old55

10 - 12 senior list players? That would be some slash - everyone who is a candidate would have to go. 5-6 mature players? Including rookie promotions?

Things might have been so different - if we hadn't pushed Junior at the end of 2010, he would've stayed on as captain, Cam would've re-signed, 186 wouldn't have happened, Bailey would've been re-signed, Scully would still have left, Cam and Junior would've retired with honour at the end of 2011, Beamer would be captain and we'd be 14th with 4 or 5 wins now ...

Just shows a complete lack of understanding - have you ever listened to Malthouse on the radio? He's very good to listen to but he defends his proteges like there's no tomorrow.

He's shot but he's got trade value, OK. You must have been to tonatopia's school of logic.

When are you going to answer Bob's question?

Must be mayoress of Port Adelaide if she can't move too.

One reason is because we can. Trade is not like a normal marketplace - if our 1st pick last year had been 4 then that's what we would've needed to use in the Clark deal, we would've got something back, but that's what would have happened.

Right. We'll sack Neeld and Malthouse will take his place. That's pretty consistent with your reasoning capability.

Tell James McDonald that.

Yes, I don't think it's good for team morale to dump a player who is injured in battle. I couldn't give a [censored] what "the football world" thinks but I do care what our players think - we're trying to build a strong culture and part of that means looking out for each other. I think a fair solution is to delist and rookie Bennell on the same money he's on now - it frees a spot on the primary list at the draft and supports our player in his rehab. He should enter the draft with the contract price specified and if in the unlikely event someone else picks him up then fine.

Port probably told him we'll trade you to MFC.

Ironically his injury makes it much less likely he'll be delisted.

No doubt Brent Moloney would like nothing better than to continue to be the standard bearer for MFC. He's struggling with the new running requirements of the new regime and as Ben pointed out with the changes in the game's stoppage set-up. Clearly from Mark Neeld's comments he couldn't be working harder to address the issues he faces. I don't think you can read a direct line between a quote from his manager and what he wants - he's subsequently come out and said he wants to stay at MFC, his manager may have been talking out of turn. There's big changes happening and Moloney has earned at least the full cycle of 2012 to show he can adjust to them. Hopefully he can.

We can, but GC and GWS will probably do it before we get an opportunity. And it won't achieve anything except Essendon taking him with their 1st rounder anyway, so that will be one stuffed cat that the pigeons won't take much notice of.

I don't think it is, he might say: I want to go to Geelong and over my dead body will I go to that rabble Melbourne - here Port would have to threaten to put him in the draft if we're offering a better trade deal. or I prefer to go to Geelong, even though Melbourne is offering better coin - here Port could convince him to go to Melbourne for a better trade deal or I want to go to Melbourne because they're offering better coin - here we don't have to better Geelong's trade deal. As I posted in the Boak thread: One interesting special variable this year in the Travis Boak story that works heavily in our favour is that if we bid against Geelong for Boak and offer Port a significantly better trade deal. If Port hangs tough with Boak and says go to Melbourne or go in the draft - if GWS finish last and Boak (out of contract) is picked by up them then Port get compensation picks. That makes it much more likely that Port would play hardball. This rule was enacted to prevent uncontracted players going to GC or GWS via the draft, where they have all the early picks, and teams not getting any compensation. .

One interesting special variable this year in the Travis Boak story that works heavily in our favour is that if we bid against Geelong for Boak and offer Port a significantly better trade deal. If Port hangs tough with Boak and says go to Melbourne or go in the draft - if GWS finish last and Boak (out of contract) is picked by up them then Port get compensation picks. That makes it much more likely that Port would play hardball. This rule was enacted to prevent uncontracted players going to GC or GWS via the draft, where they have all the early picks, and teams not getting any compensation.

Their 1st rounder, not their compo pick, their 1st rounder - yes they can

15th I hope with picks 5 & 6. We're not going to get Boak + 7 for 4 + 13 if Port finish 15th.

Rumplestiltskin!

No I don't agree that it's the ONLY way, although I do agree that would be ideal, because then we'd only need to equal Geelong's best bid. He has to be not dead set against coming to us and we have to offer him better $s than Geelong for this to happen, then if we offer Port a significantly better deal they can lean on him to accept our offer. Edit: look there's an excellent argument for paying Boak $s way over what he's worth to get him to the club so we don't have to spend the early pick. Clearly Geelong is a preferrable destination success and location-wise for him, but if we offer him a 50% premium he would think twice. If we can afford it in the TPP it's more affordable than burning early picks. That's why I'm not against a stupendous offer for Cloke - if we can afford it in the TPP then we get him for free. There'll be the inevitable cry-babies "ooh-woe we're paying them too much, much more than they're worth", but the caravan rolls on ...

That scenario is never going to happen - if GWS and GC don't bid for him, then someone will bid for him somewhere and we'll take him with our next pick - there's NO WAY he'll be in the draft mid 1st round.

Geelong's first rounder won't be far off 13.

Viney is gold at pick 25 - that's what we want. I don't think GC is a risk to bid for him - I don't think he's the type of player Scott Clayton rates, they've had a poorer than expected season and just need to stick to their knitting at the draft and not get too smart, and they're just not as mad, conniving or vindictive as GWS. The simplest solution is to tie pick 3 to GWS, the most straight-forward way to do this is through the mini-draft.

The argument that we don't want to spend pick 4 on Boak is a fine one but to support it with the alternative of pick 13 and a player is unsustainable. Pick 13 and a player is not going to get you near Boak, Geelong will be able to offer something quite similar. The only way he'll get to MFC is with pick 4 in the mix and a deal too good for Port Adelaide to ignore. I'm happy for posters to push the use 3 & 4 in the draft line but you need to accept that it means no Boak and stop icing your cake with that idea. The best case Boak solution is 4 + 13 for Boak + 7. Caddy might be a different proposition because Essendon's first available pick will be well in the 30s after they use their first rounder on Daniher. 13 plus a player may have traction there dependingon whether anyone else gets involved. We've got a lot of alternatives when you work in pick 3 for Jack Martin. This has the advantage of guaranteeing Viney in the 2nd round because I don't think GC will bid for him. I still like Martin, Boak, pick 7 and Viney - it's a good problem to have.

There's a 9 page Boak thread near the top of the first page but we need a new one?