deanox

I hope we don't. This has been conducted with the highest levels of public integrity. We know he has had issues and struggles. I'd rather it's clsp and support him. His statement is brave. I can't remember reading a quote from an AFL player that puts family and friends above final in the way that he has stated it.

I would have thought the word be standardized incentives across the club, for the sake of the salary cap. Ie they set aside $500k for BnF finishes, regardless of who places. Similarly bonus for games played, would be a list wide standardised bonus. But then some players would have personal contract triggers: BnF, number of games, maybe even other stats who knows? For someone like Dusty, you'd like that bonus would be over and above a pretty generous base salary. For a mid and lower tier player it could be a larger % component.

A lot more money in TV rights than gates. What else explains GCS or GWS?

You'll be disappointed when he starts round 1 and starts in the team all year then.

Spoken like someone with no real understanding of what they would teach in negotiation 101, and who still views all negotiation scenarios as simple distributive bargaining.

Having said all that ^^^^ I want 6 and 19 for Hogan now!

Also we are all judging the value of Hogan as an isolated asset, not as part of our list. Hogan on his own: highest value. Hogan to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward: less value. Hogan, who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward: less value Hogan, who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward, and the risk that another KPF will leave if Hogan doesn't: less value Hogan, with a potentially serious foot injury that could impact performance next year and who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward, and the risk that another KPF will leave if Hogan doesn't: less value When I refer to "value" I mean the value to us. So we need to define what we value Hogan at, with respect to all scenarios and scenario factors. Then we need to consider what our trade partner values Hogan at. If there is a cross over, then a deal can be made and all parties will achieve a win-win and be satisfied. Within the zone of potential agreement the will be "the least we are prepared to accept" and "the most they are prepared to pay. Ideally, both parties want to get as close to the other parties maximum for "best outcome". Either isolated asset value or the "best outcome" is often how the media and public judge overs/unders, but the negotiator will judge it against the value they rated the asset at to the current list.

It's this attribute that has gotten me around to bringing May on board. OMac isn't fast/agile enough, Frost isn't smart enough, Nev isn't tall enough, and as well as acombination of physical attributes that make them unsuitable, we don't want Lever/Hibb/Salem/Lewis tied down from their usual role as interceptors/distributors.

I've wondered about this. There were rumors of Weid wanting to leave and other clubs being keen. We obviously wouldn't want to lose both. Perhaps with Hogan wavering and not committing beyond 2019, we made a decision that trading Hogan was needed to ensure we didn't lose two KPFs this year and next.

Valid points. I'd be taking a risk assessment approach based on recent industry experience. Their culture is poor, they are trading out senior players, they have little leadership and were belted all year. Will these kids make an immediate impact or will they need a few years to hit their straps? What is the likelyhood they arent as good as discussed? How big is the go home risk? (Remembering that GCS have really struggled to keep players the last few years). The 2010 MFC model was get rid of senior players and bring in star kids. It didn't work. Are they better off bringing in 4 x 2nd tier but ready to compete players for 2019, with a view to stabilizing and building of field culture in 2019 and bringing key talent in for 2020, or spending it on 2 risky but massive upside kids?

Pick 5 is much more valuable than 6. Seems unlikely, but while port held pick 6, both port and Adelaide would have traded lots for pick 5 so that they got the highest SA talent. Now neither will want to trade up to pick 6. Very smart move by port. I'm actually surprised GCS haven't given away pick 2 for pick 5 or 6 or similar and a player. They can't keep kids, and need mid tier players.

My guess is we intend to trade it for picks this year. We have 7 list spots, GCS only have a couple. GCS have lots of top 30 picks, we currently have 0. GCS have academy players next year so need future draft points. So swapping our future 1st round and this year's pick 36 for this year's pick 19 and pick 29, may be the deal.

Why would Pert talk to Bell? In fact, why would Pert be involved in football last management or trade meetings fullstop? It's not part of his job, and he has only been in the place for 2 weeks.

The other mechanism is trading future (2019) drafts picks for earlier picks this year. I understand GC have more picks than they can use this year and mostly high picks, but they need points for next year's academy players. So 2019 1st rounder might get us overs in this year's draft when we have spots to fill.

May is quality and is a clear upgrade on our current defenders. I'm not sure I've seen many posts suggesting otherwise. My main concern is that I don't think the value of pick 5 is the same as the value May adds to the team vs OMac over the course of his career. That is based on: - we rarely had kpf's kick multiple goals against us this year (and when they did it was often lack of midfield pressure); - we have Lever coming back into the defense; and - OMac performed well this year, is underrated on this site, and will only get better next year and the year after. But I understand that others (list management included) perhaps see the value of May in the short term as much higher than pick 5.

This isn't the complete answer to my question but it's a start. The following key forwards, who May might play on, have kicked goals on us this year: R1: Menzel 4.2, R2: n/a R3: Brown 4.1, Waite 3.1 R4: Roughhead 3.1, O'Brien 3.0 R5: Reiwoldt 2.2 R6: Stringer 3.3 R7: n/a R8: Day 2.2 R9: McKay 2.1 R10: n/a R11: n/a R12: Cox 5.1 R13: bye R14: Westhoff 2.1 R15: McCartin 2.3, Battle 1.2 R16: Cox 2.0 R17: Schache 2.2 R18: Hawkins 7.0 R19: n/a R20: n/a R21: Franklin 2.5 R22: Vardy 1.1 R23: Cameron 1.4 Other than Franklin, Hawkins and Cox, no one got off the leash. Hawkins was a result of the midfield. Cox only kicked one goal on OMac, the others were on Gawn, Pedo and Smith. I can't remember who played on Franklin. Add better midfield pressure and that improves again. Add Lever back as an interceptor and it helps further. Would May have made that much a difference this year?

If we get 5 and 23, Adelaide will trade them both for 8 and 13, which gives us 2 first rounders. The question is whether we do that and give GCS 8 for May, or whether we give them 5 and they make the trade with Adelaide. If we send pick 5 to GCS I really hope we get something back (say 29). That way it's effectively: Hogan for May and 13; or Hogan for May and 23 and 29 (pick 9 equivalent).

How many were kicked on Omac this year?

Would pick 8 get May? Pick 8 and a future 2nd round? I would love to give pick 5 and 23 to Adelaide for 8 and 13?

Do you think he chose to chase kicks because he was losing the defensive battle, or do you think he was utilized further upfield because we were getting pantsed in the midfield, we needed someone to try and change the game, and his field kicking is high quality? I suspect it's a bit of both, but we were deliberately playing him upfield early in the season where he was having a great enough impact that he was being discussed as AA CHF at the half way mark of the season. Garry Lyon had him there mid season based on 19.7 disposals and 2.6 goals. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/allaustralian-2018-afl-squad-garry-lyon-released-midseason-best-22/news-story/a5e4190718a3502ccab8205dc2c42911 Afl.com.au did too http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-07/who-makes-our-midseason-all-australian-team Yeah I agree his output was lower in those games, but do you really think it is purely because he isn't good? Or that he is a "bully" or a down hill skier? Or do you think other factors like "we lost all games against the top 10 teams while he was playing" come into it? I mean he featured in mark of the year, while on a beautiful lead in stacks of space but Pedo kicked it over his head. Fix that terrible kick and he scores. That's why Hawkins kicked 7 in round 18: midfield service. And Hogan rarely gets that kind of service.

I'd love to read that quote? If true I wonder if Collingwoods interest sped up the process? Or if it was Hogans pending departure?

So we gave up ~3870 points for 3810 points. Lost the equivalent of pick 68 to get the pick that our recruiting team requested. That wasn't an accident, we knew who we wanted, we weren't just throwing picks around for fun. So they were after Oliver (who is close to the best player in that draft and one of the best mids in the comp) and Weid (who was one of the best KPFs of the draft plus insurance against a Hogan go home factor). Pretty sure we'd be happy with that.

R1 v Geelong, 3.0 goals (MFC top scorer), 16 disposals (10th highest for MFC), 3 marks R4 v Hawks, 1.1 (2nd highest for MFC), 24 disposals (2nd highest for MFC), 3 marks R5 v Tigers, 2.2 (2nd highest for MFC), 22 disposals (5th highest for MFC), 9 marks R12 v Pies 0.1, 17 disposals (=7th for MFC), 3 marks R18 v Geelong 1.1, 14 disposals, 4 marks R21 v Sydney 1.3 (=most scoring shots, 3rd highest scorer), 19 disposals (9th for MFC), 4 marks Those are his 6 games against top 8 sides. Averaging 18.6 disposals, 1.3 goals, 2.6 scoring shots, and 4.3 marks. I would hardly call 18.6 disposals and 2.6 shots on goal "going missing" given lost all those games (and were thrashed in three of them).

I think it is. I've read the top 10-15 are strong this year but then it falls away. If true then it could be a massive difference if we take it to the draft. Also, we may want to use a first round pick this year to enable us to trade again next year. Two potentially enormous ramifications for shaping our list.

Ridiculous. Bang on. The message will 100% be about loyalty. We will do the right thing by you instead of holding you to a contract to the detriment of your career. We did everything we could to reinvent him in a new role when younger players went past him, but he couldn't quite nail the role. As a result, we found him a deal that suited him (he refused GCS) so he got opportunity, and got agood outcome in return. Only 94 games, and he'll probably play more than that in 6-7 years at North, but he'll be welcomed back when ever he drops by. Hopefully he has added strings to his bow from the positional experience this year. At 25 he has along career star of him at north, likely as a starting mid in 2019 at least, and I wish him the best.