old55

Just as I thought I had read elsewhere! Freak, your 25 vs 13 argument is looking pretty sick.

The problem is you've offered your opinion claiming "I would say I would be as knowledgable about the factual history of trading and drafting as anyone else on this site, and I use these facts to form opinions." without delivering on the factual history.

Look that's twice you've made that claim - let's see the figures that actually back it up.

How about actually providing some analysis of drafting at those clubs relative to MFC's rather than just generalising with bald statements - who knows - you might have a point. Why should someone else do the hard yards for you yet again? It's your MI. Your superficial approach has been exposed at least twice in this thread already when you claimed: - 98 and 00 were poor years without actually examining what picks we had and who else we might have selected - comparing Hine with CAC on the basis of his performance in 05 and 06, years you said were too early to rate for CAC

Caroline Wilson: That sounds like sanctions to me.

Indeed. Look I'm more concerned about the way he played when he came back from injury. That trying to break every tackle [censored] looked like he believed his own publicity.

2007 was an extremely disappointing year from McLean all round.

Look I just don't think there's much to be gained by bald statements without doing the research - at least you've given it a go. As Brocky says - Hansen and Waite but wait Waite was father-son .. that makes one so far. No Warren I'm talking about the facts behind your opinions, there was very little behind Lamb in the 98 draft and our next selction was 60. Scott Thompson was a good selection in 2001 whichever way you want to slice it (Are you seriously advocating that we should never take a non-Victorian?) and our next selection was 62. The facts don't hang CAC in those years. No I don't always agree with those posters, in fact quite often the opposite, but I respect their knowledge and research over a long period.

Again for you Jarka, a little homework - find the good KPPs taken after CAC's picks. A blind butcher can count them on one hand. We are a relatively poor club with many deficits compared with other clubs - we've got to make every post a winner. I think CAC is one big winner for us. Now with the new development coaching structure in place to take advantage of his selctions I think we could see a big improvement.

That's fine if you get them right. Your analysis of the 2000 draft didn't support this statement. You were wrong about that year - Thompson was a very good selection at 16 and draft penalties ruined our chance after that - it's a pretty fundamental error. Similar for 1998, Lamb was an ordinary pick but there wasn't much after him and our next pick was at 60. You're attributing Holland and Read to CAC but the coach's hands are all over trades and the PSD. Your dismissal of post 2003 years in MFC analysis but support for Hine based on those years is flawed logic. The heavy hitters of draft analysis on this site are Fan, Hannabal and goodoil etc - keep working on your swing ... Yes CAC hasn't selected a big star yet (depending on how McLean develops under Bailey and co), but apart from 2001 which was a shocking year and had the coach's fingerprints all over it with Molan, there haven't been too many stars taken after his picks. You will find a few ...

boom ... tish!

I thought Daniher wrecked his career by mis-using him like he mis-used Miller You know there's a grain of truth in every misconception ...

An accurate analysis there Hannabal, CAC's only bad year was 2001, WD agrees that 2000 was wrecked by draft penalties. Was 1998 bad? CAC had Lamb at 13 and his next pick was at 60 - it's hard to make good picks when you don't have any. I agree with you that last few years CAC has shown refinement of the art, I'm excited going into this draft with him selecting at 4, 14 and 21.

You make an interesting point Rumpole - to be consistent Carlton need to be cautioned first before being penalised. But it's difficult to see how Pratt can remain as President without bringing the AFL into disrepute.

A player who hasn't featured in the top 10 of our B&F for the past two years - that mus be some new definition of "best" which I am unfamiliar with ...

Yes, if the club of his choice offers a matching draft pick then he moves - simple, it doesn't matter what the reason is.

The player chooses the club they want to go to and the bidding is only with that club. WC have got the choice - make a bid to keep him and match the contract terms, if they refuse to meet the terms then they lose the player to the other club for nothing but the other club has to pay the terms - standard FA. It's WC choice - if they want to retain the player they have at least some leverage and if they fail they get some compensation. One pick for a player is better than none - very few players are worth multiple picks anyway. Trading would still happen for contracted players like the Johnstone deal and for players with less than 6 years.

I'm suggesting that if the acquiring club matches the current club's draft pick (forfeit) then it gains the player and trades the pick to the current club. The current club can only retain the player by matching the contract and making a (forfeit) draft pick bid that the acquiring club refuses to match. In the Judd case WC would make the bid a first round pick, Carlton would have to match that (with pick 3). That's a lot better than losing Judd for nothing which is what would happen under true FA. Judd would only stay at WC if Carlton refused to trade a 1st round pick to WC. WC have to offer the same contract terms as Carlton, say $6m over 5 years. In that case WC would have to forfeit (not give to Carlton) it's pick 13 to retain Judd. In most cases the player would go, which is fair, but some compensation would be paid.

I understand why the players want this. It would be good if some draft compensation for the club losing the player could be included. I know this means it's a trade and that's what we've got now. I'm thinking something along the Judd-lines where an out of contract player with 6 years experience nominates the club of his choice, that club then has to provide a draft pick to compensate. Not sure how to set the value of the pick - the way it worked for the F/S this year was good where the acquiring team had to provide their next available pick after other team's best bid. This would not work in the FA case because the point is that the player wants to end up at the club of his choice. The current club is really the alternative bidder, one option could be that the player's current club has to match the contract on offer from the preferred club and offer a pick they are prepared to forfeit (not trade - the preferred club should not benefit) to keep the player, then the preferred club has to match that pick in a trade to the current club. It's not ideal but at least there's some compensation.

Definite no. The Dogs should take him, they're trying to win the 2008 flag and couldn't get a KPF in trades.

David Neitz has been a great Melbourne player and captain but I think it's time for him to retire. He's had a great career - leading MFC games player, only MFC player to 300 games, leading MFC games captain, leading MFC goal kicker, Coleman medallist, All-Australian, best and fairest winner. There's nothing left for him to prove or achieve except a flag and we're not going to win the 2008 flag. 2008 would almost certainly be his last year anyway and with a refreshed footy department, the trade of Travis Johnstone and the retention of Russell Robertson we'll make faster progress minus the great man in 2008. Forward structure: David's a power forward who dictates the structure of our forward line. We need to move on from this and find a new post-Neitz structure. With the retention of Robbo we still have experienced goal-kicking capability. the absence of Neita will enable us to experiment much more with personnel and structure. Leadership: With TJ moving on we're signalling at least a partial rebuild. David has been a great leader bur it's time for others to step up. Personally I'd be happy to make Brad Green captain - I really think he'd rise to the occasion. But if we're uncertain about this and would like a year or two for someone to truly emerge then James McDonald would be a fine choice in 2008 a la Todd Viney when Garry Lyon retired. Neita's retirement would be all of a sudden and he wouldn't get a "farewell" but neither did Nathan Buckley ...

Interested in looking at Danny Meyer - top 10 pick with pace - could add something we're missing. What's your call on him goodoil?

Well that's just completely wrong - Craig Cameron is reponsible for recruiting and he's been there for quite a while and has a track record we can judge ... The following players were drafted (or traded) onto our current list after pick 25: B: Whelan Carroll Warnock HB: CJ Rivers Ferguson C: Buckley McDonald Bode HF: Garland Miller Davey F: Robertson Newton PJ R: Jamar Bruce Bartram I: Meesen Hughes Weetra

How hopeless in afl.com.au? Every year they stuff up the draft coverage and now "Trader Tracker" is way behind (no Callan or Davies trade up) and wrong (Dogs/Eagles/Crows picks) When I go to www.melbournefc.com.au I still get some pre-season story about Daniel Ward's gambling problems - does anyone else get this too? WTF is going on down there?

Yeah just read it that the Dogs on-trade 30 to the Eagles