rpfc

The MFC website has the updated dates here: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-09-30/2013-key-offseason-afl-dates That was Lodgment 2 and there is another Lodgement on the Monday after the Draft, however, the DFA Period attached to that lodgement starts the Friday before (the next day after the draft) and concludes on that Monday. It gives zero time to be officially delisted and to be picked up in that DFA period. Although it would only effect a miniscule amount of players. So if Nicho is to be moved on, it would be Friday week. If Viney and co. are certain that there is no-one in the PSD - then there will be a press release detailing Nicho's new contract in the next few days. FYI: The PSD and RD are on the 27 Nov (6 days after the ND).

Pick 94 to upgrade Clisby. Pick 70 odd is now GWS' after the Tyson trade. But yes, we will either use 58 on a newbie, or if we use it on Clisby then we have coaxed someone into the PSD. We effectively have PSD1 as Lamb is off to the GWS.

Doubt it. His only hope to stay in the AFL would be as a Rookie for us. He would be better off killing it in the VFL/WAFL for someone.

There is your answer. The club either have someone lined up in the PSD or they see a few players at 58 that would improve the list. It's a shame for Jetta but he had a crack that not many are given - 5 years.

It's an interesting tactic to only agree to be interviewed after being assured of the job... Kind of means you can let your hair down at the interview: "So Alan, how would you handle..." "Look, whatever, where is Montagna, the daft [censored]..." Walks out the door, sees Montagna on the track: "Hey Leigh! You made 4 mistakes; you hired a dwarf comedian, you lit him on fire, you didn't compensate him, and you weren't traded last week..."

I haven't seen or heard any news regarding the re-signing of Jetta and Nicholson for 2014. I am fairly certain of their OOC status, but stand to be corrected. I have not heard about how long Riley, Michie, and Tyson have signed for yet so it makes it hard to maintain the OP in this thread. Those will have to amended when better information comes to hand.

Yes, for those who don't have it - it will allow you to use the awesome mobile skin which means it is easier to use and you won't have any ads on either platform.

I am sure that they were not sure, at the time of that trade, that Riley would be available and that he would agree. But that doesn't mean that you don't lose value in the trade if you don't use what you get. Neeld pushed out Pick 61, Morton, Gysberts, and Martin for Pedersen, 52, 71, 72, and 88. Effectively ND61, Morton, Gysberts and Martin for Pedersen, Matt Jones and 2 spots on the list. The fact that those spots were subsequently taken by Gillies and Nicholson (as the last 2 players added to the list) doesn't make me feel better and I don't like losing value in trades; you do it often enough it builds up and hurts.

Pick 4 and 14 for Scully. Pick 3 and 14 to GWS for Hogan, Barry and 20. Pick 20 and 47 for Dawes and 61. Pick 61 and Gysberts for Pedersen and Pick 72. What a weird mess this is... Scully and 47 brought us Hogan, Barry, Dawes, Pedersen and an unused Pick 72. It's a big win even with the 'Pedersen as Albatross' dross that posters love to regurgitate.

No worries. IT people cost money people! I know because I am one...

You don't have to compare us to the Tigers to know we have not picked well in the draft (with exceptions) from 2001. I am going back further than 2006 because players taken in the previous 5 years to that would be 25 - 30 years old right now and players in that age group would be important to any team to say the least...

Is everything ok? Do we need any emergency money to go with the emergency maintenance?

Cute... Why not mention it Matt? It will take the pressure off the kid when he gets bombarded on twitter about why he isn't training, where is he, etc. Just mention he is still recovering from a broken leg. And I hope we gave him a 2+ year contract - 2014 is as good as done unless he can get a decent amount of pre season into his legs, one of which is broken...

At the moment...

You do relaise that this isn't an argument against Neeld or even Riley, it's an argument against mob opinion.

I am not the one making a big deal of it, I actually said multiple times that it isn't a big deal. It's an aside, something to think about, and my opinion (and fact) that we won't maximise the Tyson deal if we don't have 58 as a live pick. And he was delisted October 30.

I don't think trading away a ruckmen for a pick that is near the pick that it took to draft the ruckmen in the first place is anything other than a waste of years of development. It backs up my point - you are better off letting other teams or state leagues develop a ruckman for you and trade or draft them when they are better prepared for the AFL. Drafting Ruckmen: All those early(ish) in the ND and the successes of the low risk PSD/RD 2000 - ND: Koschitzke (2), Angwin (7), Chapman (29) 2000 - PSD/RD: Campbell, Jolly 2001 - ND: Hale (7), Brooks (15), Seaby (22), Playfair (41) 2001 - PSD/RD: Jamar, Sandilands 2002 - ND: McIntosh (9), Laycock (10), N Smith (15), Minson (20), P Johnson (24) 2002 - PSD/RD: N/A 2003 - ND: Spaandermann (18), Blake (38) 2003 - PSD/RD: N/A 2004 - ND: Meesen (8), Pattison (16), Wood (18), A Hartlett (25), Ackland (33), F Deluca (35), Maric (40) 2004 - PSD/RD: Griffin 2005 - ND: Ryder (7), Clark (9), Bailey (18), West (31), Warnock (42), Rix (49) 2005 - PSD/RD: Graham 2006 - ND: Leuenberger (4), Sellar (14), Hampson (17), Renouf (24), Goldstein (37) 2006 - PSD/RD: N/A 2007 - ND: Kreuzer (1), McEvoy (9), Lobbe (18), Simpson (34) 2007 - PSD/RD: Bellchambers, Martin, Spencer, Mumford 2008 - ND: Naitanui (2), Vickery (8), Cordy (14), McKernan (28), J Roughead (31), Z Clarke (37) 2008 - PSD/RD: Pyke, Jacobs, Keeffe 2009 - ND: Gawn (34), Vardy (43), Fitzpatrick (50) 2009 - PSD/RD: Daw, Casboult I can count the successes with early ND picks with one hand: Koschitzke, NikNat, Ryder, Leuenberger, and Kreuzer - and I count 19 failures in the top 30. There are some good return in the 30s to 40s but the failures I see still out number the successes and the question marks. I see 10 successes from the PSD/RD in those ten years. Unless you have a sure talent like the 5 above (who were taken at 2, 2, 7, 4, and 1 oddly enough) you really shouldn't bother with taking teenage ruckmen until late in the ND or in the PSD/RD. The ROI is quite terrible, even compared to other types of players in the Teenage Lottery Draft of the AFL.

If we don't use Pick 58, then we lose value in that trade and we should have brought in something else that we would have made use of. It's not a massive issue, I just prefer to get full value from all deals. And as I said, you can look at it as insurance in case Riley decided to go into the draft and we didn't pick him up. I just don't like seeing value lost in trades, that's all.

And what view is that? That he would like to convince Byrnes to retire and break a two-year contract with the club? There are always going to be players that posters don't want to be at the club: Munga doesn't want Watts, Ben-Hur doesn't want McKenzie, Everyone doesn't want Nicholson, but it gets tedious when posters constantly refer to the removal of a player. He is contracted for another year, I hope he can contribute next season as we still don't have a small forward on the list besides him. He came for very little, he doesn't cost much, and yet he draws ire outside of what he deserves. Time to move on?

I know you must be frustrated that we didn't trade him for Pick 30 but the variables have changed, and while you and Stuie in particular can howl at the moon over the Groundhog Day of Optimism, Watts has never played under Roos. If you rate what Roos can do then you can understand how others can see there is more benefit in letting Roos have a chance with Watts than trading him for a speculative pick - which is all we would have got for him for the reasons you outline. You can be comfortable with your opinion, as I am comfortable with Roos' decision to back himself to make something of Jack.

Wait, you are claiming rucks getting traded as backing up your point? The team that traded for them is backing up my point. I will have a look a the drafts today.

We got something in a deal that we are not using. That's poor planning. It's not a big deal, and maybe we said to him 'we are taking you at 58 the Crows will not look at you until the RD, come under DFA and let us keep our flexibility.' I still think either Pick 58 or PSD2 will be a 'live' selection, I don't think we are done delisting. I guess we will see at the next lodgement.

And yet, the most dominate ruckman of this generation was a rookie? What about all the mistakes with ruckmen as early picks? They happen to affect the argument. Of course you pick the talents when they demand it, but a rucks value doing ruckwork takes 5 years to materialise if they are taken as teenagers. That's a rule with few exceptions.

They are doing a fine job. That doesn't mean that getting back Pick 58 in the Tyson deal and using it to upgrade Clisby isn't a waste. We did the same thing last year with Martin and pick 72. If you want it back, use it. Now you can look at it like insurance in case Riley didn't sign with us but you are still using value (however little) on a rookie upgrade. It's just an aside right now...until a good player goes after that pick...

That's an excellent point. I wonder whether the Rookie List will have a few 20/21/22 year olds.