deanox

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?

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.

Come on, this is one of those rumors that started on demonland 30+ pages ago and has been picked up by the media. It could be true, but it isn't a direct to media leak because it was first reported here Friday.

Exactly right Lucifer's. We've decided we want him but don't have currency right now. So how much GCS want to get rid of him will become a factor too.

I reckon this is spot on. With one small change: I think Smith's role is actually the same as Lever but given Lewis's age, he'll probably play the rebounding defender role. Also if Hogan does ever play back, I see him playing the rebounding role despite his size, purely because of his work rate, endurance and beautiful field kicking. If we land May there will be some very disappointed Demonlanders when OMac still gets a game! This is perhaps further evidenced by the reluctance to play Frost. What do we do with Frost if May comes in? Can we reinvent him as a HBF or winger?

Honestly, when Hawkins kicked 7, that was midfield/coaching. Geelong opened the space up around Hawkins to leave him isolated with plenty of room to run into. He did and took repeated uncontested marks on leads with good delivery. Most forwards would have dominated. It was Pagans Paddock football. We should have either told our defenders to protect the space or shifted Frost (with his faster closing speed) onto him earlier. Instead Goodwin backed our team to work to our structure and regain ascendency through playing our game. A noble sentiment, and an ability that we need if we want to become a long term dominant team (because if we react instead of sticking to our plan we will constantly play catch up/reactive footy), but it wasn't the right call on the day. The coaches got the balance wing and should have pulled the trigger earlier. I can't remember the specifics of QBD but remember that we lost thur midfield battle and got opened up on the rebound in particular when they got the ball "out the back" with our mids not running defensively as hard as they can. But I just watched the "Cox kicks 5 goals" video on the AFL app. He is playing in the ruck a lot of the time and it is clear his direct opponent for each of the 5 goals are: Joel Smith (I think could be Hibberd), Pedersen, Gawn, Omac, then J Smith. The OMac goal is a one on one mark where the ball sits on his head and he uses his height advantage. I'd expect him to take it every time but Id also expect one of our other defenders to get there and spoil given their proximity. The other four goals are: on the lead into space, a ground ball pick up in the ruck, running back towards goal after a midfield turnover, and again on the lead into space. In none of those occasions was our no 1 defender playing on him, on all four he had space due to lack of midfield pressure, and I'm not sure that May could have stopped any of them anymore than OMac could have. A reasonable analysis?

No that's ridiculous, of course May is better than OMac. But claiming that when OMac struggles it is his fault, not the midfields, and that May doesn't struggle when the midfield is poor is blatently wrong. I disagree with your description of our game plan/ structure. Our structure intends to defend the ball in the midfield, so that it never gets into our D50. The reason for this is that ANY defender, Omac, May, SOS himself, will struggle to defend one on one on the current AFL climate, so we shift the defensive battle to the midfield. This was effective: we had less i50s against than any team this year. But as a result left us with lots of exposed one on one's during those entries. It has nothing to do with trying to shield OMac and everything to do with a gamestyle we are playing. Yes I did. Are you going to blame OMac for that horrible performance by the whole team? Their midfield smashed ours from the get go. They got the ball out with ease, giving them like pressure i50 entries, and we turned it over in the midfield repeatedly on attack, leaving our defenders out of position. Have you got adifferent insight you are trying to share?

This is a very good point. It could also be that May, with his age (and perhaps his reputation for having a potential destabilising influence) actually only had two real suitors. Melb and Coll both feel very close to a premiership, such that the age isn't a factor. They also both have identified backline as a weaker link (of the top 8 teams they had the highest points against). North might fit in this window but a) nobody wants to go there and b) they spent their pick 11 on Polac etc. Other clubs rebuilding might not want to spend a top 10 pick on a 27 year old defender. Best outcome for me would be that we get May somehow without losing a highly valuable player asset in the process, but I've got no ideas how that would work.

Exactly right! When GCS played Richmond and Reiwoldt kicked 10.6 on him, you didn't see May complaining about the midfield did you? Nosireee! He took it on the chin and accepted that it was because he was just not a good enough one on one defender! But Oscar McDonld, did you see his press conference after the Melb v Richmond game when Reiwoldt kicked 2 on him? Carrying on, blaming the midfield for those two goals, it was a terrible look! He should have taken responsibility for those two goals, just like May did for those 10, right? /sarcasm Virtually no defender will win one on one's in modern football without appropriate zoning and midfield support. Oscar had a pretty bloody awesome year considering that fact. Other than Hawkins, no one really got a hold of him. And as per actual match day form, even May wouldn't make a difference in those scenarios.

Agree with this. It isn't "what is he worth" it is "is the trade more valuable than the alternative". If Hogan said "I'm going this year or next", his maximum value to us is actually "one year of playing plus his trade value next year when out of contract" not "league best KPF". Of course we could back ourselves to increase future value by convincing him to stay, but that's a gambit. I'd be happy with 5 and 23 if that turned to 8 and 13 and then May and 13. Or if 5 and 23 became May, 23 and 24. Because I think May is valuable to us but not pick 5 valuable to us (as I've made it pretty well known I personally think key defender is 2nd or 3rd on our needs, but understand others rate that differently).

Exactly right. Bell effectively has an option to trade out Neale for Hogan and change. Because the are no other gun key forwards the market and pick 5 is a good deal for Neale, his best alternative to accepting this negotiated trade is walking away (like he seems to have), in which case he is left with a player who doesn't want to be there, no key forward and pick 23. He is better off paying a bit overs and kicking in Hogan, a player you can build a team around). Pay 5 and 11. They have heaps of other top picks and will have next year too. Unless he thinks they are going to bounce up the ladder, and just needs to keep Neale and snare Hogan and they are there, but that would be a strange perception.