Nasher

Chances are that player you desperately want at pick 60 or whatever will still be there in the rookie draft. Take him with RD pick 2, promote him when JT goes on the LTI, get the same result without being committed to that player for two years or risking having another club take Trengove.

There are already thread(s) on this in the main forum.

Nathan Brown makes the top three of my list of ex-footballers whose opinion I don't give a stuff about.

This is less surprising than recruiting him in the first place was. Best of luck to the guy - I think it takes guts to move away from an established career to the uncertainty and risk of pro footy. Don't reckon he will be too sore about it - can now say he gave it his best shot.

Why bother with all that then? If you don't want him then just delist him at full pay with a promise to fullfil the club's obligations of player care. I'm pretty sure you're just making this up as go bb.

That's all lovely Bub, but if I were St. Kilda I'd happily burn a spot on the rookie list for Jack Trengove if he nominated for the rookie draft. Even if you ignore all the so called "nicey nicey" stuff, the risk is by going down this path, you lose the player.

I reckon the chances of the club delisting Trengove so they can take him in the rookie draft are negligible.

James and Alex are (genuinely) related.

In what way does Trengove being on the LTI mean the club has no breathing room?

Normally I'd agree Rog, but 40 seems early to have our last pick, and taking GWS' pick 53 or whatever in the Frost deal seems pointless if we're not going to use it.

Jetta has already signed a contract, so I think it is too late to keep him on the rookie list. JT going on the LTI list is a given, but doesn't help us at the draft, just means we might be able to play a player we take in the rookie draft.

Why is that clear? He is going to be delisted, or we're going to pass with pick 40 in the draft. I know which is more likely, and I really doubt Roos gave Tapscott another few days on the list before throwing him on the heap with the others because he rates him higher.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or berate you for your poor taste.

Given that we haven't been told that Tapscott has been delisted - and he surely wil be - I'd say that they just haven't been through all the players yet.

Thread trimmed. While I don't think the initial comment that sparked that little side discussion was intended to be racist, it certainly came across that way and I fully understand why others have taken offence. By the way, a couple of Demonland's older, more prolific posters may want to stop and consider why Matt Rendell fell on his sword, beyond "because he had to". Don't bother doing it in this thread though.

The Great Evil Consensus had Buddy comfortably in the top 5. The greater shock to the GEC was that Hawthorn took Roughead before Buddy or Tambling. Absolute masterstroke in the end, it would seem. Richmond couldn't believe their luck in Tambling landing on their lap - snigger.

Good luck to the standalone sides getting televised.

Howe stunk as a forward this year but has been better in the past,and Garlett only helps if he's out of his 2014 headspace. Dawes may be aided by fitness and/or Hogan taking another tall... We could and should improve but it's a lot of ifs and buts - I'm not saying we will be as crud as we were last year in the forward 50, I'm just prepared for the fact that at times we might be. If Hogan was a 50-100 game veteran I'd be more confident. And none of that would influence my decision on McCartin vs Petracca

It means you'd rather have pick 7 than pick 6, right?

The problem is that we have a 0 game player as the piece de resistance. I like Hogan and reckon he'll be a star too, but I think we need to come to terms with the fact that he'll probably struggle at times and when he does, our forward line probably will be the F troop like it was this year.

I reckon the estimate of savings from delisted players is way overestimated above. Nicholson, Clisby et al on 200k each? Yeah, nah.

So, over 13 billion? Sweet!

Fair enough. Don't rate him as a footballer either - the DH thing is just an incidental thing for me.

What makes you say that? We clearly got our picks wrong, what proportion of that though is due to recruiter incompetence (as opposed to poor player development or just plain rotten luck). I'm assuming you know something about the way the MFC operated that we don't.

No doubt the mean man in the nightclub just started throwing fists around at poor, innocent Mitch, and Mitch had no choice but to deck him in self defence. I know there is two sides to every story, and I accepted that sometimes people get jumped, but the vast majority of fights I've seen while out have involved two or more very willing participants.