old55

Well there's Brent Prismall and Brent Moloney - the Geelong fringe player is a good player at other clubs. We can get him virtually for free at a late pick or a PSD pick. As you say he's worth a look at least.

That statement just shows how little you understand.

That your mail has proven to be very reliable - perhaps Demonland deegirl? A fringe player in a champion team is not necessarily a dud and it's facile to assert that. He's potentially a pretty good player, but it's very hard to break into that midfield. He's excctly the right age and he has pace, which when I look at our 2010 best 22 even with Brock gone and Ball not arriving, is a problem. Look at Farren Ray, he made a significant contribution at St.Kilda. I think Tenace could add value. In the long run the problem is that we're aiming to be the next Geelong so that would see him at the fringes and Ray failed in the GF. But there's the possibility that he becomes a more effective player in his late 20s. I'm definitely interested.

Let's say he thinks coming to MFC is like a holiday in Hobart and going to Collingwood is like a holiday to Paris. He's not going to sign up for Hobart when he might get to Paris but if that doesn't come off he'll still have a good time in Hobart. I guess the risk is he may end up holidaying in Alberton.

So for every position lower we finish we get a pick two picks earlier. Lucky tanking doesn't exist or this may be an incentive.

Maybe worth noting that Hughes is, and Meeson would be, a mature age rookie and you're allowed 2 maximum.

My understanding is the issue with Carroll was whether or not we had to pay him out under the circumstances, not whether we could terminate him.

Was never convinced by the arguments that he had only 2 options - St.Kilda or MFC. I thought plan A was St.Kilda but he must have irreconcilable differences with Ross Lyon. He obviously doesn't want to come to MFC and we shouldn't pick him. This is no big surprise or insult - he just doesn't want to go back to 2001 - fair enough, he's done that pain. He must regard North (re-build) and Brisbane (re-locate) as no more evil than MFC. Probably rates Essendon as significantly more desirable. And keeps his dream alive of possibly getting through to Collingwood. The only wildcard is Choco, with only 3 picks it seems unlikely he'd use 16 on Ball, but who knows what he thinks? I read with some amusement the discussion re the Pies prospects in 2010 in the other Ball thread. If he does indeed get through to them, together with Jolly and Pendlebury back (who they sorely missed in last year's finals) they'll be a real premiership threat in 2010. The Saints don't want this (and probably neither does anyone else) and would be happier if he went to North or Essendon.

Do these players have to be delisted prior to the ND and go thru both the ND and the PSD to the Rookie draft or can they be delisted between the ND and the RD and only nominate for the PSD and RD? I guess the players involved would want every chance to be selected onto a senior list so would want to go into the ND, but is it possible to delist them after the ND? It is possible for uncontracted players to just nominate for the PSD - what we want Luke Ball to do.

You keep saying that - why? I know he's from SA and has been placed at 8 or 9 almost universally on Big Footy Phantom Drafts. Do you have more info than that? Have you seen him play? Do you have some inside info from Port? Neither Emma Quayle or Mark Stevens have him going there.

Agree

Indeed Collingwood has an enviable record in all aspects of the game except that last Saturday in September. All those resources, all those opportunities and 1 flag in 50 years! But those top 4 finishes make up for that though don't they 6-1

So Luke Ball might re-sign with St.Kilda, would probably prefer to go to Collingwood and may have some misgivings about coming to Melbourne? OK.

I hope we can get him but I think it's a long shot. The point is, with him we are more likely to improve quicker, it's a lttle self-fulfilling. If he comes we will be better and play finals quicker, if he doesn't we'll take a bit longer. He might be playing a fair bit of VFL or maybe even not at all by 2014. I can definitely understand why he'd prefer to be at a current contender. At St.Kilda or Collingwood he's not going to be #1 opposition focus but in 2010 at Melbourne he is. On the other hand their window is open right now and they must throw everything at winning a flag, we can afford to use him a bit more carefully. I don't think the ND is so fraught for him as everyone likes to make out. We wont pick him at 18 and Richmond and Freo wont pick him either. I don't think WC will pick him but if they did there's worse outcomes than playing in WA with a super rich club on the way up the ladder. Why would he view North as a worse option than us? Essendon is an attractive option. Brisbane like WC is a desirable location. Geelong, Adelaide and then his desired location Collingwood. The worst thing that could happen is that Port picked him at 16 - who knows what Choco thinks! If I was him I'd go ND or a one year deal at St.Kilda and try to get to Collingwood or GC next year.

I'd like us to get a contested marking KP too but only if he's worthy. All I'm trying to do is illustrate that there's a very real and reasonable scenario where we might pick up 4 mids with our first 4 picks. If we do end up with 3 mids or 4 mids then I can understand why and I wont be crying to mummy and tearing my hair out like all those on this forum who demand a KP no matter what. Please yourself, but don't ask me to pass the tissues if it pans out that way ....

I'm trying to imagine the conversation at our draft table ... Chris Connolly: Now Bazza, you know we need a strong contested marking KP - pick one at 11. Barry Prendergast: Yes agree Connolls but Sydney and Port picked the two I rate at 6 and 9 and now there's only flakey ones left and the fact that they picked KPs has let one of the mids I really rate slip through CC: Doesn't matter, we've got to take a KP no matter what and anyway I read on BigFooty that you could throw a blanket over the lot of them from 10 to 25. Just pick one. I think something alarmingly similar to that might have happened in 2001 - well not the BigFooty part but ... CC and BP are not going to fall for that. BP has said he'll pick for need only if he thinks the players are equal. The same argument applies at 18 - the later you get in the draft, the more you can take a risk, but we shouldn't be taking risks with 1st round selections.

Yeah I reckon that's right cake. By 10 November we'll know whether Ball is going somewhere else or it's just St.Kilda or Melbourne. If he doesn't nominate for the ND on 10 November, St.Kilda wont delist him so the 18 November deadline is meaningless - they'd prefer to keep him or see him at MFC (via the PSD) rather than a current flag competitor. 1 December is St.Kilda or Melbourne deadline. If he hasn't nominated for a draft by then he's playing for St.Kilda (on a new contract) or not at all. Of course he might announce his intentions well in advance of any of these dates.

By 10 November we'll know whether Ball is going somewhere else or it's just St.Kilda or Melbourne. If he doesn't nominate for the ND on 10 November, St.Kilda wont delist him so the 18 November deadline is meaningless - they'd prefer to keep him or see him at MFC (via the PSD) rather than a current flag competitor. This really belongs in the Ball thread.

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?showtopic=16865 For the ND: Tue, Nov 10, 2pm – Out of contract listed AFL primary list players draft nomination deadline For the PSD: Tue, Dec 1, 2pm – Out of contract AFL primary list player draft nomination deadline, NSW scholarship-listed players and international scholarship-listed players inclusion on rookie list deadline

That's not strictly correct. He is still a listed St.Kilda player and they don't have to use a pick to have him continue to play for them if they re-contract him.

If we are in flag mode and realise that we're a KP and/or ruckman away from a complete set then we can trade one in. Look at this year with Fevola, Hall and Bradshaw - Jolly, Seaby and Mumford all on the move. We'll have 1st rounders every year and a stockpile of guaranteed good players for trade.

We appear to have been posting at the same time. According to my approach: 11. as the old saying goes - 9 times out of 10 the Mid, the other time think about it for a minute then take the Mid 18. Now you're in the range where they may be close enough to equal - a good recruiter would admit a fair % error range. What's the relative likelihood that the KP will be a star compared with that mid? What do we need - do I assume KP? Neither of them sounds much chop at 18 actually - how does the ruckman look?

What's the likelihood that they'll play ANY effective AFL football. If there's any doubt about that then I wouldn't be using pick 11 or 18 on them. That would be the place I'd start. Then I'd move up through the levels. What's the likelihood they'll be a 100 game player? What's the likelihood they'll be a 200 game player? What's the likelihood they'll be a star? I would avoid getting involved in the relative value of roles - it's an impossible task. I'd just assess whether they can compete in the designated role. I hope for example that this is how we picked Watts over Naitanui and Rich last year. There is/was some possibility that Naitanui wouldn't play any effective AFL football - so Watts wins While they'll both probably play 200 games Watts is more likely to be a star that Rich - so Watts wins. If the two players in question had equal likelihood then I'd pick on need. I know it's not that simple but that's the basis for a decision. Otherwise you risk picking Molan over James Kelly.

Stef Martin? The PSD has been good to us. To pick up Luke Ball would be 3 good results in a row.

I don't think too many people will argue that Robbo does not still offer something significant offensively - but he's very selfish - 12 kicks means 12 shots for 5 goals. But it's his defensive play that is the big problem - when he's lying on his back while his man runs free. Yes he might kick 50 but he also might give up 30 from rebounds out of the forward 50. It depends whether Carlton can live with this or think they can reform him. We don't want players who play that way and we don't want that example set to our young players. I saw a dad seriously teaching his young son to kick goals back over his head on the weekend - hmmmmm - no doubt a Robbo admirer.