titan_uranus

I guarantee you that unless the two players we take are top-5 in our B&F next year, at some point there will be complaints on here that we should have taken whoever we end up passing on.

How are the Patriots 5-2? Surely they're one of the weakest 5-2 sides of the last few years? I really don't see them as a genuine threat at all. I guess someone's got to win AFC East though. Pumped for SF-Denver, although I think we'll get well beaten.

So we've kicked off the Pakistan series with a loss to Pakistan A. Our two old foes again, spin and reverse swing, ruined us in the second innings. Rogers and Clarke have no form to speak of either, which doesn't help. Looks like a team of Rogers, Warner, Doolan, Clarke, Smith, Marsh, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, O'Keefe, Lyon is how we're shaping up. Marsh at 6 to provide the third bowler support whilst we run with two spinners in the UAE. No Harris, Pattinson or Watson from our most recent Test side (the one that beat South Africa in South Africa). Marsh has Watson's spot and if he can make the number 6 spot his own with the bat, Watson's going to find it super hard to get back in IMO. Harris was the superstar in South Africa so his loss is huge, but Siddle's a good type of bowler to have in UAE conditions.

I don't know nearly enough about this stuff, but can someone let me know if this is how it looks likely to pan out? St Kilda takes Petracca, we then take Brayshaw and McCartin. St Kilda takes McCartin, we then take Brayshaw and Petracca. St Kilda takes Brayshaw, we then take McCartin and Petracca. Are there any other permutations here? They are the top 3, right?

My view is we have a terrible conversion rate between those who are Melbourne supporters and those who actually care about the club/go to games/etc. For example, I think North Melbourne and the Dogs have much higher conversion rates but their total numbers would be smaller than ours. If we can convert more of our supporters into fans (i.e. by winning more), then I think we'll see bigger crowds and more members, up around the figures for Geelong/Carlton.

First post since April. Typically comes out swinging. On the attitude players, there's no doubt that Cook and Gysberts were utter failures from the recruiters. As for the others, I wonder if the environment we brought them in to was simply all wrong for them (that is, the Dean Bailey laissez faire love-in style of coaching). I suspect, though we'll never know, that Blease, Watts and/or Morton would be better players now if they'd been brought into a harder, tougher environment in their formative years.

Ignoring his off the field issues, he's massively overrated on the field. An absolute no.

That doesn't work either. It would be Trengove, 3 and 23 (assuming we turn Trengove and 23 into 12) for Coniglio, Brayshaw and 4.

It's not 2, 12, 23 and Trengove. It's either 2 and 12, or 2, 23 and Trengove.

I guess it comes down to subjective ratings of their depth vs ours, but I'd have thought he's a better chance of moving past M Jones, Bail, Michie and Riley than he is of moving past Conca, Vlastuin, Foley and Edwards. At any rate, the argument that it's 'impossible' to disagree that Richmond is the better fit is a bit hyperbolic, which was the original qualm. There is a spot for him at Melbourne and we currently don't have the depth to be keeping him out altogether.

Assuming we'd want to stay in the top 10, the next clubs to pick in the top 10 after us at 3 are GWS, WB, Carlton, GC, Collingwood, Adelaide. Getting warmer GNF?

Garlett will add a lot as a forward pocket with great defensive pressure. I think Kent's better further up the ground anyway, so I'd be looking to push Kent up past half-forward and into the middle and keep Garlett closer to goal with the dual purpose of kicking goals and pressuring defenders.

Thank God for the Jehovah's Witnesses (pun(?) intended). They've forced trade week to end on Thursday. One fewer day.

Maybe LM is Lumumba? Not initials but kinda sounds like it... Would like to add SF in too.

Who's that?

Not at all, I have really no knowledge of Johnston or his potential. I was more saying that you'd want to be more sure that he's not a good fit for us than simply 'two other clubs have said no'.

Really? Richmond has a much stronger midfield than we do, and though I still can't believe I'm saying this, they also have a list that has made the finals the last two years. We have no depth outside of our top 4-5 mids. Surely the easier midfield for him to crack into is the Melbourne one?

Wasn't Spangher delisted twice?

For mine, though I consider Trengove to be well above average on the 'good bloke' scale, that's not really why I don't like the thought of this trade. Trengove's career has been tough. Drafted into one of the worst sides in history. Played under a coach who wasn't very good. Was there for 186. His second coach was worse than the first. The complete lack of leadership on the list forced him to be put into the captaincy role (youngest ever AFL captain). He wasn't very good at it. He's (potentially) carried OP/foot injuries for a year or more. Was part of the worst side since the MFC of 2008-2009. If ever there was a player who hasn't been given the chance to just develop and play, it's him. And we're now considering releasing him for what may well be nothing more than moving from 23 to 12. An 18-year-old with pick 12 is a risk. Just as much, if not more, than keeping Trengove. Trengove is also 23, and therefore approaching his prime and his true age for leadership. Yes, he might not improve at all on what we've already seen and that means he won't be part of our next flag. But you could say the exact same thing for whoever we take at 12. These are the thoughts in my head at the moment and unless there is some sort of certainty as to on-trading 12 for a GWS star, or Dangerfield, or Beams maybe, then I really don't like the idea of this trade. Moving from 23 to 12 at the draft doesn't make it worthwhile

Who's 'given up' on the draft? How silly. Some people, myself included, do not hold the view that stocking up on draft picks and drafting tonnes of new kids is the right way to win our next flag. That was the view that most of us held in 2007-2009. It doesn't work. But that of course doesn't mean we just stop using the draft.

Where does Trengove fit into Richmond's midfield? Or team in general? Their list has holes but what role would they have earmarked for him? I'm not convinced Richmond is necessarily the better place for Trengove to be given we have a weak midfield as well as a weak half-forward line (the other possible place to play him). That doesn't mean Richmond's offer wouldn't be great for him. That's part of it for me, agreed. More importantly, I don't think moving him on just to move up from 23 to 12 in a relatively flat draft is worth it. They both add up to the same thing though. I'm not interested in pick 12 at the draft, to me I don't think that's a gain for us. If we are on-trading 12, that's different.

Is that what happened when we pushed Junior into retirement? (I don't know tbh, I'm just wondering).

Agreed. He's being severely underrated on this board, partly due to his playing for Collingwood, partly due to the fact that to get him we may be trading Trengove.

Some are suggesting that, since Richmond came to us with the deal, we therefore can't be exploring a so-called 'mega-trade'. IMO it's both. Assuming we want to take at least one of 2 and 3 to the draft, we will have realised at some point during negotiations that we need to get into the top 15/20 to get the type of player we want. At the same time, Richmond has come to us with a proposal. Doesn't mean we didn't ask them 'is there anyone on our list you'd look at for pick 12?'. My biggest concern with this trade is the cultural impact. It's all well and good to acknowledge that our list has problems and we need to fix things, but I wonder what the impact on the other players would be if we traded a player who, from all reports, actually strongly wants to be here. Especially if the goal is to bring in someone who just wants more money and to get away from Nathan Buckley. For mine, upgrading from 23 to 12 is not worth moving Trengove on, taking into account the fact that his best football is most likely ahead of him given his injuries, unless we are looking to on-trade 12 as part of a bigger deal. In other words, I don't believe upgrading from 23 to 12 just to go to the draft and take a kid is worth moving Trengove on.

On the contractual clause potentially available to Ryder, it's not that simple. It's not clear cut that he can rely on it and I think he, Port and Essendon know it. There's a messy dispute to be had over it. It is therefore in everyone's best interests (and, pragmatically, it's everyone's only true option) to find a trade.