old55

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?

I'd stick with Bennell - it's pointless to bring him in for one week, he needs a sustained opportunity to demonstrate his value, if any. Sounds like Green earned his call-up which is great - Magner getting subbed is an indicator he needs a break. Jamar and Tom McDonald are no brainers if fit. It'll be interesting to see what happens because it sounds like Davey, Gysberts and Couch all have claims. Cook would benefit from a start against GC and a stretch through the Saints and against GWS.

I think energy is better expended on players who want to move like Boak and Caddy.

Prestia is re-contracted, forget him ... http://goldcoastfc.com.au/news-and-media/news/gc-suns-pair-extend-contracts/

You mean the 16th team's deadwood aren't attractive trade options for other clubs? Threads like these do help identify deadwood.

He played a completely different role against Richmond - midfielder, compared with defensive forward.

Depends who it's for and whether we get Viney in the 2nd round so still have 3. I don't really see enough of Boak to rate him but he's an established early pick. Jack Martin for 3, Boak, pick 7 and Viney could be a reasonable outcome

Carlton salary cap?

Pick 4 is likley to be involved in any trade for a very good player like Boak or Beams. We'd want something in return though. That's where 4 + 13 for Boak + 7 comes in - someone else thought of that before me. Pick 13 + player has to be a decent player and we don't have many. Selection policy suggests Neeld values Tapscott so I don't think he'll be going anywhere. 13 + Moloney or 13 + Sylvia might get it done if PA value either of them. 13 + Blease if we think we can't mould him.

Nev Jetta will be competing for a spot too and could well push in front of Couch.