rpfc

Howcroft out, Morris in. As always, we thank him for his service, and welcome our new overlord. Forever, will they be tied to the critical mass of our shared failures. Huzzah! http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-11-03/Melbourne-Football-Club-Board-update

If we don't pay them out I think it would have more to do with - us not wanting to be seen breaking contracts and look like hypocrites after the Clark debacle, and/or that we actually rate the return of McKenzie and/or Evans more than pick 40. They are not world beaters but I have great respect for McKenzie's toughness and I have time for Evans - he finds the footy. Finances really don't come into it, especially if we are 'rookie-ing' the player; that money is still being spent on a player. It's not dead money.

He's not wrong but it is a massive deflection of responsibility for his own career. His line about Prendergast is really interesting - he must have been hurt by being called a failed draft pick... I am sorry to say this, Sam. But we didn't have a good history with picking the right player, and you were no exception.

As opposed to the other reasons players change clubs - facilities, other BS, etc And you don't know what the market for these players were. I had heard the Frost rumour weeks before the season had ended, he was keen from a long way out.

What does it matter where he was selected? He was a targeted player, the club got him, the sacrifice can't be judged yet. I agree that not using ND40 diminishes the worth of that trade, but we won't know the value for a few years. Personally, I would delist a rookie a player to use ND40 but I can understand the desire not to do that. Not getting ND40 is not the thing that make or break our future, what we do with ND2 and ND3 however...

Ok. So are you in the camp that this is a bad thing and we shouldn't hire alleged convicted persons, or that this is a welcome change to the choir boy set any say we cherry pick from? And that one of those views is the reason why you will/won't re-sign?

Er, he hasn't done anything yet. At all. If he is to back up whatever point you are making - he hasn't done it yet...

Is this a reason to, or not to sign up in 2015?

Absolutely, but don't think that the question of delisting contracted players is without unintended consequences. Consequences that might not benefit the MFC.

lol Hunt is list filler - players of his talent would have no bearing on the talents a team takes at the top of the draft.

wyl is soft as butter; I demand us to win 22 games next season. And if that gets us into the finals - and I think it might - I demand us to win another 3 games to win the flag. Why have realistic expectations? Why have a rational conversation about the reality of what this team can do? Why indeed.

Another chance for a team to say to themselves - "it's just the Demons, they couldn't develop an indoor plant..." (arrogant chuckling) Ok, let's see how it goes, champs...

(Chokes on cornflakes)

I'd take two of the best three mids of this draft class. My point was that one teams 'reach' is another team's star player. Those limiting the choices to four players irritate me. We can pick any two players that the Saints didn't pick at one.

'Reaching' for a mid in the 5-10 range with an earlier pick could have landed us Dangerfield or Rioli in 2007, and Rich or Sidebottom in 2008. Is that 'reaching'? The best kids are just that - kids.

Not to pile on here but the NFL has a random fixture where you play those in your division every year but go through every other club other the next 3 to 4 years. There is no fixturing of the glamour teams against each other every year, there is no rewarding for good performance or punishment for bad, it is simply a fixture to give every team as much of an even chance at winning and making money. Monday night games (their Friday nights) are far more shared than our glamour nights. They manage this noble attempt at parity with a 16 game season with 32 teams, and here we are whinging about the fact that we can't make a fair draw with 22 games for 18 teams...

I am talking about ND53 vs RD2. Assuming Newton is on his way, one of Trengove, Evans or McKenzie is required to be delisted to make way for ND40. With the difference between ND53 and RD2 being neglible, it is understandable if they don't use ND53.

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1. Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection. We would have 40 players to choose from. If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from. It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

He might be of more use on the PL as I just explained in another thread as an injured player that will allow any RL player to play from Rd1. If Newton arrives we would need to delist a contracted player to use ND40. I would delist Evans or McKenzie and then pass on ND53 and use RD2 on a player targeted with ND53 (there will only be about 15 live selections difference between those two). I would draft Evans or McKenzie with RD20 and tell Tapscott that footy can be tough sometimes. There are a few ways to go and each avenue has its pitfalls and pluses.

It looks as though, according to an article on the AFL website, that there will only be around 65 live selections in the ND. This would make RD2 approx. the 67th live selection for 'new' players. With regard to ND40, I don't think we should pass on that but the argument to pass on ND53 in lieu of the more flexible RD2 is a strong one. Trengove may be more use on the PL injured and allowing any one of the rookies to play Rd 1 than he would be on the RL.

It's my cardboard stalker... You are not quoting me are you, as you admitted you are quoting a paraphrased post from Deestroy All. But if you don't think that the relationship between club and player has changed, just look at the recent article on the afl website about Trengove realising more than ever before it is a business. Has the relationship changed irrevocably? No. But we were trying to offload him a ND he wanted to go and that is quite the rubicon.

If this report on Newton is correct, we will have to delist and promise to rookie one player to use ND40. Using ND53 is something that the club will be weighing up now, as the argument can be made (as GRRM just showed) for taking that speculative player at RD2 instead of ND53. You may still get one of the players you were targeting and you are not burdened by an automatic two year contract. I think they will delist and rookie Evans or Trengove, and Tapscott will be forgotten about and they will have the one live selection at RD2. If they make the strategic decision to honour all contracts then ND40 will not be used and Tapscott will be rookied. But, again, if the Newton report is correct.

Yes, but at some point real soon we are going to have to give these blokes time to 'do a Jetta' and pull their collective fingers out. And my point is more that keeping Evans on a for a year may be more benficial if you don't want to give some kid at ND53 a 2 year contract. Take a similar talent at RD2 and you can jettison him after a year - I don't like it but I would maximise the use of it.

List at 1st Lodgement.

...or back. It's not about quantity of changes, it's about quality of changes. If you lose a B- player and replace him with a C player - your list gets worse. We have had a recent history of doing exactly that. From 2008 to 2012 we brought in John Meesen and Joel MacDonald, as experienced AFL players - that means all the experience we lost from the Daniher years were replaced by kids - kids that didn't make it. And because we didn't bring in any players with exposed form we not only didn't have any stars of the game from our top picks, we struggled to even find good players through middle range draft picks.