Fat Tony

Or you could read that I wanted #3, #4, #14 and Viney.

As forced sellers, #4 would have likely been the best deal GWS could have got for Hogan. Port received two second round picks for Chaplin and Pearce, so we would have likely got another pick at around #50 had we take Byrnes later on. And as for Martin, I like him as a ruckman. He is not a witches hat around the ground like Jamar is and IMO hit outs are the most overrated statistic in the game. As for his demand from other clubs, it needs to be remembered that no club rated Ivan Maric last year either.

The backroom deal involving Jack Viney saw us overpay for Hogan, particularly when we had #4. The club has charged people in roles where they are heavily conflicted and, as a result, we let the emotion of the Viney situation get the better of us. We should have called GWS’s and GC’s bluff on Viney, because they didn’t rate him at #1 or #2 and they would not have nominated him if they knew they would then be forced to take him. The Martin deal was terrible. Going forward, he would have been a better first ruck than Jamar, who is on his last legs. While Martin has shown little as a KPF, he has always done well when given first ruck responsibilities and he would have added some much need pace around the ball to complement our slow midfield. The decision to take Byrnes and Rodan smacks of desperation from Neeld. While others talk of their leadership qualities, not enough is made of the opportunity cost from them taking up spots on the list that could otherwise be developed into long-term players. Moreover, the decision to take Byrnes as a Free Agent so early in the trade period diluted our compensation for Moloney and Rivers and we should have only ever taken him after he was delisted. The Dawes deal was fair in terms of draft picks but is risky given his form last year was hopeless. The four-year big money deal means that he must deliver more than a decoy role for Clark and he needs to kick 40 goals per year for the trade to be a success. I doubt Gysberts will come back to bite us, as his kicking is not good enough for a midfielder without pace. Pedersen looks like he will be a good pick up. The Morton deal made sense given he was never going to be successful at Melbourne. I doubt he will make it at West Coast. While Rivers loss can be covered, he was still better than the alternatives. I see his exit as a negative. While our list will improve over summer, it was always going to improve given the low base we are coming from and the draft picks we had. I just feel it could have been so much better.

The emotion of the Jack Viney situation saw us get bent over in the backroom deal for Hogan. We paid full price in draft picks for Dawes and well over with regards to his contract. I have a low value on Gysberts and Morton, but we gained little back from each trade. The Martin trade was a shocker. We lost Rivers and Moloney for below their full value. I like Rodan as a player, but he is not the right demographic and his recruitment reflects Neeld’s desperation to keep his job. Ditto Byrnes. Pederson might be a good pick up, but we now have a significant number of players of the same type and still have a bottom rung midfield. Overall, it is hard to get too excited with our trading given our strong starting position of #3, #4, #14 and #26 and the advantage of Viney.

Horrendous trade IMO

I have a lesser view of Gysberts than the majority here on Demonland. While he can find the ball, he lacks athletic ability and size and his kicking is substandard for a slow inside mid. Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed that he had so little currency. Pederson may be a good pickup, but I feel that getting him, Dawes and Hogan is a bit like using a cannon to kill a mosquito. Particularly when we already have Clark, as well as Howe, Watts and Fitzpatrick who could also eventually play as KPFs.

Rodan improves our list in the near term and I quite like him as a footballer, but this is an incredibly short sighted decision.

The trade with Collingwood seems fair given it is a compromised but fairly strong draft. The key issue IMO is the 4 x $500K contract. I understand that the salary cap has to be spent, but Dawes will need to improve on last year significantly to justify that kind of money and length of contract. I wonder if the money could have been better spent. It will also be interesting to see how a forward line of Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Howe (and maybe Pederson) can function. It also means that there will probably be no room for Fitzy etc.

We should trade Jamar and #4 for #2 and another later pick. And we should play Frawley as a mid.

IMO we would be better off trying to trade #4 for #12 and #14 from GWS. Knightmare on Bigfooty has Menzel, Membrey, Vlaustin, Stringer, Garlett and Kennedy in the 14-20 range.

I hope we double cross the bastards.

If we trade pick 3 instead of pick 4 there must have been an agreement re Viney. Hopefully not and we Get Viney, Toumpas, Hogan and keep #14

This is how they measure draft pick value in the NFL http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php I dare say that the value of the top picks in the NFL is higher than in the AFL by virtue of the importance of the quarterback.

I said #13 might be sufficient, but it is difficult to really know. This view was based on the draft order being: GWS, GC, GWS, GWS, Melb, Melb, Port, Bris, WB, Ess, Carl, Melb, Melb. Only really Port (new coach), Brisbane, WB (won't go for both 17 year olds) and Carlton could trump #13

Our Head of Recruiting's biggest decision this year is whether or not to recruit his son. Our under the pump coach is considering trading pick 4 for Wellingham and Dawes. The MFC board has a lot to answer for.

As a a principal I think we should take the best available. This will be Grundy at #3, but he doesn't fit our needs, is a greater risk as a ruckman and is from SA. We probably shouldn't do this type of trade if you thought GC would take Grundy and leave us with Toumpas, but they don't need a ruckman. The trade with St Kilda is similar to what Geelong have been doing in recent years. They ended up the big winners out of the Mark Williams to Essendon and Burgoyne to Hawthorn trade. #12 and #13 would probably net us players WE rate in the top 8-10 range. This is not a huge price for the player WE rate at #4. IMO the draft is a bit of a lottery and we should diversify.

It sounds like the consensus view is that the standout top three in the draft are Whitfield, Toumpas and Grundy in that order. It also sounds like the Bulldogs are super keen on Martin in the mini-draft and GWS will acquire #5 and #6. I am not a fan of drafting a ruckman so early (especially given our current list), so I would think about attempting to trade #3 and #14 to GWS for #5 and #6. They could go for this depending on how much they want Grundy. I would also look at trading #4 to St Kilda for #12 and #13. This scenario is obviously predicated on Viney slipping to the second round. We would then have #5, #6, #12, #13 and Viney. And then #13 might be sufficient for Hogan in the mini-draft.

#14 and #~45 for Wellingham and Dawes would be plenty. #4 would be madness. We need to keep our early picks.

We must take best player available. If Viney is best available, so be it. But if we take him at #3 and he is not the best available, it is a disgrace. Moreover, I doubt many amateur watches have seen enough of the all the potential draftees to make an informed view of where he ranks in the draft pool.

At least at 26 Ray has a few years of footy ahead of him unlike Rodan, Lynch, Byrnes etc. But the quick fix approach we seem to be adopting is concerning.

While players like Byrnes, Lynch and Rodan would all add to our side next year, IMO we should really be only targeting players in the right age bracket. I would like to see us go after players who have shown something at AFL level but have struggled to get a game for whatever reason, such as Everitt, McKernan, Reimers, Mitch Brown, Banfield, Pears and Tom Young. I would even look at trying to land Majak Daw. Caddy and Wellingham would be great if they came for free, but I don't think we should be trading away our draft picks.

Clarke has been a great pick up. Much better than pretty much everyone expected. But they also chased Dawes hard and we dodged a bullet.

It is worth paying him well over his market wage if he comes via the PSD. But overpaying B graders like Wellingham and giving early picks would be short sighted. As a club we have no other choice but to take the long road. We need to try and build for a flag in 3-5 years at the earliest.

I am a fan of going after him and overpaying him in his first year. If he comes via the PSD. Same goes for Caddy. Otherwise we should be taking the long road in the draft.

I believe he can elect to go in either the PSD or the ND.