hands therefore more trade opportunities

They seem to be complaining because compo is tied to ladder position. They only change would be to have the picks as "middle" of the round ie after pick 9, not after the clubs current pick. I don't mind the current system as it provides some equalisation between top and bottom clubs. I don't think they were screwed over this time but that they were the victims of the system they and all other clubs agreed to. I.e. band 1 is the highest level of compo. Last year I thought they were treated unfairly when they lost Clint Young to Collingwood and got nothing. He was worth at least band 5. I don't have a problem with the compo, I think it's a good thing and needed. Clubs losing players for nothing will hurt. One player may be absorbed but 2 or more over a few years will hurt. Losing a journeyman player like Dunn might not hurt either, but any club losing a front line player hurts. And for the love of the game and the clubs we don't want a situation where clubs sell players off regularly just to avoid losing them for nothing "in case" they leave in the next few years. The main problem with the compo is that there isn't a "marquee" band, but unless we have dedicated "marquee" player status within the lists it can't apply. Who is a marquee player? Sylvia probably would have been one of ours despite not deserving the same status as Franklin.

When you think about it, this poems up draft tampering opportunities. What if we said to GWS, "you can keep pick 9 if you don't trade Adams to Collingwood, and don't delist him, so he has no choice but to go in PSD". They should abolish the PSD and any players not delisted then go on the national draft. The rules used to be that players could nominate for either draft but if they wanted to nominate conditions (ie contact length and value) they had to go PSD. That changed and now they have a choice which draft they go in.

I understand your hesitant optimism completely, but at least this time or young unproven midfield contains highly rated potential kids (Tyson, Viney, Toumpas, pick 9), a couple of developing kids with who have shown a bit (Michie, M Jones and some of our existing younger inexperienced players), some players with 3+ years experience who should be easy to take a step up under Roos/Stone (Trengove, Grimes, Watts) and a senior midfield leader (Jones).If we can snare Vince or Cross and they can play the rule of number 2 and 3 mids for a year or two, we suddenly have a core that may come together. None of those players have question marks for the wrong reasons. They might not have developed as we'd have liked bit they aren't the unfulfilled potential, poorly behaved or NQR group we've had in the last decade. Yet. Time will tell. Stone for Royal may be the most important change we've made all off season.

I believe so.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-18/trade-winds-friday afl.com claims we've agreed to trade sylvia compo pick for Vince. I don't understand why compo picks aren't announced almost immediately. Waiting til the end of FA only hold up trades. I assume it is to do with a compo changing die to other signings. Just another failing in the system. Would be readier to give a compo pick die each deserved FA movement rather than the complicated net loss/gain system which is only going to be exploited (ie not signing an FA so as not to dilute the compo) and is rather pointless given that the system is unlikely to yield more than a handful of FA movements each year across 18 clubs so a combination gain and loss is the unlikely case, not the norm.

are you suggestingpick 2 for p9 + p19 + bugg + buntine ? As far as value goes it is probably loaded, but again, only if we think we can get a gun at 9 and a good player at 19 with s couple of freebies thrown in. I like your theory re GWS wanted to being in pick 2 so that they can trade or pick 1. That has GWS written all over it. Of we knock back their best deal for p2, I wonder if the club who wants p1 may get involved with us?

Cheers!

This is a great discussion. There is some merit in both arguments. The key seems to be the unknown quantities of Bugg and Buntine. Worth noting that those are the players GWS have suggested. We may have asked for one or two different players as well as pick 9. Two very different approaches to trade, well be interesting to see which way we go and what ends up happening.

Yep I think we should be pushing for Vince and Lyons for 20. IF we were definitely keeping pick 2, I would consider: V + L + 42 for 20 + 36 For us to get a pick 30 or a pick 25 so that we pay his worth not slightly over we need to trade away a current player to a club with those picks. Any current player who is going to fetch pick 25-30 is probably worth more to us than that pick and we wouldn't want to lose them for a stop gap mid (Vince) so that isn't going to happen. Adelaide won't give up 42, which is their first pick in the draft as a sweetener in a deal they don't have to do. They want this pick to secure Polac from Brissy. If they have up 42 as well their first pick would be until nearly 70.

Vince for 20 may be a rich overs and he may only be with us for 3 years BUT he would be our 2nd best mid next year unless we see our of sight improvement from the younger guys. All year we have lamented getting belted abs said we need to get competitive quickly for tv ratings for supporters and for our bottom line and longevity. This trade will help us do that.

Yes. But the reasoning behind such a trade (and I'm not saying we will or should do it) is that one classy kid (who may not impact for a couple of years) may not be as beneficial to the MFC as another quality, but slightly less classy, kid and one or two other quality kids. GWS have riches of young players with potential. They can afford to trade out good kids in the hope of adding class. MFC has a bunch of junk, and may benefit from 3 good players more than it benefits from one classy player.

Not necessarily how we rate them. We might rate Aish the the number 2 pick but may think that a player who will be around at 9 better suits our needs. Ie a genuine mid, stronger body needing less development. In that case we may be just as happy having either and if we can get only the player at pick 2, or the player at pick 9 we are equally happy to have at our club plus a player or two,then the pick 9 option becomes attractive.