old55

Yeah they might want that but originally we offered McLean + 34 for 11 + 27 (see Sunday Age) So McLean for 11 is in the middle. It sounds possible that Buckley and/or Bell is being worked into negotiations.

I don't think we need pick 43, we've already got 5 picks before that up to 34. The only draft advantage for us is to upgrade 34. If there was a Buckley deal we'd want 34 + Buckley for 27

Clubs have to take 3 picks - pick 50 is Carlton's 3rd pick in that scenario. Carlton may want to to take more than 3 picks - it's not uncommon and all of their later picks are upgraded. As Pants says, if they want to take 4 or 5 then it's currently 27, 43, 59, 75, 91 vs 34, 43, 50, 59, 66 50 is 25 picks earlier than 75.

The whole question is a bit of a moot point anyway. We're not going to know if a coach can coach until they get close or win us a flag. We'll know if they're not up to it if they can't take us deep into the finals by 2013. But we wont really know if we have the development and gameplan until we are actually serious premiership contenders. The next coaching contract we give needs to be the one that takes us into the finals, I don't think mid-late next year we're going to know if Bailey will do that because we're odds on to finish bottom 4 again next year. If we make good progress in 2011 - that means get out of the bottom 5 and our direction generally looks good I'd look at 2 year extension with a 3rd year option for Bailey at the end of 2011. I'd expect us to make finals in 2012 and we'd need to win a final in 2013 for the option to be automatically extended into 2014. That would give him a fair tilt at a flag - we'd want to be serious contenders (or winners) by 2014.

Rogue's argument is that we'll be better placed late 2010 than we are now to make a call. rpfc and I ask "how much better" and rpfc points out we may cause an undesirable change of strategy to occur. rpfc and I are saying we will certainly be better placed by late 2011 to make the call and there's no risk of a strategy change. For the nervous nellies who are frightened of a worse 2010 than 2009, then factor that in to the contract extension.

I don't just want just "to rise well off the bottom and push into / just out of the 8" in 3 years I want to win the flag in 7 (from when Bailey started)

Give him incentive to pursue development ahead of wins, give him incentive to pursue longer term goals. I think it's highly likely we'll be bottom 4 next year as we get games into Watts, Blease, Strauss, McKenzie and our 2009 draft recruits. He's being doing exactly that so far and we want him to continue. You have been unable to come up with any measures for recontracting him next year because like me you want to see more development. If Bailey thinks this is his last year then it's very reasonable that he will push for wins above all else if you can't give him a better metric. If you're worried about the disaster scenario that we go equal to or worse than 2009 then you can put a floor in that the extra year depends on better than 4 wins. I think it's quite reasonable to start expecting wins in 2011 - out of the bottom 4 (or 5 with GC included) would be a reasonable benchmark for 2011.

List Bailey's KPIs for 2010 then ...

You're not giving him any incentive to stick to the plan - it's got to be a two-way street. The reason I am saying extend him for 1 now is that with our young team and now McLean gone it's unlikley we're going to see wins until into the 2011 season. What more conclusive evidence are you expecting mid to late 2010? Put up some targets for 2010 for recontracting him - that's what Bailey would want and reasonably expect. What measurement are you going to put to him so that he can aim for that in 2010 to get a contract extension at some stage?

Yes I capish that 34, 50 and 66 for 43 is an extremely bad deal for us. We would have better options for 50 than that, including trying to upgrade 34. 34, 50 and 66 for their 27 is a much more equitable deal.

He's out of contract. If Port don't accept a 1st rounder from Hawthorn or Essendon he can go straight into the National Draft witha contract price and term and get picked up there by one of them. Sure Richmond, Freo, North, Sydney and West Coast will get a look too but if they want to spend their 1st rounder on him they can enter the trade discussion. There's no way he's getting to the PSD unless he specifically wants to come to MFC which apparently he doesn't. BurGONE

Or perhaps it's going to get embroiled in a Fevola deal?

I'm with rpfc a 1 year extension now. Otherwise Bailey must coach for wins at the expense of all else from R1 next year.

Aaron Judd?

Agree. Our prospects of winning games in 2010 have further receded if we retain pick 11 and take a skinny KPF in place of Brock McLean. After drastic "list management" during the season, we are (correctly IMO) continuing to make sacrifices now for better days in the future. That puts Bailey is in an extremely unreasonable position if he's to be judged by match results in 2010. Who could blame him chasing Burgoyne, Fevola and Hall if that's the case? You can't have it both ways.

The Blues have a 2-3 year window with Fev but they have a 5-6 year window with Judd, Waite, Murphy, Gibbs, Kruezer and now McLean. Trading Fev now would be a gutsy move but they have time to replace him and have shown an ability to get their man to the club - Stevens, Judd, Warnock.

I get it - you would've like some more attacking losses. We could definitely have defeated Sydney in Canberra and who knows what might have happened against North and Carlton if for example we didn't play 4 ruckmen on the field at the one time. You probably thought Spencer, Jamar, Paul Johnson and McLean was the best forward set-up we had all year.

No surprise that you think that ending up with picks 1 & 2 was a disaster. Would you prefer to have won 7 or 8 games?

I think you're on the right track and that would be more meaningful.

Indeed - it's a powerful change to the rules to make the contract expire pre-National draft and allow players to nominate in there with a price. It's going to make Trade week more active and reduces the power of the PSD, particularly PSD 1 - quality players will not get through to the PSD unless they want to go to a club with an early pick. This Burgoyne case is an excellent example, PSD 1 for Burgoyne is a total no-brainer but an early ND 1st rounder is serious ju-ju. As you point out if Port refuses the Hawks pick 9 then they will end up with nothing and Burgoyne still has an excellent chance of getting to the Hawks. Meanwhile we can huff and puff about PSD 1 but it doesn't mean much (e.g. to Port and Burgoyne who will go into the ND) unless it's a club with a player who wants to come to us - that player can threaten to by-pass the ND and go straight into the PSD. I'm assuming that this is still allowed? I recall last year that a special exception had to be made for Liam Jurrah to nominate for the PSD when he didn't nominate for the ND but I'm assuming that only applies to "new" players not to out of contract players. If it applies to out of contract players too then the PSD is a dead-duck and may as well be ditched.

Davis has certainly been a disappointment in finals - he has averages 15 possession in his last 8 finals over the past 3 years. What's Davey's finals record like?

Interesting that he just came off a 3 year deal - first 2 years ordinary, last year his best - probably just a coincidence. Would you put any performance incentives in this 4 year deal of yours?

Aaron Davey is a very good player - nearly as good as Leon Davis - we wouldn't want to lose him.

4-6 years is realistic for us. In 4 years Watts and Scully will be 22 and they're going to be key to us winning any flag - to expect more earlier is very optimistic. Brock is not getting any quicker and who knows where he'll be at in 2014 - as Hannibal has pointed out, look at Luke Ball. Brock goes to Carlton, they get Waite and Warnock playing and are contenders next year - it's not that hard to understand. It's a win-win-win deal for Carlton-MFC-Brock. Other clubs are paralysed by inaction or trying to screw out deals at trade time - it's great that we've got a clean major deal done.

good start ...