rpfc

The questions about how this retired player could be retained/traded would be easier for me to answer if; - The AFL released the current CBA. - They adhered to the rules they legislate. As they do neither of these things, I am reticent to say anything is, or isn't, doable in the AFL landscape.

*Forehead smash.

Yes, but my point is that if you have 24 to delist, you are better off moving 8 a year over three years, than 12 a year over two, or 24 in one year like some on here would have.

I think we need to delist more than 15 over the next two to three years, but that is the timeframe where the returns should be quality. If you draft and recruit well... And jnrmac - 23 Primary List spots in the last two years and 6 Rookie List spots. Of the new players: 4 have already left, 10 are kids, 6 of the mature age players are best 22, and the other 8 are depth players (Clisby represents twice so it is 28 unique individuals). 12 of the 28 won't amount to much. Cross will be gone in a year. Hunt, Harmes, King, and Barry have not shown much at any level of footy. So 17 of the 28 might not be here in 14 months time... Quality of changes, not quantity...

Yes. One poster is cross legged in the corner muttering through a frown something about '2 for 2' and the rest of us are standing next to a brick wall with a bloodied forehead.

Spencer, Jones, Jetta, and McDonald were given two year deals. The three players that this thread mentions are all on 1-year deals according to the Australian. Jetta and McDonald are B-grade players or higher, so the only 'multi-year deals for C and D grade players' are Matt Jones and Jake Spencer. Hardly a bunch...

There really was nothing to be gained by being hamstrung* by the contracts of three more speculative kids in the draft. Hence the deals for these three compromised but hard working players. *Note: if you are 'new' to the draft, you get an automatic 2 year deal upon selection.

You think that Port Melbourne would beat us? You really think that Port Melbourne will beat Melbourne?

Just wait a week, you will think differently.

Updated. Assumed 1 year deals.

Tell your brother that we live and breath the nonsense he is casually mind humping. We know what is wrong with our club and our team and it is not how angry we don't get when the team plays poorly... Poor list. Terrible drafting over consecutive years from 1999-2004 and 2007-2011. Lack of development of any half decent talent we did get. Tell him he can keep his views if he goes and reads how we drafted in the last 15 years. Maybe then, he would have a greater appreciation for his brother and the rest of us resilient Demons. And we hold people accountable - we just do in the quiet, in the backrooms - we don't feel the need to gnash our teeth to 'impress' those around with 'look how angry I am.' We are quite good at eating our own - quietly.

I like your idea as a way of illustrating how bad our drafting has been. It won't hit on Opportunity Cost disasters like Jurrah instead of Rockliff but it will tell you that Morton, Cook, Maric, Molan, Bell, Bate, Blease, Tapscott, etc have kept us red in our draft ledger... As for legislating something from it - too hard.

Had a Hawks supporter mate tell me we don't deserve one. I restrained the initial desire to hook his nuts up to electrodes and talk to him about 2004 and 2005 but I said it isn't about us deserving anything. They seemingly cannot get over the 'deserve' stuff. And then he said "but you have had plenty of picks. You have youngsters coming through." Maybe these idiots just don't know the scope of the failures. They certainly don't know our list. I do find it enormously hilarious when they say before the season starts - "you blokes are hopeless, you ever thought about switching teams?" and then when PP Season comes around we "don't need another leg up. Plenty of kids coming through." Just so...hilarious...

Here we go again. Yeah, we are weak because we are not as feral as Tiger or Blues supporters? Dees supporters are pretty bloody strong in my opinion. Weak isn't a word I would use to describe the resilient people that still support this team.

Have done a similar depressing thread before about this. Probably a couple of times... I go back a couple of years earlier as we also surrendered Pick 5 in 1999 after the Jeff White poaching stuff... It really is the fundamental reason why we are in the wilderness and while I hope we get a PP as it helps us get back to civilisation - we can do it. But it will take so very special drafting and a success rate of top 30 picks close to 100%. The last couple of years have looked promising, but it is too early to tell. We simply can't take a wrong turn in the next few Octobers and Novembers.

Danger Mouse was still at school and couldn't impact from day one... You still pick them for how you think they will impact day 1400 and onward. That's why we are where we are because we have MFC Drafting: It Can Always Get Worse 2007-2011. The Sequel to MFC Drafting: Can't Get Any Worse 1999-2004.

Or add the question - who here just does not give this doomsday nonsense any credibility?

You are assuming we picked Gardiner at 22. And that in this hypothetical scenario another team wouldn't have before us. Obviously you rate Gardiner. And I wouldn't do another 'Tyson trade' if this was 2001 and Pick 2 was either Judd or Ball. I would do another 'Tyson trade' if the circumstances are right to do another. And I hope they are because we need more experienced bodies and minds at this club. Nothing is ever black and white, right or wrong, bad or good - if that can be frustrating to those that want to generalise and make grand assumptions.

Yes, olisik doesn't think we did. Which, I presume, is why he can't let the trade go.

Yeah, sorry, DC - we had a bad loss on the weekend but things are not as bleak as they were this time 12 months ago, or 18 months ago (pre-Jackson)... In fact, we are in much better shape, both off and on the field. Not having a bar of this. (I am aware it is just a hypothetical)

You give journalists too much credit - the formula is years and dollars, and the Compensation committee can change the compensation at their will if they feel it is not enough or too much. So, essentially, rules are so superficial it is as if there are none at all. Just the way the AFL likes it - leaning against a buttress made of wet sand...

Er, our issues go a bit deeper than the bloke in the number 4...

I think we should do what we did last year. That was pretty sound...

The only relevance it would have is the effect it would have on his $$$ and length of contract. I don't think his form is so bad as to crater the market for him - he is what he is and, if anything, has shown some flexibility this year. He has been inconsistent but, again, doubt it will crater the market for him.

It's not damning. It may be an overcorrection, but it is obvious that Roos and his ethos carried by Lyon and Longmire surround keeping the football, even if you have to hand it backwards.