rpfc

If they do this then they are 'Jonesing' for another 'Brayshaw' they have lined up a long way out... Some kid who won't be there at 6.

We really need a 'WTF' button... I would call it The 'dee-luded' Button.

Those picks can be 95, 102, and 105 if we wanted them to be, and as Mach5 said, two of them should be Rookie Elevations.

Agree.

The main problem with trading is that players have a veto and the players want the opportunity to veto a deal so that they don't end up in a different state to where their life is set up. In the US - players of all major codes live elsewhere to where they play, but that is not the case here. Your solution doesn't really allow for them the freedom to choose where they live - which is the base requirement that they feel they deserve. Getting them out of that mindset will fix your scenario but it will largely address the issue of the current scenario. My changes: - UFA after 7 years of AFL footy (on any list, it doesn't restart with a new club), - Every contract after that the player is UFA, - FA compensation remains for players paid a certain amount (Top 10% in AFL) - 2 bands - one behind 1st round pick (Top 5%, 2nd behind 1st round 5-10%) - Traded players can re-negotiate their contract or simply allow their current one to be left in place, - Players can not veto trades, - Player taken in top 10 are given 3 year contracts with a 1 year team option, Players in 10-30 are given 2 year contracts with a 1 year team option, - Draft age to be lifted to 1 full year out of Year 12, The green changes are the ones I would give to the players to get them to swallow the red. I really don't think current players care about the draft age and contracts given to draftees. Give me two weeks in charge...

Well, considering that the deal hasn't been done yet and the vague language of a 'second round pick' - perhaps we are trying to secure another 2nd round pick to give for Melksham.

Well, it has helped us become more competitive. Sylvia for Vince. Frawley for Brayshaw. Moloney for Kent.

Disagree.

Those are not 'live' picks so they don't really push back those eligible in the draft. For all intents and purposes we will get the 25th best talent we could get with Pick 30 if there are 5 Academy selections.

Yeah, I think we need to cool down with the rhetoric; I don't think the club is trying very hard to keep him - we want to improve the team and he has currency and may not be in the team in 2016. We have played this perfectly so far, IMO, so well that some of you think this is Howe 'betraying' the club...

That is a compelling argument... I'm sold. Disagree, Brayshaw Self. Disagree.

Now, now, you know what I think about name-calling...

There is something to be said for just getting it done... We took two players at 40 and 53 that some considered for 23 - the Teenage Lottery Draft will have some talent at lower picks for us to hopefully get some decent footy players in with. We have so much talent that is either 27+ or U/22. It will help to get some starting 22 players in between those age brackets.

That's an analysis joeboy would be proud of...

Howe < Redden. It's no use being flexible if you can't play a position at an AFL level. I think if he stays, he will struggle to stay in the 22 forward, back, middle, bench, anywhere...

That's certainly true but I will say that my disappointment is more along the lines that we are paying market price for someone who has a cloud over him with WADA (although I think it will not be much of a storm...), and who has nominated us as his desired destination and with seemingly no-one else in the running for him. We had leverage that we were not intent on using and I can see that backfiring on clubs from time to time - Clark when he was off to Freo - but for Jake Melksham I would probably push Essendon a bit further. Anyway, don't sweat the small stuff and all that...

Yes, well if GC ends up paying overs then I guess we can't complain too much. I would trade Howe for Melksham; I don't think Howe would have played much forward if Watts, Petracca, and Kent are fit (and at the club), or in defence if Lumumba, Grimes, Salem, and Stretch are there and fit too.

Well, if it's Picket then it isn't an act...

Um, I hope we are just 'moving back' in the draft because he is OOC, has one club interested from all reports and could probably make it to us in the PSD. It isn't the end of the world, and he may end up being value but it doesn't look great on face value.

Restricted Free Agency just worked quite well in the eyes of the Player Assoc. The club has no chance to keep the player that wants to go but at least they get more value than if Danger was unrestricted. I would tweak the FA rules but this one went well for the competition.

Well they wanted to get him for nothing so at least they have taken 3 players off them...

I doubt it. They have already pushed him onto the RL for next year - they will not remove that flexibility by giving him a list spot now. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-09-25/dees-lock-in-four-youngsters

White was given the second year of his RL stay, so he is done. Harmes is the one that should be signed up soon hopefully.

Leuenberger is not that. Getting a back up ruck because he is a ruck is not worth it - they will ruck for 20 mins a game. You need to get a forward that earns his money as a forward who can go into the ruck against other 2nd rucks and not embarrass themselves. Leuenberger is not that.

Interception! Note: there will be a few who will chuckle...