Mono

Time to take a breath. McLean was on about $400k (inflated IMO) according to a paper (Age?), and was offered a new contract with a (big?) pay cut. My guess here is that it was heavy on incentives. And remeber, this at a time when we are front-ending contracts just to get up to the SC. In other words, a slap in the chops? Anyway, we have and will have, more mid-fielders than a shark has teeth. I reckon his manager (uncle ricky?) put out feelers, and got a big bite. From AFL.COM.AU, "McLean met with Melbourne officials on Monday and informed them of his request to be traded from the club." The deal was done today, so he already knew who wanted him before wanting out of MFC. So the choice was his. I'm betting a tough decision for him. Time will tell, but he MIGHT be a good get for carlton. He's supposed to be a replacement for Richard hadley who is heading back to the lions; he'll want to play more games (6 or 7) than Hadley did this year. My big problem is with our SC. If we stay with drafts, we'll be flat out making 82% of our SC, let alone 92%. Maybe we can go to the AFL and ask for a special dispensation to pay, say, 85%. Picks 11 & 18 for Bourgoyne anyone?

Agree. There seems to be some real talent in the early picks.

McLean might want to go. There was a comment in the paper (Age?) that he was being offered a contract for less $'s. He might want ot move on to greener pastures.

Rubbish, 2003 was a very thin year - no guns (Cooney pick 1, good player but not a gun IMO). Kepler Bradley was pick 6 FCS.

Reckon he'll go to Port (with pick 10) for Burgoyne.

In the Age this morning: "It is understood Burgoyne could command about $700,000 a year in a three-year deal at either Melbourne or Essendon, but with a tighter salary constraint with a premiership winning list, Hawthorn would be unable to offer more than about $450,000 a year." So, perhaps this is a more soothing explanation. And as I inderstand it, to go into the PSD, a player has to nominate a price tag. Then anyone can draft them. Poker anyone?

If Burgoyne can't get a trade to Hawks or Dons, and goes into the PSD, he has to nominate a contract price. If he nominates $750K, whoever drafts him has to pay it. I certainly hope the MFC doesn't and i doubt the Hawks will or can. Maybe the Dons will with SC space. He might be just shooting himself in the foot (or is that the knee )

I see there are new rules for trade week this year (rookies can be traded). Here I hope the MFC elevates Valenti. But if they don't, I hope they help him get a game at another club.

I agree with what you say. If MFC don't rate him enough to draft him, so be it, but I expect him to be picked up by someone in the draft. Sellers market I reckon.

Quite possibly. Another week like this one and he might be up there.

Footy department & bad decisions? Not hard that one. Look no further than Newton's 2 year deal. You continually give credence to the Footy Dept's decisions. WHY? You should know better - there are a number (plenty?) of players on our list who should not be or should not have contracts past this year. We all know you don't rate Valenti. He has had a couple of great games - you'd do well to acknowledge it and move on.

Hawthorn, '06 by 75 points - mentioned in another thread. Robbo kicked a bunch I think. Harkes premiers 2 years later.

No

You make 2 interesting points. The Rivers angle is a new one to me. Hawthorn may well be interested in him. They are short a central defender, and we are flush with them atm. Hmmmm. I'd bet Maguire at the Saints may be in their sights, and a cheaper/easier trade. The McLean/mids angle is not new, but with Scully and possibly Trengove, as well as Blease and Strauss (and McKenzie & Valenti as rookies), we are over the odds with mids (especially the inside/hard-at-it type - McLean, Moloney, Jones (& Valenti)). I don't think there is room for them all in a 22. I'm thinking 1 of McLean, Moloney or Jones may well be traded. As Moloney is the oldest at 25, my guess is that McLean & Jones will attract the most interest. Folks should think -apart from the go-home trades, most trades are the result of a side having a surplus of one type of player - good players who can't get a game (think Maguire at the Saints & Moloney at the Cats before he came to the MFC). Maybe Jones at Melbourne?

You are correct. So, let 2010 unfold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the tiges lose every game, including this one, they are on 18 points, ie LESS THAN 20. That would give them an extra pick at the end of the first draft round? No? Myabe they are tanking too?

How so?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

We were very lucky to play in the 2000 GF. We had a freak draw - we played the bottom 8 in the last 8 weeks, and then Carltank lost the PF - they simply kicked it away. We made the GF by default. The blues would have been a much more formidable oponent for the dons.

RPFC, you have been very easy on me - I appreciate it! Presuming a side has the skills to deal with uncontested possessions, AFL today is about contested ball. Players then fall into 1 of 3 brackets: those that love a contest, those that can deal with a contest and those that squib a contest. Morton falls into the latter. He squibbed a contest dramatically in his first game; he has squibbed any contest since. That's 18 months and 32? games. I don't think that's making a quick judgement and sticking to it relentlessly. (For an example of a light-weight player who falls into category 2, try Xavier Ellis. He's light, and doesn't necessarily seek a contest, but doesn't shirk one either.) FWIW, I'm not attacking Morton the person, just he doesn't have the personal qualities to make it as a punishing (= good) player. Shirking/not shirking a contest is largely built into us. You might learn it young, but you certainly can't un-learn it later in life. And just think. If his great possession haul ever starts to really hurt quality opposition, all they will have to do is put real physical pressure on him (legal or not), and it's game over. As for great wingman, Dixon and Flower come to mind. Dixon had real hardness, Flower had almost insane bravery. Morton sadly neither. And is my judgement infallible? Certainly not! I never rated Ross Lyon as a coach. So it goes. And a final comment. Steven Stretch was an excellent player for the MFC in the 80's, often as a wing/half-back. He is now largely remembered for pulling out of a head-on contest with Robert Dipiodomenico in the 87 GF. Not sure what it means, but that a signal moment can sum up a career is supremely sad. Morton is in danger of having his career summed up with his squibbing a contest in his first game because he has done nothing in 18 months since to correct it. The longer it goes, the less convincing, and likely, it is to be corrected.

About Morton: 1. He plays frightened 2. He has a big motor 3. Has poor disposal - kicking and hand-ball 4. Racks up possessions His future? He will be an important player ONLY if he racks up possions and hurts the opposition. Any player who currently hurts the opposition gets a (heavy) tag. Morton will never handle a tag. If the GC would give up an (early) pick for Morton, I'd take it in a heart-beat. Rumour has it that many clubs in the 07 draft didn't consider Morton because "he didn't have a love for a contest". End of story.

Add Jones to your list. I've 'lined through' the ones I think should not be on your list. And FWIW, I'd keep Meeson, Hughes & Valenti. Contracts might mean we have to keep others. (Someone has to answer for Newton's 09/10 contract!)

You are joking .... yeah? Our mid-field is an absolute basket case. They do not work hard enough, and are unaccountable. And don't get me started on the skill level.

Jones will not get a game in a reasonable quality mid-field. I am pleased others are getting a chance ahead of him.

Clint, this thread does you no credit. Watts for 2 games; Jurrah for 1. Suddenly the forward line is all fixed (lets get onto the mids?) This whole notion of Watts and Jurrah fixing everything is just hand-wringing desperation. Pathetic.