rpfc

It's obvious for Vanders, he signed a contract. Still nothing for Harmes just yet... Interesting how the same set of facts mean different things for different players - we love to place a narrative over everything...

Still no Harmes.

I see a few scenarios; - we are waiting to finalise the details of his contract to be upgraded for some reason I am not aware of, - we are waiting to see if we need to play silly buggers and keep him on the RL for the third year like King will be, - we are keeping our options open for a trade, - we don't think he is good enough. I hope it is the first one; keeping King for the third year is easier as he is an interstate rookie and he can agree to that easily, Harmes has to go through the draft again if I know my CBA well (and I think I do), I don't see him having more value to others than to us in a trade, and he is clearly good enough for this list. Awaiting the announcement of an upgrade and a two year deal.

Well, I think he has had a solid first two years to get 22 games under his belt. I agree that I don't see one elite area of his game, and that's my rule now - you don't get drafted unless you have one elite aspect to contribute with early. Just don't know what position he can do that in...

Or he's a phantom, an apparition, second cousin to Harvey the rabbit.

So an empty chair is a better bet?

For what though? Have you thought about that? Bring in a talent as speculative, or moreso? Answer me these questions three...

Do you understand the word 'back up'? They usually don't get too many games...

To what? Another player you can abandon in a few years? Attributing the failure of the past to every thing you see similar in the future is not the way you get out of a rut - it's how you create a quagmire. We are trying to get out of one.

The way we play judge, jury, and executioner of a person for their behaviour and character at age 18 is sickening. How would you be seen if deconstructed at that age? Have you changed? Have you matured?

You can't tell me that Martin was worth that. The Lions took us for a ride - I know that Martin had some personal issues he was dealing with but we didn't get value there. We sold simply to sell and it backfired, it didn't backfire on Morton, Gysberts, et al but that is more a commentary on their talents than our trading acumen.

Yes, I remember noting at the time of the Martin trade that we did not get value and it was very poor trading - that Pick 71 was essentially not used because we could have used Pick 133 to upgrade Nicholson. Nicholson, by the way, I am told was given that contract under Bailey and prior to Neeld so it was a carry over. Perhaps a similar thing happened with Terlich's contract under Roos? These things can happen long before they are announced.

I am sure that their fate rests on how we go with FA and trading and how much talent we see in the draft.

We have signed up a back up role player for another year - the good clubs do this too. And I don't see a great many 'Very Excited' people in this thread - just people acknowledging a solid decision by the club and the continuation of a fledgling career.

Dawes has only a few years left, Pedersen is his cover. We continue the search for their medium and long term replacements. And, listening to Jesse Hogan, it's quite obvious who of Dawes and Pedersen he prefers in Hogans Forwardline ©...

Is anyone saying he is very good?

Ugh.

And other clubs are looking for value - I would prefer not to give it to them.

Just a good decision, handy depth, only one year. Shame that I am impressed by such a routine decision but there you go... 5 OOC left: Garland, Howe, Toumpas, Hunt, and Michie. Harmes and King to be DFA unless offered to be upgraded.

I wouldn't just get rid of this kid just to get a space on the list. There is plenty of those. I think they will have erred if they do a 'Morton' in this instance and just trade for a low value pick...

You're right. But fear of failure means one doesn't try, at least he is trying...

Perhaps the club hasn't pulled the trigger yet? The clubs have been very good at the narrative that players are the ones that hold up contracts being signed but every year about 100 blokes don't get contracts given that they can not sign. Maybe Garland hasn't seen a contract yet and we are playing the waiting game. Or that we have given a contract so low it couldn't possibly be accepted.

Jesse Hogan wouldn't beat up a bouncer either. What's your point?