Vogon Poetry

I'm assuming Frost was injured and that's why he didn't play at any level this week. When I went to training he was in rehab. Joel Smith did most of training on Wednesday but pulled out of a few drills towards the end and he didn't play at any level. Fritsch, Tim Smith and Balic didn't play at any level this week but were not mentioned in the injury report. Does anyone have any information on these players? I don't recall seeing Balic at training. Is he injured?

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance. What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury. If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications. My question is this. Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent? Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured. I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd. If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29? It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up. I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

Great news for Jack, I wish him all the best. Just as an aside does anyone know how Jack Grimes went this year. He chose not to take a one year contract which is interesting given what Trenners has done.

Most know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Does this mean we don't need Lewis?

Life is full of risks Steve. Keeping Clarrie minimizes them. Still waiting on the list of players who haven't been stars after producing results like Oliver in his second year. You could dodge the question by saying "nobody has" but that wouldn't help your position would it. I saw the Ralph solution. Seems fair but I couldn't understand where Rockliff fitted in. Can't Carlton just get him as a FA anyway?

At the cost of perhaps the best player we've seen at MFC for a very long time. Careful at the casino Steve, I don't think you understand odds very well and you don't seem sure of why you're making decisions.

You're a strange beast Steve. You started by saying you wanted three picks because you wanted a star (and you haven't seen one at MFC in your lifetime) and you'd trade Oliver for them. You changed to say you wanted to balance the list and have diversity. And now you're back to saying there is no guarantee that Oliver will be a star. Of course you're right in that position unless you think he's a star now. And you're basing "there's not guarantee he'll be a star" on a year, his second year, where he: was seventh in the overall AFLCA votes won the AFL coaches association best young player award. That was almost a given given the above. Was 5th in clearances (for the whole comp) 4th in tackles for the whole comp 2nd in contested possessions for the whole comp 5th in disposals for the whole comp. And probably much of which I can't be bothered looking for. You've got to back yourself in Steve. Is Oliver likely to be a star and how much do you believe in that position. He's shown more than potential Steve, he's proven he can do it over a whole season against the best. How many players have ever had those sort of results in their second year and NOT turned into stars? I'll let you do the research on that one because that is what you are arguing. If you're arguing diversity and three is better than one that's fine but if you're arguing "star" I reckon you are very very wrong.

Steve I'm afraid I'm now more confused than ever. You're reply to me is based around "we have plenty of inside mids and having 3 top picks would help us round out our lists and diversify our (injury) risks". That's what I took from it anyway. Your reply failed to address the "star" issue (and where Clarrie sat in that discussion) which is what we were debating. Further it adopts the exact position I thought you'd originally argue. You can see that from the posts above and hopefully why I'm confused. So is it fair to say you are now saying "look, I was wrong, Clarrie is more likely to be a star than three fresh picks and the real reason I'd do it is that three picks are better than one". That's a whole different discussion and absolutely valid but you appear to have totally abandoned your initial position.

Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight. You recognize Clarry talent and his achievements but you'd trade him for two picks inside the top 10 and one outside it because you want a star. Therefore you think three 1st rounders have more chance of procuring a star than having Clarry. Really? You're used to MFC not developing it's talent (despite Oliver success) so you'd trade Clarry out for picks to be developed by the same people who are developing Clarry in the hope of getting someone better than Clarry. To be honest Steve I think this is a really silly proposition given how hard it is to find rare talent (which I obviously think Clarry is). Of course if you don't think Clarry is a rare talent then your position is reasonable although I think the "bird in the hand" argument is compelling even so. And you think that despite saying "And on a completely different topic" and "I loved Rivers ,, (getting Lever) would be gold for this club" I for some reason don't think Lever could similarly be a star of the comp and this makes me a "stereotypical one-eyed supporter". Obviously my comment on Lever was utterly positive and I do think Lever can be a star of the competition. But in addition to the above and not to confuse issues I would say that a midfield star of the competition is more valuable than an intercept mark player of the competition so I'd have Oliver and Petracca well ahead of Lever. To be clear that is no slight on Lever. Steve you've said elsewhere that you are involved in scouting for an AFL club. That will make you privy to information and exposed to some serious football people and I assume if you're scouting for them they value your input. That's why I'm having this discussion because I'm genuinely interested in your view.

So you're telling me that we have more chance to unearth a star with 2 top ten and 1 outside than sticking with Oliver. That indicates to me that you don't see him as a rare talent capable (or likely) of becoming a star of the competition despite having as good a second year as anyone I can remember. That surprises me. I was expecting "three players are better than one", I wasn't expecting "if we had three picks we'd get on that's better than Clarry". Clarry and Trac are the two best prospects I've seen at MFC since Flower. They are in the right environment. There is no price I'd accept for either that could be seriously offered. And on a completely different topic I really like the Rivers/Lever comparison except Lever is a much better kick. For the record I loved Rivers, seriously underrated and if Lever was as good and could kick it would be gold for our club.

Serious questsion. How many first round picks do you think are fair for Danger or Martin (or an in form Fyfe)? How many second year players have you seen have more impact than Oliver? If we got three first rounders for Oliver what are the chances of getting a player anything like him? I think the reality is you can't put a price on Oliver because he is such a rare talent.

Ron, it depends what we get for him.

Yes, rjay, spot on and I suspected this the first time I saw the post. But the reality is a lot like the facade and would prefer to believe it regardless of the veracity. As you say the process is the same as it the language. I'd bet a fair bit it's one and the same. And why a new name? Because after the Hogan fiasco GNF has no cred. People with the sort of information JG says he has don't splash it around the internet because if they do it is quickly picked up and they no longer get the information.

You'd have to know the finances in order to determine what offer you'd make. The main point is that by having this "war chest" you don't compromise future salary cap decisions because you're making the payment from past year surpluses. Lever's decision to join/not join us will be based around a whole raft of issues, not just money. Others can have a concern over the money if they wish but I won't. The fact that he joins us over others is evidence we are starting to become a serious player because anyone can offer money. It's the other things that count.