Nasher

I'm amazed it took 33 posts in this thread before anyone said this! Btw, every spelling nazi on Demonland has died a little on the inside on seeing your username. My predicted top 5: 1. Davey 2. Bruce 3. Moloney 4. Sylvia 5. Frawley

Precisely. I'm grateful for the fact that rhe last two years, it has been Chris Johnson and Clint Bartram.

Contracts expire October 31st, I'm guessing all players train up until then, until they're told they're not required.

Indeed. We should do this by recruiting Ryan O'Keefe type players who bleed red and blue. rpfc: CHRIS BRYAN!?!?!

Off topic a bit, but I haven't been here from the start. Demonland existed in a previous incarnation before this one, of which I had only been a member for a year or so.

Look there's definitely merit in the inviting rather than forcing approach, and it's also my preferred choice. However, why couldn't we have fallen back on the approach of attempting to tie his hands if 'Plan A' doesn't work? The two options aren't mutually exclusive. I just don't understand why people think we should just give up if we can't convince him that the PSD is a good idea. It seems a little defeatist to me.

The point is you don't actually have to use pick 18, you just have to make Ball (and everyone else) think you're going to, and therefore convince him he'd be better off saving his new club a whole lot of hassles and just nominate for the PSD. If he calls our bluff and nominates for the ND anyway, we then make the decision then whether we really want to use pick 18 on him or not. If he even gets that far. For the record I'm dead against using pick 18 on him as well, but I agree with the others that it was a tactical mistake to reveal our hand this early in the piece. Who's to say he can't be persuaded? There's also varying degrees of "doesn't want to".

Easily the most hard done by player on these forums since I've been here. In my mind in a good side, he could be the best tagger in the league. Has the one on one strength, endurance, and ability to hurt the other way to quell the effectiveness of almost anyone. He'll continue to fill his role on the HBF, but as he starts to be surpassed by better players (Strauss et al), that's the role I'd like to see him move in to if he's still around.

I like you.

Despite the scoreboard, I thought his last game was really enjoyable under the circumstances. The signature 'supergoal' was a nice touch, and I'm pretty sure those two roosts in to the middle of the ground were purely for kicks (no pun intended). Never really reached the heights we may have liked, but will be remembered as a serviceable player at the MFC.

We would have to pay out his contract, on top of his rookie wages. It's a tactic Freo have used from time to time, but in my mind it's a horrible waste of money for a player you want to actually keep.

I don't think that assertion is entirely true actually. There's been plenty of occasions where a peripheral player in a bad side has gone on to be solid in a good side. That said, I don't think Coughlan is going to be one of them and I'd pass. Pre-knees he looked the goods though, but isn't that a story we know all too well.

So you keep saying. You're still wrong.

I accept it as fact because it is fact. Sorry, it is. jacey -- just on Spencer and the three year rule; my understanding is that (pending some changes this year) you can keep one player on your rookie list for a third year, but in order to do so the player must register for the ND, PSD and RD and be passed up in all three, and you have to take them as a draft pick to get them. This being the case, we'd be risking losing him.

To add to that rpfc, if these rules had been in place in 2004 our draft would've looked totally different -- we took Bate, Dunn and Newton all at bottom age; none of these guys would have been eligible either if I understand correctly.

It's not weird. In a small number of games, Jamar was able to prove that he's easily the best ruckman in our side, but wasn't able to prove that he's good enough to be on the big bucks. If he has an excellent year next year he will be able to command much more money from the club and will be in the box seat for negotiations. It's a bit of a risky strategy from his management (as it could go the other way and bring his career undone sooner) but it makes pretty reasonable business sense in my mind.

I'd definitely choose Mark Nicoski over Burgoyne or Ball. Every day of the week. Edit: Props to the three people who voted Nicoski in the poll so far :D

On the contrary, I think given St Kilda's forward line woes on Grand Final day, small foward/flankers like Davis and Dick would be at the bottom of their shopping list rather than at the top. I doubt they'd want more players who crumble when the heat is really on; Davis in particular was pathetic during Collingwood's finals campaign.

I still think he's rubbish regardless of where he's gone. Like others have said, glad it's them and not us.

Which of these players is Brown better than? - Warnock - Frawley - Garland - Rivers Genuine question. I want to know who he'll be booting out of the side (not necessarily right now, but in to the future as well). If the answer's nobody, then it's probably not a worthwhile trade in my mind.

Read the post directly above yours. The answer is salary cap space. If you're tight as a drum as grazman puts it, you need to find space, and your middle of the road players are where you find it.

Looks like Andy found the skinning section of the Admin CP The existing theme was a rank bastardisation of the default IBP theme that I knocked up ages ago, it was never meant to be permanent. Hopefully we're in the process of seeing something better.

Point being that being "a good player in your day" is faint praise if you can't deliver on a regular basis, even if you have mitigating reasons. I used Cuthbertson as an example of a player whose best was very good, but it didn't translate in to a significant AFL career. I put Fisher in the same basket.

So was Darren Cuthbertson. In addition to not being a great shot for goal, Fisher is slow and he is woeful below the knees. Take Matthew Bate's efforts below the knees in his earlier days and you're still not in the same ballpark. And he has a long history of soft tissue injuries. In short, no use. Couldn't be less interested.

I had Paul Stewart in my SuperCoach team in 2008 actually He didn't do much. At all.