Tall Timber

A natural competitor will survive on a lesser skills set and can (will) build his engine in time. Tick off the first and the rest will follow.

There's too many softies to simply chop in one hit, hence the good and reasonable theory that player managers of a handful are being told to shop around this off-season. Sadly, their market worth amounts to very little these days - an indictment on past regimes but hey whatever, we'll have to suck it up for another year.

He's the sort of player we want because he's better than currently 90% of our list. It's a bit rich for some posters to put the knocks on a bloke who's a 2-time AA and Swans B&F because he's a tad slow or his disposal is shoddy on his left or whatever.

While it's not left-field in name, I'm still confident the big fish target is Prestia.

It's no surprise we'll be rumoured to have interest in every player on the market, and some fringe players perhaps not on the market. Fact is we will, because despite our improvements we still hold more than half a [censored] list. I don't care where you were drafted or which club you came from. If you can get it plenty, use it properly, play both ways and last a whole game then you're a candidate to join the MFC. And none of the names currently being mentioned + available should be given a second thought.

I can play too. Just not very well. What's your point ? He's lethal going for goal but averages 1/2 a game, and doesn't make up for it in the disposal or tackle count. So what is his talent ? Looking slack-jawed ? He's a list-clogger.

I don't think we're doubting Jake can play, Steve. I think we're just petrified of paying overs for him - myself included. As a Melbourne supporter, blind faith is pretty [censored] hard to do.

Did some light reading from 2009. Appears he was a silky outside midfielder with sharp skills and great hands but on the downside he was soft, bit slow and lacking defensively. That seems to fit in with how a lot of Dons supporters see Jake today. I'll trade him in but for a cheese sandwich at most.

If Jake picks Melbourne, it's advantage us in trade negotiations, so at least we won't have to overdo it to get a deal done. I have no idea on his ability or his competitiveness as an AFL player, though. Enlighten me.

No disagreeing with you there. But money talks. We'll get something good but we'll have to give up plenty for it.

By the club. And what do you mean ? Beamer was B&F and A-grade in 2010-11.

Where does Grimes sit in the bigger scheme of things ?? The guy was touted as the club's next Moloney back in his first or second year. He would be a useful depth player but he can't run for sheet.

In all interviews I've seen and read Jesse has come across as being of extremely strong character thanks to his family. Because of this I can't see him ever 'quitting his job' for a similar one closer to home ie. being wooed home to join Freo or Franchise. If anything I think he's a better chance of moving overseas to play for bigger money and opportunity, which is inconceivable.

I was using Cross and Lumumba as examples only. They have been more than useful to us. My point was about trading for picks this year.

I don't *think* the recruiters will, nor do I know -- just to clarify -- but if it so happens that they do rate the draft pool higher than most then I would hope it gives the club reason to trade with the idea of strengthening their hand in the draft. If by "wrangle a player with proven AFL credentials (not necessarily an A grader)" you might mean, say, a Tom Mitchell or Adam Tomlinson ?? Also it depends on your definition of A-grader, B-grader etc. Hannabal had a 4-tiered ranking system which made complete sense. Bernie Vince is B-grade, where Dangerfield is A-grade and Ablett is a Star. A-graders win Premierships. B-graders play their role which can influence games but typically hold the team's structure afloat. If we can give away a second or third-round pick for a Mitchell, Tomlinson "type" then bombs away but it's completely unrealistic. I want the A-graders. The first-round of a draft has delivered them when most pundits dismissed them at the time. And if the recruit falls short of A-grade then at least we can develop a young kid from the ground up to play a role he understands with a team he's been around from day dot.

Roos flags aggressive changes to the list, and this is encouraging to hear, but I don't want to see like-for-like trading occur. The team's in no position to "top up". Adding players like Cross and Lumumba (although we had no choice there) reads more like a Band-Aid solution rather than progress, so I want this rubbish to end. Change for the sake of change is pointless and creates (or in our case perpetuates) a vicious negative cycle. If notable names are indeed moved on the club should strengthen their numbers in this year's draft. Apparently the draft pool is weak but I only see this as a positive because it will allow us to accumulate draft picks without resistance from other clubs -- if the club sees the draft pool differently to everyone else. I understand it will mean buying low but the list is still at a very low base, albeit building an impressive core of 20 to 23-year-olds, so we have reason to be optimistic and take some risks. And it's about damn time we stop dwelling on -- and apologising for -- past instances of draft failure and recognise what we did wrong then and get it right now, or at least have a good crack at it. Back ourselves right in from recruitment right through to development. We will get it wrong sometimes, make no mistake, but a strong culture is built on responsibility and confidence. Unless an A-grade young mid or tall gets served to us on a platter, make the draft priority.