Vogon Poetry

You must be counting practice matches!

Saw the same comment when we got Michie. Hope your mate is a good judge and I welcome Harley to the club but I'll wait and see how he goes on game day before I get too excited.

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

Does this mean we don't need Lewis?

I think people are missing the point here. Garland would not be "unceremoniously" dumped. The club would work with him to find a win win situation. If one couldn't be found his contract is honoured.

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.

I think Garland would have to agree to the deal and I think he probably would if it was handled the right way. If he was told it was highly unlikely that he'd play seniors and that he could have all the financial rewards of his contract but in addition get on with his life after footy he'd probably take it. But as I say, it has to be agreed to. If Garland didn't agree I'd support your position and not "retire" him.

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.

What you need to remember is we have effectively probably paid for Lever in "past payments". As long as we've paid 100% of our salary cap in previous years we would have prepaid large amounts to currently contracted players. These prepayments mean you have a war chest of money to attract players like Lever when the opportunity comes. We will probably pay him a large first year contract amount and then just put him on "a fair salary". Job done. Let's hope we paid 100% of our salary cap in past years.

So Pennant are you saying that if we win a flag Prendergast will indeed be the architect of our success because without him we wouldn't have accumulated the talent we now have? That will conflict poor old Red! And on another note, those with supposed inside information on Lever beware if you are wrong. I will personally hunt you down and punish you appropriately for your sins (calling BBO). Alternatively if you are right you are welcome to drop by Chateau Vogon and collect an appropriate bottle of red for your troubles. Vogon red, unlike our poetry, is quite good. Note: This offer is now closed to any "Jonny come latelies"

We should have been close to the 4. Look, you've got your perspective and I've got mine and I'll express my view if I want to. It's called freedom of speech. The more interesting issues for me are whether he really does offer leadership and does he have a future, but you keep punching on the suspension. What was your view when it happened?

You are welcome to look at that game, I'm looking at the season.

I'm moaning about not making finals and looking for explanations. If you don't like my posts put me on ignore and your problem is solved.

That is exactly right and why I've called people out who have lauded him for his "on field coaching", his leadership and some have even said he's been a great benefit off field as well. How would they know? We can only judge what we see. I've seen a stupid 3 week suspension, I've seen dumb 50 metre penalties (one against WCE that nearly cost the game and another against Adelaide in Darwin which cost a goal and so close to a spot in the 8 with that act alone). I strongly criticised Lewis (and Hogan) for being reported for off the ball incidents against Carlton and was roundly criticised. Deiter even asked me what planet I lived on and I replied with IMO Lewis let the entire Club down - teammates, support staff, supporters. As for his playing ability I think he's good when he's around the ball but terrible off it. He continually gets beaten on the spread which gives teams a plus one in many situations. He doesn't tackle much and he's now hurried with the ball because he doesn't have the agility to find time to dispose effectively. His kicking is losing effectiveness, when the heat was on in the first quarter against Collingwood he couldn't hit targets when under little or no pressure. And he is starting to fumble and go to ground. For all these issues, which I think are speed and age related, unquestionably warranted a spot in the best 22. It will be interesting to see how the FD balance all these things next year.

I agree with that but the way it appears is we can get Lever but we can't get Kelly. You take what you can get. I don't think it necessarily means the FD have prioritized a KPD.

I did.

Steve, try not to confuse support for Oscar and others as criticism of Lever or an unwillingness to trade for him. Lever is better than Oscar. We know that. But that doesn't support your view that Oscar is no good.