grazman

I think you mean moot and I don't think it is. Reading the Hun this morning it was clear that Carlton tried to exchange Walker for McLean. The club chose pick 11 - good choice. We don't need to recruit another injury prone player who has not been able to establish himself in a position. He was obviously trade bait - but no one bought it - so he was re-signed. His manager was 'ecstatic' that he'd been offered a new two year deal... and according to Carlton he now has two years to become the player they'd hoped he'd be.... hmmm.

Everitt signed a new two year contract during the season. The Dogs don't have to trade him if they don't want to.

thanks dee-man, will be worth a look.

I say again Frogshit.... show me where you posted that in your argument. Have I berated you for having an opinion - You don't like the decision, and resent it, and that's the crux of the matter. Don't dress up your opinions as facts and expect others to swallow them. Your analogy with Richmond and your criticisms of pushing success further away are pure hysteria.

Geez people, Brock donated money to the club we all appreciate the gesture, but let's keep it in perspective. He was paid well for his services, he was offered less money by the club, he has gone somewhere else, the insinuation being that he felf slighted after he gave his own money to the club that he was asked to take a cut. It doesn't mean that the club was wrong in what it offered Brock. He's done the right thing by himself in going to Carlton, and anyone who doesn't believe he'll be getting paid a lot more than what he would at Melbourne is just living in la la land. At the end of the day it's not always about money, but it's pretty damn persuasive.

Frogshit. How about you ask Hawthorn instead. Your solution is that we shouldn't adopt the best course of action for a riskier one, that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those given the responsibility for managing the list - you're carrying on like a kid that's dropped their ice cream on a summers day... suck it in and move on.

It's a good result for us. Hawthorn have to do a deal otherwise they'll risk losing him in the PSD. In light of the Brock McLean story I'm guessing that Pick 2 is definately off the table now.

PJ is contracted to 2010, the rest are out of contract. I've heard Zomer has already been cut. (he wasn't eligible to be re-rookied anyway)

That's if he goes to the draft camp.... how many clubs need to nominate a player before they can attend. I doubt that any other club wants to look at Scully knowing there isn't a hope in hell he will play for anyone except us.

Exactly ... as my boss would say... "he just doesn't get it."

Your answer is no answer. Even if opposition supporters may sometimes know nothing of our players, opposition clubs do, packaging up a liability in sheep's clothing isn't going to work.

I agree we should try to trade him, but there's only one good reason why you'd pay out his contract and four very good reasons why he'll stay. Pro's to paying out Newton: 1. He is no longer on the list. Cons to paying out Newton: 1. It's dead money - or more to the point a complete waste of money. 2. It's either added on to the TPP for this year or next which may mean one less senior vacancy while we pay out his contract. 3. The AFL and wider Footy Community ask serious questions about why we should receive funding when we can't even manage something as simple as player contracts (once again appearing to be the biggest amateurs in a professional competition). 4. Players and their managers become concerned that a contract with Melbourne is not really worth anything. (You want these people to be confident in how you approach business not rolling their eyes and taking a deep breath)

watching the game my better half asked me who I wanted to win, I gave my usual reply when we aren't playing...."neither". I was hoping for Neil Craig's sake the Crows would get over the line, but not to be. Other than that it was fascinating to watch two teams who really don't subscribe to "rebuilding" slug it out. Lots of blokes that seem to have come from nowhere. The Crows have made good use of their trading (though they'll have to give away their policy of using their first picks on ruckmen), but they've also managed to use the rookie list pretty well. The Pies KPP early draft picks in Brown, Reid & Rusling have been overtaken by the later picks of Anthony, O'Brien and Goldsack and their better players in Swan, Lockyer, Maxwell and Johnson are all very late picks or Rookie Upgrades.

"http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26060546-5012432,00.html" Interesting observations at the bottom of the article. We've made a pitch to Brian Lake. A lot of water to pass under the bridge obviously, but interesting none-the-less.

I'm reasonably sure a player has to agree, most of the time they do, but sometimes like Fergs and Nick Stevens they don't. I'm not doubting your example, but I don't think it proves that a player can be traded without their authority. Some players choose to hand over that responsibility to their managers on their behalf (some of them like Croad aren't the sharpest tools in the shed).

Is Pearce out of contract? I'd definately target him for the PSD.

100% IF he has been sacked and that's very doubtful, it's almost certainly as a breach of contract and not because we've raised a surplus of cash from our debt demolition.

Lucky the question of certain players courage, lineage and sexual preference is confined to the internet where they can choose not to read what has been posted and not spat at them by some toothless bogan from the outer!

How about Melbourne have no forward line structure.

Minus Grimes, Garland, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Benell, Scully and Trengrove

Hmmm. Our midfield has been an obvious issue this year. If as expected we draft Scully and Trengrove then we will have gone a long way to addressing part of the issue. The one factor that is either down played or overlooked completely is the ruck situation. The much maligned Mark Jamar has highlighted this issue, because when available he's at least been able to stem the centre square haemorrhaging. Besides Jamar we have two development ruckman (Meesen and Spencer) who need at least another 24-36 mths. By which time they'll either be useful contributers or a complete bust. We also have two makeshift ruckman in Stef Martin and PJ. One is still a long term WIP the other unfortunately I've put a line through in terms of ruck work. In short we need another experienced ruck to support Jamar while the others develop. Mark Seaby isn't a perfect solution, but he might be the best solution available. He's 26 next year so he's still got 4-6 useful years left - by which time hopefully the development ruckmen have come through. I say best solution, because I think he's a far better second ruck prospect than anyone else on the list atm and he could be got through the PSD. I'd make a pitch and wait for December. The reason that he wasn't traded last year is because West Coast were unreasonable with what they wanted. They have far limited bargaining power now that he's out of contract.

We need a second ruck option. Meesen and Spencer are still learning - so I'd look at Seaby to come via the PSD. No to McKinley and I'd be interested in a direct swap of a player for Reilly.

Because some people just don't get it... like you for instance.

Not as much as one year would have. You might offer longer contracts to entice a player to move clubs, but two years is pretty much the norm.

Eggcellent!