Vogon Poetry

There is a reason they are getting rid of him and there is a reason a lot of clubs aren't interest. I'd listen to reason. It's a blooody good reason to leave this bloke alone.

There is no doubt that we have been seduced by opening a present from the draft without really knowing what's inside. It's exciting when a new player comes to the club particularly when that player is one of the best of his vintage. And over 10 years it's mainly what we've enjoyed as Demon supporters. But it's the position of the hack team, not one looking to win finals. Our objective is to put as much talent on the park as we can at the one time. That is not achieved by trading out talent to get in younger talent, all that does is spread your talent over a longer period and limits the talent you can put on the field at the one time therefore limiting your chances of winning finals. IF Weideman is worth pick 6 it's indicative that he's loaded with talent. We traded a future first rounder to be able to get him to compliment the impressive list of first rounders we'd accumulated in previous years and bunch our talent. The last thing we want to do is dilute our bunched talent and trading Weideman would be a huge mistake and clearly won't happen. It's why Watts won't be traded for a pick. It's why none of our young early picks will go anywhere for Lever. What's the point in trading out someone of equal talent to who you get in? The object is to improve your list. It's why jackaub's suggestion and position is just simply wrong.

@stevethemanjordan #otherfacts

But we do now because a poster on an internet forum said something! FWIW I suspect you're right but I was interested to see if anyone knew more to back up what was a pretty distasteful comment if it was just uninformed opinion.

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?

But you didn't have them when you made the assertion.

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.

That's a really strange comment I think. It's based on an observation from a distance and not based on any fact at all. I remember reading reports here that Pedo was fat. I was at training the next week and he lifted his jumper to wipe his brow and he was ripped with not an ounce of fat. Do you have any facts to say he was overweight Steve?

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.

How do you know that he isn't just this? Have you got inside information or are you just making assumptions from your own observations?

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.

Biff you seem to be arguing about the severity of the sentence here but that is a very secondary issue. He did the crime and he did the time and what it shows, rightly or wrongly, is you reap what you sow. He may well have paid a penalty for his show boating, staging and faux tough guy behaviour but he would have known that went with the territory. I was ashamed of what Bugg did that night and didn't want him to represent the club again. I think my view was shared by many. Any defence of his actions that night are misplaced as they would be to support thuggery on the field. You can argue about penalties and "support" and "inequities" but they are utterly secondary to the issue. Having said that I was impressed by his article and everything he said in it sat well with what we saw. It would be nice if he got an opportunity to restore his reputation at AFL level but I'm not sure he's good enough and I'm not sure I want it to be with us.

How many others on the list do you think are doing the same? You don't know. Jack is just always asked about so gets the airtime. As I recall three were punished by the club during the season. I think you're being a bit sensitive.

The thing that frustrates me about this sort of question is you assume Jack has had one too many beers insinuating that is a regular occurrence. It's just rot. Everyone knows the two sides of the Jack Watts argument. The question on whether to trade him is whether you get a better result for the club. To deny he is best 22 is just silly IMO so if you traded him for something that isn't as good or better what's the point? That's not going to improve the team.

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.

If my memory serves me correctly Max had a very good preseason and improved his fitness and endurance. I get the feeling that whilst Max has a terrific sense of fun and humour he is hell bent on being as good as he can. You don't make the improvements in his game to get to AA ruck in such a short period without serious focus. He was good in the Saints game and down against Carlton before getting hurt against Cats. On his return he was very good until he hurt his ankle against the Power at the MCG. He was giving Ryder a bath and was BOG to half time. But he didn't play well from that ankle injury on and I suspect he played under severe duress for the rest of the season. In his last few games he couldn't jump at all and had trouble running. It wasn't fitness. So much is made of players off field personality. Jack Watts likes a beer with mates so he's not applying himself. Max likes a laugh so he didn't apply himself this year. It's just rot. Players are allowed to have fun outside footy you know. And I notice elsewhere some want to trade him. Gotta be out of their minds in my opinion. His injury ruined his year. He played some good games and not so good games and was well down on his AA form. I hope he gets a clear run at it next year as we'll be a far better team.

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.

That's not Weideman's problem Macca. It's the "hindsight peoples problem" and yours if you get upset about their comments.

No love for Rockliff?