torpedo

Good post. I agree wholeheartedly with the best available approach & that our midfield requires some quality kids. Although I don't think we can assume Watts will solve our KPF problems & will make Miller and Newton better players. Miller had a great year but isn't a long term solution & Newton offers no guarantees at all. Whilst i'd welcome the addition of one or two classy mids I would be just as happy if we picked another KPF / 3rd tall with 17 or 19, such as Johnston or Shoenmakers, or one of the more versatile talls such as Trengrove, Vickery or McKernan, as unlikely as it is any of those will fall. In our position the best player available is the best approach, whether it be a KPP, ruck or mid we have plenty of room for any of them if they are good enough players. I find it a little odd to pencil in a 'small back' as a draft requirement. As you say, small forwards / backs are often just mids with a small engine. Plenty of experienced midfielders play out their twilight years in a back pocket & the way small forwards play these days they are often taken by someone you wouldn't normally consider a 'small back' anyway, ie Mackie, Brown or even Garland. I cannot even recall a player for the Hawks or Cats you would consider a traditional 'small back', Cats in particular have a very tall defence & both teams often rotate their mids through a back pocket. Have you got any potential draftees in mind that play that position? If we pick up 3 mids like you hope what is to say one of them will not develop into a defender? Plus we have Bartam & Cheney. I agree with picking up another ruck project late in the draft if we don't nab one of the better prospects early on. I do not think we should use our last pick either, it would need to be someone we really rate not purely speculative.

Kruezer was contacted by the CFC prior to the draft & told he would be taken at No 1 by them & that was confirmed by CFC in the media. Whether or not its at a function 36 hours before the event or in media interviews 24 hours before the event should not be relevant, its either OK or it isnt & last year when CFC did it nobody made a fuss.

I could be imagining things but wasn't it on free-to-air a few years back? And on a weekday? Maybe the AFL has reservations about turning it into a major event, the hype & business aspect of the NBA is hardly something to strive for. The expectations on draftees in the AFL are a lot different to the NBA also, the US feeder leagues are already big business & the top picks are expected to perform immediately. I agree that you'd think the interest would definetly be there though.

I can't see how the AFL / NAB could take issue with it, I'm certain Carlton told the media they were picking Kruezer at least a day or two before last year's draft. I don't see how they could say you can release it to the media but it cannot be done at a sponsorship event. Sounds like a great idea to me, the kid needs to know, the pressue must be enormous. There is absolutely no competitive advantage to be gained from keeping it secret.

I actually prefer Quayle's approach of rating the players 1 - 25 rather than trying to get inside the heads of each club, it provides a more thorough analysis of the draftees rather than just pure speculation on each club's recruiting approach, which is more often than not based on reasoning an 8 year old kid could come up with such as 'Melbourne needs to bolster its forward stocks so they'll go tall with this pick'... if any of them actually had insider knowledge on each club's draft day approach i'd be interested but they don't, the recruiters themselves say the whole process is clouded by secrecy and accordingly they have to prepare for each & evey scenario. Many of the mock drafts I've read have us picking 2 tall forwards & a ruck or 2 tall forwards & a mid with 1, 17 & 19 simply on the basis that these are areas where the Dees are lacking, which just seems ridicolous considering our policy has been for several years to take the best player availble with early picks & Prendergast has been quoted several times stating 1, 17 & 19 will not be used on a 'needs' basis. Based on that I find Quayle's analysis far more informative and interestingly her ratings were closer to the mark last year than any of the mock drafts I saw, rating Morton, Grimes & Maric 3, 13 & 20. I also found this quite interesting, he seems to have gone under everyone's radar a fair bit being such a high pick, hopefully he can grab our attention in 2009.

I find that hard to believe. Have you got a ballpark figure? More than us is one thing, 'bucket of dollars' just sounds like a load of bulldust. I think he has potential also and if he can back this season's form up with further improvement and on a more consistent basis he'd be a handy player. But what we definitely cannot afford to have is a situation where we have players with unfulfilled potential, ie Carroll, Messen, Jamar, Newton, Bell (... and the list goes on), clogging up our list due to poor list management and unnecessarily long contracts. There is nothing to suggest CJ will be a solid player for many years to come, there is glimmers of hope but nothing definitive. Why guarantee him another 2 years when he has performed below expectations for the majority of his AFL career? It is being allowed to happen because finally MFC is learning from its mistakes and no longer singing up 'maybes' on 2 or 3 year contracts... particularly not ones who have already had 4 years to prove their worth.

Where? He's hardly stamped himself on the game, most AFL supporters wouldn't even know who the bloody hell he is. No, contract negotiations are based on the worth of a player. CHF / CHBs are regarded as worth much, much more than a fringe half back flanker, ability is only piece of the puzzle... the market rate for beanpole ruckmen, many of which lack basic co-ordination skills let alone class with a football, is indicative of this. We have about 10 blokes on the list that could play CJ's position, why would we risk signing him up for 2 years when its possible he'll have an average 2009 and wind up back at Sandy for the last 18 months of his contract?

That's just it, he's been at MFC 4 years and has played a handful of solid games. I agree that he was very good in a couple of matches this year and I would be disappointed to see him go also, his form over the past 4 seasons does not warrant an automatic 2 year term though. If he backs himself he shouldn't have an issue with a performance based contract, but if he is more interested in the soft option - security - let him walk, we've got enough soft players. I agree with mo64 that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with money, more to do list management and ensuring we don't end up with pickles like Carroll on our list when they're 18 months past their use by date. I think CJ has potential to be in our best 22 also however its just as likely he'll turn in a similar season that Bell did this year and then everyone will be complaining that he's contracted for 2010.

Is it just me or has the article vanished? Not so sure about this, not because I dont rate Williams but his appointment as a player development coach made perfect sense given the success of the MFC / Sandy alignment... who will take over his current role? Somebody as good as him? The role of development coaches is extremely important, especially given where our list is at, I don't want to see that position compromised to fill gaps elsewhere.

He's putting pressure on us by saying he wants to train with St Kilda. Telling him 'fine go for your life, that'll be a repudiation of your contract though' is not harassment, workplace discrimination or restraint of trade, its the correct interpretation of the terms of his contract - the contract he and the AFLPA are insisting he has not breached and want upheld. If he's got a problem with that all he can do is not back himself and sit on his arse waiting for his next MFC paycheck, that's not any of the things you have mentioned either that's just how it is, it's there plain and simple for anyone to see. The fact that he will have a lot of pressure on him and will look like a [censored] if he takes the latter option is his own doing, not the MFCs. I don't see how letting him train with our direct competition whilst keeping his contract in place and retaining his spot on the list can be a sensible outcome. That is as soft as it gets and sets a bad example for the playing group. The sensible outcome for any contract dealing is if you want something we need something in return, if he wants out the parties can come to a mutual agreement for that to happen, he cannot leave then come grovelling back to get his contract fulfilled because he's too [censored] to get a gig elsewhere.

That's my whole point, we shouldn't approve such a situation. It is only in our interest to do so if we get some form of guarantee out of it too, the current situation is a win / win for Carroll and potentially disastrous for us - that's not a deal, that's taking it up the arse. How can we expect to build a tough, uncompromising side if the club administration is willing to bend over and take it up the arse at any given opportunity. Put the pressure on Carroll, tell him if he wants to walk out and train elsewhere then he can go for his life, good for him for backing his own ability. If he wants to hang around like a bad smell, not back himself, never play AFL again and prove to the world how soft he really is then that's his choice. Either way he'll get paid his contract, its simply a question of whether he ever wants to play AFL footy again and redeem himself or not.

Training with another club is obviously outside the terms of his current contract with the MFC. I think the MFC should say train with whoever you want, obviously that is a repudiation of your contract though and good riddance. I cannot see how the AFL could possibly interpret it any other way either. If he doesn't like that and takes the soft option of not training elsewhere take on the bone head and the AFLPA for breach of contract instead based on his previous actions. If we allow him to train elsewhere, he doesn't secure a contract, and we are stuck with a dead spot on our list that would be f#%king lame as it gets... seems to be the trend for the MFC administration at the moment.

Surely if he is allowed to do a pre-season at another club then once he is granted that permission MFC are in the clear as far as freeing up his spot on our list? I'm happy for us to pay out some of his contract, all of it if we have to, however I don't want to see a situation where he is granted permission to train with St Kilda, they don't like him and he isn't picked up, then the MFC are no longer allowed to replace his spot on the list. I would have thought that the only fair outcome is that if he is allowed to seek out other clubs, we are allowed to replace him, whether he is successful or not.

No, I understood your post and the subsequent responses fully and choose to respond to it as I did. Its a forum not an exam paper. In my opinion BARRACKING FOR YOUR TEAM TO LOSE, sorry, how did you put, thinking we would be better off we lose, 6 months before the start of the season, is just plain wrong. Tanking discussions after a poor start to a season is one thing, this is just ridiculous. People are taking this 'bottoming out' approach to a whole new level now, I think its sucks and aside from all that is based on the flawed logic that 2 years of Priority Picks = Premierships, which it does not.

Here, here. This is ridiculous. We must & we will be preparing for 2009 with the intention of winning as many games as possible. If you think the MFC will be thinking any other way you are deluded. 'Bottoming out' can only be considered part way through a season when it is clear finals are not an option and blooding youngsters and experimenting takes precedence of fielding our best 22. The concept that a club will be aiming to 'bottom out' before a season has even begun is just plain idiotic and contrary to popular opinion was never the intention of Hawthorn or Geelong or any other club we are supposedly modelling ourselves on.

Currently we've only got 6 available spots on our list, if Valenti & Wona get a gig that leaves 4. At this stage we may not even be able to use the bloody thing.

Weetra's been delisted... *cue useless pedantic comment about list lodgement dates*

Worst player on our list. I think people cut him way too much slack because of his deficiencies, ie he cannot play football. The fact that the Essendon game is heralded as sufficient output is a prime example.

What Richmond are dumb enough to do at the trade table cannot be used as a measuring stick for the rest of the comp, same goes for Freo. Also keep in mind that Richmond had PPs that year so the value of the picks to them wasnt as great as it was to a top 8 team with 1 pick inside the first 25. You also need to consider this year is a 'Super Draft' & that 2nd last before the 2010 GC17 draft, both factors which have increased the value of picks significantly.

Most definitely, although I'm not sure what sort of comparison you're trying to make, they are completely different types of players.

I'm sure the prospect of Jamar & O'Hailpin out on the park together will get everyone salivating... This would be a disastrous acquisition, even if it was free in the PSD.

I wouldnt read too much into that, it would hardly strengthen our bargaining position if we come out and say both parties want to part ways.

Anyone else find it odd St Kilda nominated for Cordy when they picked up McEvoy with last years 1st round pick?

Interesting in that its impossible to determine what any of it means?

Which players haven't we been able to keep? I can't think of any other than the occasional interstate player... it is not an ongoing problem, this is an isolated incident that seems to be related to the MFC playing hardball on his contract, which in light of some recent contract blunders can only be commended. I would have loved to see Brad playing for us next year, his actions have indicated that he is not totally committed to the MFC though so I think it is important the MFC try as hard as possible to set up a beneficial trade.