Nasher

A satisfactory ruck list would look something like this: 1 x Senior ruckman 1-2 x 21-22 year old ruckmen half developed, can fill in for the senior ruckman in case of injury 1 x junior ruckman If you exclude Spencer, ours looks like this: 1 x Senior ruckman 1 x Junior ruckman who injured an ACL in round one of the VFL, so is back to square one next season 1 x Project who fell away badly and will probably be delisted The problem is that that we've got no "nearly ready" ruckmen in that middle class, and they're going to be hard to find - who's going to let go a young ruckman they've invested a lot of time in, and what's their incentive to come here? Spencer's replacement needed to come from the draft 3 years ago. Now we're stuck with him until Mitch King can complete a few years of his apprenticeship, because otherwise the risk is too great. We should really be looking at a ruckman in the draft.

Brent Harvey, possible destination retirement, likelihood 50%. Who writes this garbage, seriously?

Thread is 13 posts lighter. It'd be nice if the occasional thread could continue without becoming a stacks on. Protip: if you're not interested in participating in 'list management' discussions, don't open the threads.

Who do you propose then? Criteria: Must have a developed body, capable of competing as a first ruck at AFL level Must be willing to sit in the twos all year if Gawn doesn't get injured It's an extremely limited field I think. Nobody springs to mind for me. I get why people don't love Spencer, but there's more to it than how highly you rate the individual player. It wouldn't take much development from Mitch King next year to render Spencer redundant - King just needs to get to a level where he's fit and we think we could scrape by if he had to fill in in the seniors - but we're not there yet. This is why Spencer is still on the list.

Macca didn't hand out this week's lotto numbers as well by any chance? Was spot on by the sounds of it.

Because our game doesn't feature the club name of any AFL teams. Dur.

If we get rid of all the players you've suggested, we'll have picks 44, 61, 78, 95, 112, 129, 146, as well as 163 if you decide we need another and delist Matt Jones. Top plan mate. The contracted JKH, ANB and Dunn/Garland and possibly Lumumba are next year's delistings if they don't get going. You need to churn your list every year, it's just a fact of life that you can't get rid of all your players at once.

Your post was #1514 on my counter, which includes deleted ones.

The AA team always makes me a bit wistful about this being the only country where our sport is seriously played. How good would it to see these guys get pitted against an elite team from another country? Oh well, never going to happen, but it's a nice dream.

Delist: Dawes, Grimes, Newton, Terlich, White(R), King(R), Michie(R) 1 year contract: Jones M, Pedersen Rookie retain: Wagner, Smith Trade in Hibberd for second round pick. With 4 senior delistings, no rookie promotions and Hibberd traded in we'll have three spots, so expected picks will be Pick 44, 62, 80 (or thereabouts). I'm no Matt Jones lover but I don't see the value in delisting him for pick 96; I expect he will still have a role to play in our 2017 season. If he doesn't it will mean we have improved more than incrementally, or we've had another dream run with injuries. You could debate a case for any of the three rookies, particularly King with the big men take time argument plus the fact that he occasionally slows glimpses, but I have all three gone (pending Redleg's signature ;)). I don't see Michie or White offering anything that couldn't easily be found elsewhere. I'd love to see us somehow trade back in to the second round, but I can't see what we have that would make that happen now without giving up something we'd want to keep. Would also entertain offers for players such as JKH or ANB who may be interested in a move, but I doubt we'd get a lot in return. First time in a long time that we won't be a player in the pointy end of the draft.

Fair enough. Do you feel better or worse for having watched them? Did you feel you learned anything valuable that you didn't already know, given that we were already aware that Neeld stank as a senior coach?

If you were Port, why would you ever accept a pick in next year's draft in exchange for a player of clear quality? You'd have to sit out a whole year before you even got your hands on the player recruited to replace the one you traded out, let alone started developing them. It would be crazy; you might as well keep Hartlett for the season and get some use out of him, then just trade him the following year for the same pick. It's easy to get excited about splashing trades about for a player we probably want, but if you want to have any hope of getting the deal done, you need to give some consideration about what the counter-party is trying to achieve as well, otherwise they're just going to tell you to go jump. The same goes for offering up borderline players like ANB. Unless they specifically want him and were intending on trading him in anyway (which would surprise me greatly), those kind of offers add nothing to the exchange; if anything they devalue it since.

That's an empty platitude in this case. Review history when there is something to be learned from it. There is nothing to be learned from watching these YouTube clips.

A lot of calls to promote Wagner in this thread. Personally I would be in no hurry to do this - he's a first year rookie playing in a position where spots might be tight next year with Melksham, possibly Hibberd etc being added to the mix. While he played most of the season, he didn't get to the "automatic selection" level that we saw vandenBerg get to the year before, and I don't think it gets any easier for him to get a game next year. Wagner has had a promising first season, but he's by no means a certain thing yet. He gets his second year on the rookie list for mine and no more.

For sure. Regurgitating ancient history purely for the sake of reminding us how painful it was doesn't help anybody though.

Nice. Has Declan been spoken to by any AFL clubs that you're aware of? I haven't seen him play but a few of the regular Casey goers on here have been impressed.

Only played 3 VFL matches, doesn't qualify for finals. (Is that the question, or were you meaning what happened to his form/injuries? Vague question is vague.)

They haven't done a lot of losing this year, I doubt they're interested in starting now. I don't think the woes of dropping games we've seen in the Melbourne team applies to Casey. This is a solid team full of players who excel at this level, who will be choc full of confidence, have momentum, and will be hungry. It's only a danger game in the sense that every final is a danger game.

*pats Ron on the shoulder*

Fair enough, thanks for that.

They might have pulled the pin on JKH given the injury history this year. Good to see the MFC not pulling the piss this year and allowing the players who got Casey to this point the chance to finish the job.

Jealousy only ever gets you in trouble mate.

Time and reading a lot of your posts Redleg, has taught me that if I disagree with what you've posted, I'm probably wrong.

Tarrant.

I think the regular Casey seniors (Hutchins, Smith, Morris etc) will all find a spot anyway over MFC lessers like King or Smith. Other than that, it's a bit of tough luck - they would know what they signed up for when signing for an AFL aligned team. All the MFC players eligible to play have contributed to the strong Casey season so far anyway.