titan_uranus

Hence why I put the word beatable in quotation marks.

My guess is we'll get someone 'beatable', like St Kilda, Gold Coast in Melbourne, the Bulldogs, or West Coast in Melbourne.

When was the last time we could confidently say that about a group of young Melbourne players?

I'll be pretty upset if we keep all of Taggert, Nicholson and Jetta and Clisby is on the rookie list next year. Clisby showed more this year than Jetta and Nicholson have in their careers so far combined. I'd readily delist either of them to give Clisby their spot.

To have gained Tyson, Vince and Michie, and still have a top 10 draft pick, is fantastic work from this club (and the possibility still remains that we can get Cross as a DFA). To add those to Jones, Viney, Toumpas and Trengove, and to think that Hogan slots in at FF, should give all MFC supporters enough hope to get through to Round 1 (and, I might add, to sign up as a member).

Whether or not you agree or disagree with trading pick 2, he tried to argue that trading one $100 bill for three $50 bills is a bad trade. He's a [censored].

You can't just write off pick 9. Carlton gave up 3, 20 and Kennedy, and got Judd. They lost a first round and second round pick, plus a player. We gave up 2 and 20, and got Tyson and 9. We lost only a second round pick (still have a first round pick, and didn't lose any players). Completely different.

I think the rumour going around today is that the Sylvia pick is off to Adelaide for Vince. Either way, we end up with pick 9, Tyson, Michie, Vince, and maybe Cross as a DFA.

Agreed.

I see. Not entirely true, but I like Mahoney's spinning anyway. Getting Tyson plus another top 10 pick is a great win for this club.

What is Mahoney on about? Manager of Football Operations Josh Mahoney said: “We’ve been able to bring in a class midfielder in Tyson, and improve our second draft selection from pick 20 to pick 9 in what we see as a fairly even draft. We have also been able to improve our pick 72 to pick 53, so the net effect of the deal is very positive for the Melbourne Football Club.” We lost pick 2, so 9 is our first selection...or does Mahoney know something about potential Sylvia compensation (unlikely, I'd say this is just a mistake)

Getting 9 back is huge. It means we still get a top 10 draft pick, plus Tyson. We do lose 20, which might hamper our future trading options (e.g. it's clearly not going to Vince), but overall this appears to be a win.

Just for some clarity on the Bugg/Buntine/9 trade, Emma Quayle, one of the authors of the article that broke that story, tweeted today that it's GWS' offer, and that she doesn't think we'd be keen to do that deal. https://twitter.com/emmasq/status/390624628194156544

Appears not. It's not listed on the AFL website's 'Trade Tracker' either (the most recent is Ellis moving to West Coast). Nonetheless, you'd assume with what's been said and done that the paperwork is a formality.

I'm not convinced that Bugg/Buntine are worth downgrading from 2 to 9. I just don't think they're that high enough quality to warrant taking pick 2 from us. Good to hear we appear to have sealed Vince for 20, which I think is a good move.

Great trade. Michie for 54 is a steal for us. Of course, he mightn't turn out as we'll be hoping, but for 54 that isn't going to hurt us, and the upside to this stands to be enormous.

Interesting: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-survey-reveals-12-clubs-used-supplements-without-adequate-supervision/story-fnelctok-1226740824947

I've been inexplicably absent from this thread all season. This year's so wacky and largely unpredictable. It's great to see some swapping of roles - the Chiefs, Jets, Chargers, Browns, even the Raiders at times showing improvement on 2012, whilst the Giants, Steelers, Falcons and Texans all slide backwards (can't say any of that saddens me). Some massive games this week, starting with Broncos-Colts on SNF, plus some huge divisional games like Seahawks-Cards, Bucs-Falcons, Cowboys-Eagles, Bills-Dolphins and Ravens-Steelers. Also amazing to consider that Arizona is fourth in NFC West at 3-3, a record which would have them tied-first in NFC East. Also amazing to note that if the playoffs started today, the undefeated Broncos would be the 5th seed in the AFC. Fifth.

I'm one of those who is in the 'development' more than the 'drafting' camp. Holistically, I see development as referring to providing draftees with the ability to get the best out of themselves. IMO, the MFC has not provided this for a decade. Specifically, I think this includes having good leaders at the club, having strong training programs (a lot has been said about how we trained under Bailey with a view to playing downhill skiing uncontested football, and not matching it with the clubs who started playing stronger contested football), having optimal facilities (this has changed in the last few years, but we were at the Junction Oval until 2010 (correct me if I'm wrong on the dates, I can't remember), having clear plans, and a preparedness to get our hands dirty and work hard consistently (rather than expect that the talent we brought into the club would get us there on its own). There can be no question that we have made some significant recruitment errors over the last six or so years. However, I firmly believe that the majority of players we selected were taken at the right point in the draft, but failed because we weren't able to provide them with the environment to develop. When one pick goes wrong, it's easy to say we picked the wrong player. When multiple players taken in the first round over a six year period, the fact those picks coincided with two sub-standard coaches, a sub-standard CEO, sub-standard management, sub-standard fitness regimes, sub-standard facilities, and sub-standard leadership should not be ignored.

I know it's unlikely to change AFL-wide. Regardless, I'd still like to see Melbourne acknowledge that numbers are not as meaningful as people try to make them sound, and let players forge their own careers in whatever number we give them. Whether that be through not putting players in number 50 to begin with, or by having players complete their career in the one number, I just do not agree with, nor like, seeing players switch numbers for any reason.

This is exactly my point. Evans wanted a lower number because the inherent psyche around AFL is that a lower number is 'better'. Why? Because we continue to shift players down after one or two of their fledgling years. If we stopped moving players, then number 50 would be seen in the same light as number 32. If we didn't spend our history shifting players down once they got any good, Evans wouldn't feel compelled to want to move down either.

Our Sylvia compensation pick for Vince feels about right. Obviously more likely to happen if we get Band 3 and thus pick 20-odd, but regardless, losing Sylvia and 'replacing' him with Vince just feels about right. Unless Sloane or some other A-grader from somewhere is involved, pick 2 stays far, far away from this.

If we are looking for the best candidate, and that person isn't available in 2013, then Roos absolutely has to stay here for at least three years. There is no point in having a succession plan if Roos and the successor only work together for one season. Because of this, I'm inclined to think that we've messed up somewhat this year. The indications from the club were that we'd sign a senior assistant coach this year. Now, the fact that we're saying we are happy to wait till 2014 to get the best available may be because we think/know Ling or someone else will be available next year. However, it may also be butt-covering, and right now I'm not sure.

They offered Buddy the presidency too? Sheesh!

Because his 'best' hasn't really ever been good enough? Having said that, I doubt he could be traded for anything more valuable, so if we do keep him, then this is the role I'd probably give him. He needs to shed some weight (or whatever will let him pick up some speed).