rpfc

Two posts of mine that are largely right but the first is intensely bittersweet and the last one has been through the wringer over the last couple years but ended up right. Note - Martin did not end up being traded for Pedersen.

Mate, I would love us to privately lobby for a PP (even publically lobby for one) - and for the good of the league; St Kilda is going to need one soon. The Lions need one now. If we end up 5 and 17 after going 6 and 38 the two years before that and DON'T get a PP it almost removes it as a device to equalise the league. Top 5 picks are golden if you have half a clue and I still think we should 'qualify' (if people don't like me saying 'deserve') for one. I would love to know what Peter Jackson is thinking about this issue.

I really don't. I said at the start of the season that we might be in a position to lobby for a Priority Pick at the end of this season - I know where our list is. But holding onto your kids is such a must in our current state. As stmj says - losing Frawley is eased by McDonald's presence. If they both leave we are not progressing in 2015.

I don't think they would keep him around for a year just to heal his broken leg.. Not a fan at all of just getting rid of blokes just to churn the list - you have to be mindful of what talent you are bringing in. Due to Frawley's situation - we won't be bringing in FAs (unless they are a star), the draft always runs about 70 players deep (if deep is the right word...), Delisted FA has few hidden gems, and the state leagues are being mined by all and sundry lately. Picks 4, 5, 27, 48, 70, 90 (Elevation for Jetta), and a DFA would almost see us out I would think. That's 7 Primary List spots.

You know at some point we will draft well and won't be so blasé about the coming draftpocalypse every year. A top 5 pick is where you get the talent, or where you should, in the AFL Teenage Draft Lottery. Giving away two top 5 picks for Dangerfield is tacitly saying that we cannot pick or develop the right talent and while I would gladly see both being traded for an established star - I would like to see the trade be more balanced than 4 and 5 for Dangerfield.

S-home complaining about abrasive and wilfully ignorant posters has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even more laughable is the notion that you can build a list by trading players as young and talented as McDonald.

If we were to trade McDonald it would be to bring in a player like McDonald. I know where we are - but it does not involve trading a 21 year old tall defender with the talent of McDonald.

4 and 5 for Danger is a bit rich. I love him but the idea is that Top 5 talent brings stars and giving away two for one player is the opposite of that. Too early to say who would be a chance of targeting but Fitzpatrick has little trade value. I can remember at the end of last season when some on here were convincing themselves that Fitz was - or soon will be - a better player than Dawes...

And yet here we are... You make a good argument about him being possible squeezed out but his versatility adds to his importance to the team - it doesn't undermine it. I can recall agreeing with TimD at the start of the season that Howe could and should be traded for someone with more weight to their game than the more than occasional screamer. Well, he is adding weight to his game. And HBF is the easiest place to play but that does not mean it is an unimportant position. If you have someone there like Hodge who can dictate the play from behind it is valuable, when you have someone willing to run and be bold like Shaw and Malceski it is a weapon, and when you have someone who can take help his teammates with marking and spread like Howe - it is something Melbourne hasn't had for a while. Backlines are more than the 6 players named there on Thursday, and as Howe hasn't missed a game yet this year he doesn't look like a depth player to me, he seems to be keeping his coaches happy, I would like to be able to get a coaches view on that but the 22 that run out for the seniors don't get the public appraisal like the VFL players do...

You should just steer clear of this nonsense - you can't pull it off. Howe has had a few shockers, only a handful haven't, but he has been better than a C-grade... He is learning to play a defensive role and his marking back there has been very good and has had about 7 or 8 solid-to-good games and had his best month when we were having our best month of footy against Adel, WB, Rich, and PA. And that is just the offensive side of his output - again, he has been apart of a very good defensive unit. And while it is more of a team-wide mindset that has shut the valve off, it is also the mainstays of that backline, and as good as Dunn and Jetta have been - McDonald, Howe, Terlich and Grimes also should receive some of the plaudits for the frugality.

Unless St Kilda or GWS think he is worth Pick 20. Or that they think we will use Pick 22. They might think both. If he keeps getting named in the bests in the nat champs - he is going to cost Pick 22.

If you said to Roos "Hogan dominating the VFL as a teenager means nothing" - what do you think he would say?

So he is having a C grade year so far? I give our backline a solid A this season and Dunn, Grimes, McDonald, and Howe are a big part of that. Howe has been excellent back there.

Just a mild case of the Syndrome. It's fine.

And it is not like we don't know what we are getting - he dominated the VFL as an 18 year old.

I remember having this roundabout argument with a few posters prior to Rd 1 about Viney being ahead of Watts and Michie in the midfield if he pulls up for Rd 1. Now he missed 2 weeks but he immediately became the next best mid behind Jones, Vince, and Tyson. Just like he did last year behind only Jones. I am not as bullish about him being a 'star' but that word (and others like that one) are simply reserved for the best players on good teams - and I definitely think he could be one of those. I thank the heavens his kicking is neater than his dads, though...

Do it for the 22 blokes running around for the red and the blue as well and I have no problem with it. No-one has convinced me of the necessity for a coach to publically evaluate fringe players NOT playing AFL while excluding senior players or even fringe players playing AFL.

It's just such good news, what makes it even better is that I was never really worried he would bolt. Haven't had that confidence in the club for a while.

And what a huge flaw it is... If I could swap Frawley for a commensurately talented mid - I would do it. But the world doesn't work like that.

Can you name a worse midfield? St Kilda might be, GWS right at this moment, Richmond? Carlton? He's not far off...

I believe the extension will see him paid $500k in 2016 and 2017, not this year or next. So if he plays well next year, he may well be worth it by 2016...

But the otherside of the argument is our midfield is 55/100, if Frawley leaves and Shiel comes in his stead that number jumps and is of more value than Frawley is to that backline - that is the essence of stmj's argument.

Whenever a poster writes the above - I am sorry to say - but I always think I hit the nail on the head. You were trying to tie people who think like stmj in knots about Frawley's worth as a player and the commensurate compensation. But all you have found is a few randoms calling him a spud and over-stating his form issues. You don't have to engage, I don't really care, I am simply trying to add to this situation that is not as simple as some are making out. You make some great points, and so does stmj, but you both run over a few things that need some extrapolation and exploration.

You should just picture another poster with the same arguments that I have - you would give a more nuanced and sensible response. If our backline is running at 85 out of 100 right now without Frawley, he would lift it to around 90 out of 100 but is that the reason we are on '4 effing wins' as you so eloquently point out? Hardly. We are where we are because our midfield is consistently beaten by better players and deeper rotations. If we were to 'raise our bar' as a club - it may involve letting Frawley go so we can invest his worth in the midfield.