Gator

Kent isn't worth more than their pick 57.

I've never been open to trading Hogan before, but I didn't know Weideman would be BOG in a final (and he'll become an exceptional key forward) and who knew McDonald would become a 60 goal capable key forward ? I'd still prefer he stays, but if the deal is right it could potentially even improve us. I'll back the club to make the right decision.

It's just rubbish to say Hogan is below average in the pace stakes. I've always thought him above average for a bollocking key forward. This from when he was drafted: At 195 cm and 97.4 kg, Hogan ran a 20 metre sprint at the recent NAB AFL Draft Combine in 3.02 seconds - regarded as midfield standard. He also ran the three km time trial in 10 minutes 20 seconds.

As Tony says, on the off chance Hogan does leave he's worth more than pick 6. He's worth more than a basic swap for May. I love Hogan and always have. It's my preference for him to stay, however, I'll be less gutted than I would have been a year or two ago.

I'll let the coaches worry how to best structure up, but logically it makes no sense to me that a young key forward, who is about to come in to his peak playing years, doesn't make us better. Zero sense at all.

A quality coaching group can construct a plan to include a quality young key position player who's only going to get better. The concept that he makes us worse is a nonsense.

That would make sense.

I've been told that a Melbourne player who lined up in the prelim will be at the Saints next year, but I don't know the name. I can only guess Tyson, even though I doubt he's what they need.

You're eligible if your senior side is still playing.

Connors

I posted in the Gaff thread that I had mail from a prominent player manager... Said manager also said (and he doesn't manage Hogan so it's just an educated opinion), that if Hogan wanted to go home, and he has no clue if he does and would be surprised if he wanted to leave the Dees, he didn't think he'd want to go to Freo. He says the constant referencing of Freo was misleading. In his opinion he'd want to go to West Coast. Freo might want Hogan, but he said he'd be very surprised if Hogan wanted freo.

I don't care, mate. You're welcome to believe what you want. So, no other posters need to bother telling me that they think he's taking coin. It's great you think that way. I don't care.

We were into him, but he doesn't like the proposed role. With Viney, Oliver, Brayshaw, and Harmes playing inside roles there would be little opportunity for him to get his hands dirty in the centre square. But he may stay at West Coast. It's West Coast or North. Fullstop. As for Shiel, etc. how do we satisfy GWS when we have no decent picks to offer ? We'll only get a decent player if we can land a free agent.

My info is from the mouth of his manager. He won't be coming to Melbourne.

Speculate away.

This info was a week ago from a very well connected source. He won't be coming.

Mail from high profile player manager: Gaff will either stay or go to North. He's getting a lot of pressure from his parents to come home, but is happy to stay. He won't be going to Melbourne for one reason. Melbourne wanted to play him as a predominantly outside hard running wingmen and he wants to play as an inside mid. He won't be coming to Melbourne.

Don't ever think your bottom six determines finals. And don't ever think your "stars" cancel each other out. Dustin Martin was the reason Richmond won last night. Stars win finals, not your most mediocre players.

HS

Champion Data has put each finalist’s Round 23 line-up under the microscope and highlighted the six players with the lowest season average based on its official AFL player ratings. STRENGTH OF BOTTOM SIX IN ROUND 23 1. Melbourne 47.7 2. Richmond 42.9 3. Geelong Cats 41.3 4. West Coast 40.7 5. Collingwood 39.4 6. GWS Giants 39.2 7. Hawthorn 39.1 8. Sydney Swans 35.2 MELBOURNE Dom Tyson 9.5 (14 games) Jay Kennedy Harris 8.5 (6) Dean Kent 8.5 (5) Oscar McDonald 7.4 (22) Charlie Spargo 7.0 (15) Sam Weideman 6.8 (7) Also in the mix: Mitch Hannan, Jayden Hunt, Jeff Garlett, Cam Pedersen, Joel Smith, Tom Bugg. Clearly the strongest bottom-six of the eight finalists and with some seriously good players in the wings if needed. Weideman has kicked just one goal in each of his two games since replacing the injured Jesse Hogan but it hasn’t hurt the Dees who kicked 16 and 15 goals in those matches. Oscar McDonald will be relied on to take one of the opposition’s best forwards while Spargo and Kennedy Harris play in probably the hardest position to shine in finals.

You've had one poster laugh at your post and another say, "Not your finest work", but, of course, you're (mainly) right. I wrote the following (in part) in July, 2009: A few years ago Craig Cameron effectively denounced the widely held belief that “a team is only as good as the bottom 6 of its best 22”. He argued and conclusively proved to me that a team is only as good as it ‘best 6’. He pointed out that if one analyzed the end of year ladders over recent seasons there was a strong correlation between the ‘H&A’ ladder at round 22 and the quality of a club’s top 6 players. In most cases the ladder at year’s end mirrors the quality of the team’s top 6 players. Naturally, it won’t be absolute due to vagaries such as injury, but the pattern is undeniable. And it’s not to say that the bottom 6 isn’t important to a team’s flag chances, as we know that all great sides have good depth, but it’s the stars that determine how well a team can be built and how deep it will go into September. Now, I need to add that I've shifted my view somewhat, as the game HAS changed. In the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s the team that had the most talent nearly always won. It was predominantly a 'man on man' contested game. Flooding and zones were coming in, but even so more often than not the most talented teams won, especially prior to 2005. The evolution of the game is fascinating and right now the team with the most talent at the top end is far more regularly beaten by less talented teams due to game-plans, systems, and the fact that talent is now spread over 18 teams. I mean, who really thinks Clarkson's team is a top 4 team on talent alone ? Obviously, the best combination is a highly drilled pressure team that scores well and has the most top end talent. As 'Old' has mentioned, the Bulldogs were an anomaly, but also testament to the shift in football. So, as we know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still hold firm to the view that 'stars' win you flags. They make lesser players better and give those bottom six players the opportunity to make a difference. Those bottom six players don't get the chance to shine without the influence of their team's elite. The perfect combination is having one of the competition's elite top 6-8, a rock solid contested game-plan, and the depth of talent so no-one in your 22 gets exposed. That they can shine in pivotal moments. But be under no illusion, your top end talent is far more important to your fortunes than your bottom end talent. Especially in finals. I don't hold the view that your best 6 are cancelled out by the opposition's best 6 and that the bottom 6 are left to duke it out. It's possible that variations of this can occur, but in the main you need your best players shading the opposition's best players, which allows your core players the best opportunities to perform.

I know it's possible, but I'm not convinced it works best. Give me the structure that will run out Friday week any day of the week.

Yeah nah.

I'm interested in "highest and best use"", not watering down a player's best position to squeeze in someone else. Salem wasn't great in the midfield, but is great down back. Brayshaw wasn't great as a high half forward or on a back flank, but is great on ball. Yes, players can be juggled, but invariably water finds its own level and the course you're advocating rarely is sustainable.

If I'm Sam Weideman and I'm being told we want to keep you as insurance for injuries then of course I'd be seeking opportunities elsewhere. I'd be wanting to know how the club sees me fitting in to the best 22 in my 4th year. I'd want assurances. Obviously there are no guarantees and selection is subject to form, but I'd want the vision to be clear.