titan_uranus

So you want the club to say "we will get 10 games at the G next year", despite what Pert said as per the below? You're concerned that what will actually happen is we'll bring the Darwin game home to the G but then lose a pre-existing MCG home game to Marvel? Which would make what Pert is saying completely redundant and misleading to our members?

IMO, whether you think we did well or not depends on your pre-trade period views on whether we are capable of bouncing back next year. In other words, if before the trade period you thought we were capable of bouncing back next year, then the trade period was excellent - we get two top 10 picks, add Langdon and Tomlinson to our wings, for the cost of next year's first rounder and Frost. If, though, you thought pre-trade period that we are actually miles from the top, then our trade period was not so good - spent a lot to get the second top 10 pick, Tomlinson costs a lot of salary, reliance on May/Lever/OMac, no new small forward and no new tall forward. As I was already more optimistic about 2020, I quite like what we've done this trade period. But I understand how, if you already viewed our list/prospects poorly, you might question why we didn't make more active plays for players like Butler, Bruce, Keath, Jenkins, Papley or Martin.

I'm all for taking Martin in the PSD if that option is available, but he's not as good as this thread suggests. He is a largely untapped potential talent. The sort of player who, if we had drafted, would cop it left right and centre on Demonland. So I'm quite surprised everyone is fawning over him as much as they are. My gut tells me he will set a price that we either cannot afford, or are not prepared to pay, and that will allow him to get to Carlton at pick 3 in the PSD. Context. We finished 4th the year prior. Almost all of our best players were signed up in or after 2018, before the dumpster fire that was 2019.

Apparently GC offered Martin + 15 for 9, but Carlton refused.

Not only is this in the article: “Supporters have made it very clear to the Club they would love to see the Darwin home game return to the MCG as soon as possible, so they can watch their team live and share in the excitement,” he told Melbourne Media. “This is something we have been working on with the AFL for quite some time. However, it was important the timing coincided with the opportunity to return the game to our traditional home, the MCG, rather than other alternatives.” But if you watch the video, Pert says (verbatim): "Great news for Melbourne supporters and members today, I can announce that the Melbourne Football Club will be bringing one of its Northern Territory home games back to the MCG"

Great news IMO. The home game is coming back to the G, not Docklands.

IIRC this loophole has been closed. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-make-changes-to-academy-draft-rules-20190710-p525yi.html

It's this. Salary dumping. He's fourth in line in their forward line (Cameron and Himmelberg are better than him, Finalyson is arguably as good), on a big salary and with dodgy knees. They want his salary off the books to help keep the rest of their stars. I'll be frustrated if Patton turns into a star for Hawthorn, but I understand what GWS is doing.

This could well be it. Jon Ralph has tweeted that GWS wants pick 3 and will give us pick 6 and GWS' 2020 first round pick. I'm wary of buying into anything Jon Ralph says but given he seemed to have the news of our trade with North first, maybe he has a credible source.

Jon Ralph's "mail":

Pretty sure we have picks in the 5th/6th/7th round if we need to use them? But at any rate I suspect Stretch is getting traded to the GC.

If there's an answer to this question, I suspect @Chook in Perth knows it.

I don't get this logic. You'd rather us pick once in the first round and once in the second round, than twice in the first round, because you want "depth"? We can create "depth" by bringing two top 10 kids onto our list.

Definitely a fair comment, but our running issues don't just apply to spreading from stoppages. Turnovers in our forward 50 and the ball rebounding quickly out the other way require midfielders who are able and willing to run two-ways, hard. Similarly, generating turnovers inside our defensive 50 requires options to release the ball, and they in turn require run.

Seems to me this is a bold trade, and I like it. We "lose" on points value even if we win the premiership next year, but clearly we value the 2019 first round more than the 2020 first round (and there is good reason to hold that belief). I'd be happy for us to take 3 and 8 to the draft, get two top 10 kids, and hit the ground running for 2020. I'd also be happy if we have something in the pipeline to trade 3 or 8 for an established A-grade player. There have been rumours going around that we're into a forward, and we know the club doesn't leak (this deal wasn't mentioned anywhere until minutes before it was confirmed by the AFL), so I think it's completely feasible we have a plan. I look forward to seeing what happens either way.

Anyone know if this is this legit?

I like this thread. Even if we're all completely wrong about Langdon, at least for the first time in 6 months there's some positivity back around us. I'm really looking forward to seeing him line up for us. Why should they be viewed independently? Just so you can isolate the Frost trade and whinge about it? It is completely feasible, even probable, that we did the Frost deal knowing what we were going to do with the Langdon deal. People get too caught up on draft picks sometimes. Ultimately we will look at this trade/draft period at the end and look at who went off the list and who came onto it, and we'll see in time whether the added players have improved us. Your list of other options to trade out is classic Demonland silly season thinking. Frost had value this year. We have the ability to cover for him (whether you like May/Lever or not). None of the players you've listed have anywhere near the value that Frost has. And none of the players you've mentioned were out of contract and asking for a big pay/year rise. Frost was entitled to want more money/years in his next contract, but I completely understand (and agree with) the club's decision to hold back on giving him that rise and to instead "cash in" on his 2019. IMO, even to those who think we've lost value in Frost, I think the gain we get from Langdon should outweigh the loss to Frost. We need more run/carry on the wing than we do Frost's daring runs out of the backline. We will be a better side long-term with May and Lever playing FB/CHB reliably and Langdon on the wing.

Very happy with this.

Pleasing news! Source/link? Says the poster who's developed a "doom spiral" narrative and takes every opportunity/topic to repeat it. I just can't stand the way any piece of news is, for you, another example of the club being on its knees. Maybe you've just gone off a cliff in terms of your optimism/confidence in the club, and whilst that's understandable I find your arguments at times to be anything other than convincing.

Has this been announced? Did I miss this?

Lol @praha You're just posting whatever suits your doomsday, hyperbolic, OTT negative outlook. No Brisbane in the frame = we can't prise him out of Collingwood. Then Brisbane show up = Brisbane has "gone past us". If we were Brisbane you'd be critical of our 0-2 straight sets home finals exit. You'd note that we had no injuries all year (which probabilities suggest won't happen again in 2020), and you'd note that our fixture only had one repeat game against the top 8 and in our 9-game winning streak we only beat two top 8 sides, one of which was a faltering Geelong by 1 point. Brisbane looked good this year. We looked just as good last year. Both young, both taken ages to make finals. Never mind the inaccuracy of calling Tomlinson a Frost replacement (by the way, if the media reports are true we'll be paying Tomlinson less than what Frost wants, and we get a draft pick out of trading Frost with no pick needed to get Tomlinson).

Frost's 2019 looks better than it really was because the side around him was so poor. He's not worth what he's asking for. The reports suggest Frost is asking for more money than we're prepared to pay him, so we've let him talk to other clubs and are prepared to let him go. I completely understand the club's call. Arguments that we should keep him because of his pace are misguided IMO. Yes, teams need foot speed, but not from their key defenders. How many key defenders also play the dash off half back role? We need to plan our list for our next premiership, not for more seasons of 2019-level rubbish. Arguing that we should keep Frost because May and Lever might get injured again isn't, IMO, a smart approach to list management. Edit: forgot the argument I find the worst of them all: the argument that if Clarkson wants him then he must be good. Clarkson might be a stunning coach but he also traded in Vickery, Fitzpatrick and O'Rourke, all of whom stunk. Really such a dumb argument.

And GWS' isn't?

Travis Varcoe? Hell no. His best was 5-10 years ago. We don't need more inconsistent forwards who float in and out of games. McIntosh I'd be interested in, though. Might free up Salem off half-back.

The same posters who argue Tomlinson is no longer in GWS' best 22 and/or is surplus to their needs. The same posters who then argue we should target Richmond's depth (i.e. players who aren't in their best 22 and, in the cases of Butler and McIntosh, have been pushed out since 2017 by other players, exhibiting something of a downwards trajectory).