old55

He's not delisted - yet. He just wont be offered a new contract. IF GC want him and they don't want any other MFC OOC player then they can take him in their set of OOC players and we get compensation. If they want him, it's no cost to them - they don't supply the pick, the AFL does - otherwise they have to draft him or trade for him.

If Josh Fraser's knee passed medical scrutiny I'd take at him depending on the price - assuming he's OOC. I think he's a smart footballer and we want him to play fwd-ruck not #1 ruckman. He's definitely a better player than Hale. He doesn't have the physical presence of say the big Q but I'm unconvinced Q is a smart footballer or that he can mark overhead. At 29 in 2011 Fraser could play 3-4 years - we'd probably need to offer him 3 years. If he is OOC Collingwood have to trade realistically, if he's in contract forget it. We have some players who may be looking for more opportunities that may appeal to them.

Eye fillet that's been in the sun for 3 days doesn't make a good meal because it only costs $2.

Like the first dog in space knows what rocket science is about.

No I don't think you do know what the thread is about - I'll give it one more try with a different tack - you like to have a VB with your counter lunch, it's just not the same without it and you've just got to have it. But things have changed at the pub and you can't just buy a pot - you have to buy a six pack and you can't take it home with you and what's more it's going to cost $40. Still got to have that VB?

I agree he does tick a number of boxes but he doesn't tick them all if he can't apply defensive pressure. It's not helpful to say it's unreasonable to expect him to tackle because he's 201cm - if he can't do it then he's not the right player. You may have a point about opportunity to tackle because he plays deep - Kosi, Roughy and Hall are all in the 1-2 tackle range. My key point is that if he's not agile or quick enough to apply some defensive pressure then that can't be learnt and I'd be looking closely at this. We can't afford players who are weak links defensively in our forward line.

One thing I'd be looking closely at in fwd-ruck is defensive pressure - we can't afford to have a statue that defenders can easily run off. Leigh Brown, Paddy Ryder and Mitch Clark average about 4 tackles per game - David Hale averages less than 2 and Jesse White averages close to 1.

What does "must" mean? If someone else offers him $2M over 4 years are you going to match it?

We haven't delisted him, we told him we won't be offering him a new contract. If GC offer him a contract presumably we'll get compensation. Otherwise they'll have to draft him which they could do. If there's interest from more than one club we could trade him.

I see Campbell Brown is weighing up 2 years at 600K at Hawthorn against 1.2M over 3 years at GC. That's what the Jones decision is likely to entail - anyone want to give him 1M over 3 years that he'll probably be offered elsewhere? It's that simple.

I do agree that unless your team is playing the 2nd week is a bit of a dud - if any of the participating teams have genuine flag credentials then they will pound the living crap out of their opposition e.g Geelong v Freo. Close matches are usually between finals also-rans. The biggest motivator is often a negative with teams trying to avoid a straight sets exit but with little hope of progressing e.g. Dogs. However: The first week has great interest with prelims at stake in the qualifiers and often up and coming teams trying to win a first final in the eliminations e.g. Freo. The prelim week is possibly even better than GF week with partisan crowds at take-no prisoners high stakes games that the general footy public has a good chance of getting to.

I have sympathy for the FD, they had to make a tough decision on Junior. I expect they're offering Cam Bruce a new contract - he played great footy towards the end of 2010 and he doesn't rely on pace to do it - so losing it is not a factor. He has been very durable and could easily go on for at least a couple more years. I'd be offering him 2 years at decent money since he's on the vets list (probably a pay cut since last contract was his prime) and I'd be expecting him to take it. If all goes extremely well he might even get another year and be part of a flag in 2013 a la Shane Crawford. To free a spot on the primary list Green goes on the VL and Junior "retires". If we waited until the Cam Bruce scenario plays out before making a decision on Junior and Cam signs as expected then Junior "retires" with no farewell game or the fanfare that he deserves. If Cam Bruce does find a better offer elsewhere there is a possible way back for Junior if MFC ate a big slice of humble pie - he's still under contract on the list until after trade period. On the Nathan Jones discussion I think everyone is missing the point. I'd be amazed if we were "shopping" Jones around for trade. He's a good player and we should be offering him a decent contract - standard 2 years at the money he's currently on. Often players get better offers elsewhere - he may want 3 years and significantly more money and he may be able to get that e.g. GC or Sydney looking to replace Brett Kirk. Then it's a standard negotiation just like it was with Brad Green and Aaron Davey over the past 2 years. The question is how far do we go in the negotiation, is Jones as important as Green or Davey? I'd say no - if our team is going to be a flag contender then many young players will need to improve and go past Nathan Jones - I think that's what we've got to assume is going to happen - if Nathan Jones remains a core component we're not going to be challenging so in the big picture it doesn't really matter. If we give him a big long contract it compromises our position with players we expect to be better than him. So if we don't budge too far on the contract negotiations and Nathan Jones can do better elsewhere that's when and why trade talk arises - not because we WANT to get rid of him. In this circumstance a trade is in both parties best interest - otherwise he leaves for nothing with possibly no guarantee of ending up where he wants to - lose-lose.

Wonder if Jesse White would look elsewhere if he gets dropped for Daniel Bradshaw this week?

It's not that hard to understand even for amateurs like us let alone for professional footy journalists - are you David Schwarz?

West Coast want a small forward, Carlton want a key back and Kirk is retiring at Sydney.

The usual the starting point for "trade" rumours with out of contract players is a gap between where the club rates him and what they're offering and what he believes he is worth. Remember out of contract players are free to go into the draft with a price like Luke Ball did. The starting point in the Nathan Jones discussion isn't whether we want to trade him - I'm sure we want to keep him - at the right price. He's out of contract and there has to be offer and counter-offer. His manager has to go to the market to test his value if there's a mismatch in expectations.

none

Nathan Jones and Clint Bartram finished equal in the B&F and have been at the club about the same time. Both give their all, have many positives and some limitations. The FD rates them about the same and so do I. I think they're both out of contract - they ought to be getting similar deals. I hope they stay with us on the right terms.

I've got some sympathy that they were ripped off there: Bock - 27yo KPP B+F AA - surely worth band 2 pick after their 1st rounder. They were ripped off on not getting Gibbs F/S too. I feel for them - but I'm over it now.

A great result. Greeny timed his run well, there's going to be even more stiff competition in future years and he deserved to win one. When I look back over the recent past, most of our deserving players have been recognised with a Bluey win which is great. I can't readily think of a player who missed out.

The way I read it is that he decides he wants to go to the Crows. The Crows and GWS do a deal. GWS picks him up and trades him to the Crows. If there's no GWS-Crows deal then he goes F-S and GWS doesn't get him. I'm not sure that it's really an advantage to go to the club where your dad is a coach. Let's hope he comes to MFC - his dad was captain and B+F winner - that's a strong link.

Agree - I haven't seen enough of Hanneberry or Martin to make a call on them but they'd need to have been extremely good to be better. I won't be unhappy if Tom comes 2nd - there's greater acknowledgement ahead for him.

Jones swiss army knife doesn't have any blades - it has plays every week, goes hard, great endurance.

Moloney v Jones http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compare_players?tid1=109&pid1=2003034&year1=2010&tid2=109&pid2=2006117&year2=2010

They are very impressive - their handball and running in the backline was really great. I think Harvey makes a big impact for them and he's 33. Petrie and Rawlings are 28+. They are 3 really important players. If they're going to win a flag and these players are going to have a major influence it has to be in the next 3 years. We've got McDonald, Bruce and Green in this age category - less impact.