deanox

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.

Honestly, if that is what is happening then the simple solution is "hogan signs a 3 year extension that gives us the comfort we need. The extension is on megabucks anyway, so he has surety as well. We have agood natured, open chat about him, his family etc. and how we understand the situation and that if it comes to pass next year or the year after he decides to leave we won't carry on and play hard ball or force him tti stay off he needs to be home, but we'll trade him to the WA team that offers the best deal for us, assuming it is reasonable market rate." That isn't a compromise for either party, it's a win-win: we get him in our episode the next few years, we get certainty to protect our asset value, he gets great money, a chance to win a flag in the next year's but if he wants to trade he gets it or at the end of his next contract he's a FA anyway. And that tells me, that isn't the driving force. Either he wants to go now and we've said "not unless we get a great deal" or "sign long term or leave" or "nothing personal, but if you are open to moving we believe we can improve our list by trading you due to your high value"

Quite possibly. As much as Id like to take 5 to the draft, I'm not against something like pick 5 for May, pick 19 and pick 29 or similar. Would leave us with Hogan for May and Picks 11, 19 and 29. Frost is actually a very good idea. Bringing in May makes either Frost or Oscar surplus to our needs (a little like Tyson). GCS will need an immediate defender replacement. 11 and Frost for May might be agood result for all parties (clubs and players). When we win the flag next year that is just pick 11 for May and KK! If they aren't happy with 11 for May, they won't go for this.

The 15 y.o. was the best value whiskey on the market until everyone caught on!

That last sentence almost describes what May could be, but some want to sell the farm for him. It puts win/loss trades into perspective. It isn't always about a massive overs result, it's about balancing risk and achieving the aim of the trade. All picks have the chance of massive upside but relatively low probability of achieving that upside. The earlier the pick the higher the chance of a good honest player as well. Regardless, sometimes the known quantity/quality (even a mediocre quality) than will fill aspecific need is worth more than rolling the dice, particularly given the combination of development time required for players to reach potential. The list management team is balancing all this stuff. It's the reason they either pay for ready made rucks or take speculative rookie picks; it's just that this is easily understood by us!

Given Id prefer the chance to edin a premiership than not, if I was Tyson I'd stay if the were no longer/ better offers out there or if I seriously backed myself to be a better inside mid then Harmes over the next 5 years. Personally I'll think he'll go, but that could be a trade that hurts us longer term because I think he is worth more than what we'd get for him on the market.

I'm aware of this, it happened when Harmes found form in a new tagging role. And while I was stoked with Harmes, 5 great games as a tagger doesn't guarantee a career in the center. Before that patch, he'd played his best footy on a HFF. While I'm not writing him off, I think it would be foolish to back on him replicating that form and trading our best alternative. Also, Jones struggles on the wing or flank just as much as Tyson does, so I can't see him playing 2 more seasons out there. I think this is closest to the mark. If he is on starting midfielder coin we'll look to move him on. Given he will face a pay reduction with us in 2020, if others will offer him starting mid coin, he'll look to move to secure that pay and opportunity longer term.

At his age I really want to hold Tyson. I see him as aperfect replacement for Jones in the guts, and we know Jones doesn't have long left. Personally Id have thought by the end of next year that swap would be almost permanent because I think the end will come for Jones very quickly, just like it did with Bernie. Jones will be 31 in January, while Bernie played his last season as a 32 year old but struggled. Tyson is 25 until June next year.

Our 4th round is 69, and their 3rd round is 43. It's a pretty significant upgrade. The total trade was Out: 2017 pick 10, 2018 picks 15 and 69 In: 2017 pick 35, 2018 pick 43 and Lever Or 1395 + 1112 + 49 = 2556 points 522 + 378 + Lever = 900 + Lever Indicating Lever was worth 1656 points in the trade. That 1,656 points is the equivalent of pick 7, or of pick 21 and 22, or of 10 and 48. Not everyone will see it that way, but the MFC definitely does. Think of it this way: In return for lever we downgraded our: -2017 1st round pick to a 2nd round (costing 25 places in the draft); and -2018 1st round to a 3rd round (costing 28 places).

We had 5 traded in players in our prelim final team, 8 players who were traded in played 10+ games this year, plus Pedersen on the who didn't play many this year but had previously.

He finished 6th on votes per game (not including Viney who only played 10). It is also worth noting that it appears the coaches have given higher average votes towards the end part of the season (presumably the two finals and the WC and GWS games) compared to the early rounds. Ie many of the top 10 finishers had higher vpg for the last 10 rounds compared to the first 8 rounds. So had he played those last games he may have polled higher. He was on track for 3rd up until round 15ish.

He finished 6th in votes per game out of players with more than 10 games.

For anyone wondering: Melbourne’s best and fairest votes were cast by four members of the club’s match committee. They gave players a score from zero to 10 for each game. I like this type of system better than the 3-2-1 as it rewards consistent performance not a select number of best on grounds. The only problem is the significant penalty associated with missing games, thus my votes per game analysis above.

1st Gawn 657 votes, 25 games, 26.3 vpg 2nd Oliver 595, 25, 23.8 3rd Harmes 468, 25, 18.7 4th Jones 449, 25, 18 5th TMac 433, 20, 21.7 6th Brayshaw 429, 22, 19.5 7th Melksham 428, 23, 18.6 8th Salem 403, 24, 16.8 9th Jetta 383, 25, 15.3 10th Lewis 366, 24, 15.3 11th Hogan 365, 20, 18.3 1) It sounds obvious but playing lots of games is key to finishing high. 2) Gawn streets ahead per game, and Oliver and TMac similarly on their own ahead of the pack. 3) Of those listed above, Hogan is top 6 in votes per game. 4) Oscar (25, 346, 13.8) ANB (25, 322, 12.9), Petracca (24, 268, 11.1), Fritsch (23, 261, 11.3), Hibberd (21, 317, 15.1) the other players above 20 games not in the top 11. But not everyone can finish top 10, especially when 16 players play 20+ games. 5) Other notable vpg are: Viney (a massive 24.4 vpg), VDB (17.9), Frost (13.4), Hannan (12.1) and for good measure Spargo (11.6). 6) After 16 rounds Oscar had 223 votes (14.8 vpg) and Hibberd 199 (13.2 vpg). Given they were in the top 10 at round 16 with low votes per game it suggests the coaches gave higher votes per game towards the end of the season compared to the start of the season, dragging the average votes per game of the top 11 (and maybe the whole squad) up. 7) The very high votes per game of VDB and Viney correlates with the overall student increase in votes per game later in the season. Similarly Oliver's vpg is higher in the back half than front half which surprises me based on his performance.

Bit stiff on Melksham who came 7th! But the converse to Hogan is that TMac wasn't in the top 10 at round 16 but finished 5th. Those two missed games at either end of the season and TMacs form got stronger while Hogan tapered. Missing the last 5-6 through injury makes it very hard when a couple of players storm home.

Harmes wasn't in the top 10 after round 16. 10th had 199 votes at that point, and Jones who was 3rd had 321. Harmes finished with 468 votes to Jones 449. That means he picked up at least 270 votes in the last 10 games (inc 3 finals), at 27 vpg, compared to a max of 198 from his first 16 games at 12.3 vpg. We know he played well from round 17 when he took on a tagging role but that's a crazy turn around in numbers.

For completeness, going back further 11 of the previous 21 premierships were won by non-Vic teams, so despite the tough run the last 5 seasons they've done ok in the big dance, given there was significantly less non-Vic teams for most of that time. That makes 12 of the last 27 premierships non-Vic, still over representing for the number of teams. Further 11 of the losing teams in that period were non-Vic, so 23 of the 54 grand finalists since 1992 are non-Vic. Pretty good considering there was only 5 non-Vic teams out of 16 until 1995, and were 6 of 16 until GWS and GCS joined.

tl;dr the interceptor isn't the problem. It is the other defender who isn't actually contesting the mark, but trying to prevent the attacker from contesting. If you kick to a one on one the attacker will mark or win a free kick a lot of the time, especially if the kick is to advantage. It is for this reason coaches work so hard to avoid defensive one on ones. The AFL seem to think that 6 6 6 will bring back one on one and reduce congestion, and it might help a little bit it won't be long until a coach works a way around it. Making the interceptors accountable won't solve the issue as they'll still leave their players, the way Lever does. That's what zones are for. A better solution is to pay a free kick for any sheparding in a marking contest. The reason the intercept is so successful is because the one on one defenders role is no longer to contest the mark, but to hold position. Force the only physical contact to be part of a legitimate attempt to contest a mark (which is almost word for word from the rulebook), and the value of the cheap uncontested interceptor will diminish quickly.

@rpfc your list is ok, not far off mine. Imo, when we lost games it was one of two things: lack of midfield defensive running, or poor kicking (particularly into 50). Might first priority is then skilled kicks in the midfield. With 59.8 i50s per game (the most of any team) I'd like to see us hit targets more often going forward. 2nd priority is hard running and skilled mids. Our hardest running players are also some of our weaker disposals. 3rd priority is a true medium defender who can mean up the Menzels, Breusts, Stringers. That is currently done by Hibberd. Lever isn't the right guy. 4th priority is a KPD. A 2nd ruck is also a high priority but less critical. I think we are chasing Preuss because we know Hogan is gone. We then play him as a ruck forward. The small forward is a need but I think it can be ignored because we have such depth on that space, although losing Kent and perhaps VDB will test us. Getting May may improve us, and could free Frost to be the medium defender, but I'm not sure Frost is better in that role than his current role. So I think we'd still have that weakness. I'm concerned May is overpriced for 3-4 years of service. I think we are better spending that high amount of currency on priorities 1, 2 and even 3, as those priorities basically don't gauge any incumbent.

You're right I didn't add the prelim but we we were torched in the midfield not in defense. Kent Kingsley would have kicked a bag against us that day. I should correct my statement. I don't think full back is our "biggest" problem. We successfully contained key forwards on plenty of other days when the midfield fired. In creating that list, what jumped out to me was actually how often a medium forward kicked 3+ against us (not listed). We don't have true medium defenders, just rebounders. Maybe bringing May in releases Frost to play that role?

This. To me, we didn't lose many games because of our defense. WCE prelim: our mids went missing. The whole team really. Collingwood, Richmond, Hawksduring season: our mids didn't run hard enough, allowing easy ball to enter our D50 on the rebound. We didn't tackle enough, and got comprehensively beaten all over the ground. PA, Sydney, Geelong x 2, St Kilda, we comprehensively won the inside 50 count but delivery i50 was bombing it long. The second Geelong match we allowed Hawkins to go nuts, but that was lack of midfield pressure more than defense. 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 of the leash. I just don't see big key defender as our weakness.

Frost is a funny sort of player, and reminds me a bit of the former New Zealand Zealand Bob Cunis, neither one thing nor the other. He isn't big and strong enough to be the gorilla keeper. He is quick but not quite agile enough for the small forwards. His disposal and decision making aren't good enough to be the premier rebounding medium defender. With May, the back 7 will be: Lever, May, Jetta, Hibbard, Salem then one of group A OMac and Frost, and one of group B Lewis, Hunt, and Joel Smith. The only way Frost and Omac play in the same team as Lever and May is if Omac is picked and then Frost forces his way into competition with group B, as a small/medium defender. Personally I think his skill set is "amazing run, carry, closing speed etc. for a tall defender, that makes up for some of his weaknesses as a tall defender" rather than "great strength and aerial skills that make up for his weaknesses as a rebounding defender". Thus is why I'm not super enthusiastic about getting May. I know he is a good player who will improve us. But for the cost in picks too gain him, minus the value of the incumbents who he will push out of the team (rather than reposition) I think we can get better value by trying to improve other areas of the ground.