rpfc

It read it as we were selling and not getting near the price we were hoping for. Frankly, good! I don't like the idea of just getting rid of someone just to get rid of them. Watts isn't a cancer, he's a player with elite skills and some fundamental flaws but just came off his best year. String 5 months together like the two he had this year and he will be a valuable role player on a flank.

That midfield needs talent - if like the Roos we are too heavy on inside mids - then we can find some outside players. On the scale of 'problems to have' it's a step up from where we are...

That's a bit steep. What about moving back 5 spots for Hartlett?

The average salary is about $265k-275k. The numbers for last season were published by the Hun earlier in the year.

Speaking of hand wringing, does anyone remember how that Frost, 40, and 55 (or whatever the numbers were) for 23 was seen on here? It was scandalous that trade - then it wasn't, and now it is an example of what a 2nd round pick should be able to bring consistently...

Your maths... 6 deletions from the PL. If you lose 6 apples and gain 2 apples, how many apples will you go and get from the cart to end up with the same amount of apples? 4 more apples! Plus at least 2 rookie apples...

At this stage of the Vince rumours:

Honestly, emailing the coach over this?

Wait, so Jimmy Toumpas getting another contract is rotten? Lil Jimmy Toumpas? You might end up being right that Goodwin, Melksham, and Toumpas are bad decisions, but they are just that.

Jeez, you got there pretty quick, sloonie... A year out from being solely in charge and the club is broken as evidenced by his signing as coach. And all because of Jakey Melksham...

$400k will be near average salary by the time the contract is up. The question, besides whether it is true, is how much he will cost in a trade. Really don't understand the handwringing...

Essendon are notorious for dealing with in October... Hope he is comfortable going through the draft.

Very unlikely - he has to agree. Why would he agree if he can simply go wherever he wants as a RFA? We can threaten to match the salary, but if we are trying to trade him - that doesn't make it seem like we are really going to match the salary... Technically possible, but undeniably implausible.

Happy to keep Howe for what he is worth. Same with Garland.

This is a game - we are trying to dangle a player to get something while also not making it as if he has to go should we not get anything worthwhile. You don't build lists by taking offence at contract posturing and cutting ties. Nathan Jones was very nearly an Essendon player. That would have involved a great deal of posturing and negotiation...

Meh. I mean, he would be great for midfield depth, but how deep? If Goodwin sees something then back your man I guess. But... Meh.

Yes, he has to go back through the ND and PSD and we get him before the RD. Well that was the rule a few years ago...

I don't think it will be that many - unless we find homes for Garland, Howe, and Grimes. But even then you are looking at bringing in some very speculative talent in the back end of the draft or finding some limited players in Delisted FA. Cross and Jamar retiring, M Jones and Terlich being paid out, the aforementioned three moving via FA and Trades, and the deletion of McKenzie, Hunt, Bail, Riley, Michie, and Fitzpatrick would be the maximum I can see and that is 13. Not much room to move. You can also compare them to what they would bring in: 1. Mckenzie/Vanders 2. Bail/ND5 3. Terlich/ND27 4. Hunt/ND47 5. Jamar/ND66 6. Howe/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 7. Cross/Harmes 8. Fitzpatrick/DFA1 9. Garland/*FA Pick 10. Grimes/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 11.Michie/DFA2 12. Riley/ND86 13. M Jones/DFA3 The above are in some sort of 'desire to keep' order but the value return disappears in my opinion at Michie for the second delisted FA, we might see the back of more than that but I doubt it. I would keep Michie and Riley around but the latter hasn't played much and that isn't a good thing in a contract year - the return on the 11th change onwards isn't great.

That's a much healthier stance than those that just want to trade him 'for a bag of chips.' He has been good for a couple of months now while more highly touted 'stars' are crashing and burning the place down. Of course he is tradeable but he is also becoming more and more valuable as a footy player.

Or those that just see it as list management decision made with facts in hand and reason. I agree that that is how we will see it but it would be best to stop seeing everything through a predetermined lens.

In light of the 'debacle' of this season - it is interesting to note that Roos will push the amount of players he has moved on to over 30 this summer. There are 44 places on the list... ...

You are just settling old scores and trying to justify the hate you had for a bloke that has pulled his finger out. He was one that actually wasn't in Bali yesterday, why he gets added to your list only you know.

Really didn't need that last line. When someone boils down another's argument to an asinine level - you are essentially saying that the people who are on that side of the argument are asinine. So to answer your underlying question - No, jnrmac, I don't think all people who 'boo' people/things are racist.

Well that was depressing, thanks t_u. We went through the 'depths' of winter for years without a win? I can believe it...

And again... The change is here. It's a little late to be forewarning... Garland has been nothing but a pro, and if Roos and co. deems him as a required player I have no qualms as I can see reasons why he would be a required player. You cannot see that and that is fine but you should stop trying to intimate that those of us who can see him getting another contract are somehow detached from, or rejecting of, reality or the issues the club faces - it demeans your argument(s) about past attitudes, talent, and skill level.