rpfc

But I'm not there... So... Oh, that's even more reason to go to Ology? Wow, that hurts. Back on topic: Trengove 31 and Scully 9 for me. Or either or. But I do want to give those numbers to the those two players.

The rules don't allow anything like what that. Some think it wise to give him a one-year contract and give him to Collingwood at the end of 2010. But these people are idiots.

Just ignore him please. Show a bit of restraint.

I have never said that I would like to have intimate relations with Jessica Alba, but I would certainly entertain the idea...

I think this is what 45HG16 is getting frutrated with, and many don't get: If this 'desperately needed' KPF that we are going to get in Nov or Dec is not incredibly good, he will demand less ball than Jurrah, Watts, and Bate. So this begs the question - if we cannot get that sort of a talent - why should we spend Pick 11 on a 4th tall in the forward line? Thorp, Carlisle, Black, or whoever, do not become a '1st tall' because we say so, Scarlett (or any 1st choice defender) will go to Jurrah with or without this extra KPF.

Obviously, I reject that analogy. I have said in the past that we should be wary of recruiting him. No question. But nothing he has done, turns him into 'too hot a stove' so to speak. He may not be the best option at 18, but if he is I don't care about 'the hurt feelings of the MFC.'

It's all bluster from a bloke who is trying to get to Pick 30. He is a professional, and a good bloke, who is acting like a d!ck so he can get to Pick 30. He will not be a cancer. The only cancer I can see is if we bring in these kids and immediately call them Champions. They have done nothing yet, absolutley eff-all.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I didn't say you were embellishing, I was stating I was 'embellish(ing) to find the truth,' and by that I mean he has some control over his destiny (the embellishment was that I said he had none), but the rules set-up the way they are - we have more. It would be disengenuous to say otherwise. What Bailey alluded to on that SEN interview doesn't concern me. It wasn't an outright dismissal of the idea of recruitment of Ball and nor should there be. We are a strong club, and we DO NOT TAKE RECRUITING CUES FROM LUKE BALL. (Sorry for the yelling, but I am passionate, not on getting Luke Ball, but on not listening to Luke Ball. He is ours to take unless a better option comes along, and there may be a better option - if so, overlook Ball. Just don't take the weak route and dismiss the idea of recruiting Ball, before Nov 26 at about 7pm)

Do you mean a paid professional like Mark Stevens? The same Mark Stevens that wrote an enlightening piece about the 'fact' that Sydney were interested in rebuilding their spine with an 196cm Gary Rohan? Even though the player in question lacks the necessary skills to be a KP player and 4 inches? Or do you mean Emma Quayle? Where would the amateur Draft expert be without Emma? She's an enabler really...

This is where some of you guys lose respect - where is Bate? He was the best forward in 2009. Second in goals and second in assists. And that is despite the fact that he spent a bit of time in the last third of the year in the midfield for various reasons. If Freak's dismissiveness is as good a guide as I think it is - Bate can be very effective lead up HF (possibly CHF) at 192cm in a good team.

Don't change the topic of this thread, bump an existing thread if you want to discuss a Bailey extension. On the topic of this thread: This is the dumbest thread I have seen in a while. There are no Priority Picks in 2010 AND why the hell would we want to continue tanking? Play the kids for sure, but when there are no rewards for being crap, who would wish to be crap?

Embellishment to find the truth. He doesn't want to meet with us because he wants us to get the idea. The 'idea' being 'I don't want to play with you.' Right now. At this instance. With everything signed and set in concrete. With the rules of the draft being the rules of the draft - he has no control. There is nothing he can do to positively affect where he wants to ply his trade other than indifferent gestures (no meeting with the MFC), leaks (Connors telling journos he doesn't want to go to the MFC) and benign threats (Connors purporting that he will travel for 12 months if taken by a club he doesn't want to go to). We have more power over where Luke Ball plays footy next year than Luke Ball, and it must be incredibly humbling.

I'm not going to say McLean was a cancer (I wouldn't even say TJ was) but the guy got arrested in Europe twice (in a couple of weeks) and had his fair share of indiscretions. If part of the reason the TJ trade was so good lies in the fact that his character was in question, does being questioned (and locked up) bring Brock's character into question?

You renegade... McLean is a good player, we get a chance to draft a player of similar talents with Pick 11, and, also, we cannot forget the fact that with Jones and Moloney playing better footy than McLean he was surplus to requirements (especially considering we are taking mids with 1 and 2). We got rid of surplus goods at retail prices. I guess it all begs the question - what is his true worth to you? Pick 5? Pick 9? If Emma Quayle (as the doyen of all knowledge to armchair recruiters like yourself and myself) thinks this draft is even from Pick 5 - Pick 15, then does it matter that we 'only' got Pick 11?

Doesn't want to be at the club. That is your argument. Everyone agrees. I refuse to rule out the idea of taking Ball with Pick 18, because I don't think we club should be, or are, in the habit of taking recruiting advice from an old Xaverian who is trying assert control over a situation in which he has none.

It's frustrating, but there is that mindset I have posted on and off about. The deal is seen as rubbish, not because we get only the 11th best kid in the draft, but because of who the MFC will see as the 11th best kid - as many of us have no faith in the MFC or have resigned ourselves to believing the gods will send us a dud in the 11th best kid in the draft. My god that's an unhealthy view.

Ugh. Go. Away.

Very glib...

He has always been a strong runner, just not quick. Always kept up with Jones in our runs, why should it be any different at Carlton?

What are you talking about? Classic case of reading too much into something.

FWIW, I heard that the club's internal rating system has two outliers - Judd and Scully. But it's meaningless subjective stats anyway... As for this 'he starred for CGS' stuff, APS footy is well run but the talent is lopsided to say the least. 4 good players a school and the rest are fit goers. If you are one of the 4, you can really dominate APS footy. And I am aware that that statement has ramifications for our number 4...

That is the thing a few cannot comprehend - we are the reigning back-to-back wooden spooners but, still, people are cursing established AFL pros for not wanting to come to the club. It is not 'our lot in life,' it is not 'Bailey's negotiating skills,' it is not 'the fault of the Media ,' it is not 'their fault for not seeing our young talent,' etc... It is the circumstance we find ourselves in at this particular juncture in our history. We are in the middle of a rebuild and it will take time. It is this 'time' that pushes established players away from us. With that said, he's in the draft for anyone to take - the rules are the rules. And they are made to be adhered to...

It is our way, Nasher.

I am quite surprised that more of you don't see that Ball's recalcitrance is his way of asserting control over a situation in which he has little. It must be an incredibly humbling experience. Best option at 18 - whoever that may be.