deanox

I am boghled by your first comment. Do you really think that Josh has bent over in trades to try and get the media to like him? That's crazy. He got trades done because he knew what he wanted, knew how he valued it and didn't argue over steak knives for the sake of it. All the trades you mentioned were obviously targeted players. Theft might not have worked out based on the players performance (sadly even though Tyson gave us agreat 3 years when we needed it, he has now been pushed out. And given it was Billings vs Salem/Tyson I'd say we won it anyway). We might not have "won" them by paying unders but we paid a pretty reasonable price, and got it done. Negotiatiors who get win win are good negotiatiors. You get your target, all parties are happy, and you'll do business again. Idon't understand why so meant people rate negotiators based on being able to rip off the opposition.

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.

@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.

I agree he sulks a bit instead odd playing the whistle, but he has an above average shot conversion and probably deserves the frees he doesn't get. But he isn't over rated. He is one of the top key position forwards in the competition and is only 23. His perceived "weakness" is mostly associated with being double/triple teamed and also games where delivery is worse. One out he is close to the best mark we have. He covers heaps of ground, gets a lot of the ball and has beautiful field kicking. The injuries are a bigger concern than the rest, given he is a heavy set running. That being said, two first rounders is the going price for any player of that age and quality. The only question is how early should the first rounders be? Personally, I'd want to finish with a top 6 pick as one of them.

I could never be truly annoyed if he left after what he has been through this last 18 months. He is a young bloke making hard decisions with a million people buzzing in his ears. It helps to know that we'll be handsomely compensated if he does leave. I hope he stays with us, because I love the sentiment in footy. But I also felt for Bernie when he missed games and the VFL premiership, was happy to cheer and celebrate Hibberd and Melksham, and I consider both Jeff White and Jeff Farmer MFC players despite their time at other clubs. Some players move because they have poor character. Others move despite their loyalty. I hope he gets success with us.

I'd take 5 and 6, and we return our 2019 first round pick.

ANB has kicked 26 goals 18 behinds. Set shot I'd tend to agree but stats aren't available. Petracca has kicked 18.19, so ANB is a level above for accuracy.

In this scenario we will have beaten all teams except Sydney and PA in the season too.

He's contracted till next year so we're only let him go if we are happy too and the price is right. The best part about his last three weeks is that anyone who wants him is going to have to pay because he is a pick 9 showing he will make it: his value is therefore at least pick 9, and personally i think higher. A month ago that value was harder to argue on exposed form. I think we'll reflect and decide on what we want to do with the three talls next year and beyond. If we think it can and will work we will hold on to him. If we think it won't work, we'll decide who we're will get the best value from keeping/trading and go from there. Weid will be super important to give Gawn a chop out or a week off and help him look after his body, and I think that's how we'll fit them all in: a ruck, 2 KPFs and a ruck/forward on the bench. The real advantage is that both Hogan and TMac are mobile enough to push up the ground meaning we won't lose too much run. Gawn is 27, TMac 26, Hogan 23.5, Weid 21. That age spread is perfect for us if we can keep them together, enabling is to replenish slowly. So we'd be silly not to try and hold them together.

At 21 he possibly has 5 years more than Max. His ability around the ground may come in handy when we reach that transition in the future.