RalphiusMaximus

I agree with DA. We have too many players who just belt a high up and under kick forwards when under pressure. It doesn't work and it generally gets us torn apart on the rebound. We need a quick HBF who can win 1-1 contests, not get outmarked and has quality disposal. HL does not meet these needs.

As far as I can tell from the rumour, innuendo and "sources" being fed to us thus far it goes something like this: Mitch was working out with Melbourne staff to get himself back in shape with the intention of returning to our list After the season formalities were discussed and a modest offer presented to Mitch's camp Mitch and Manager were dismayed at the less than impressive offer on the table and decided to fish around for more at other clubs Melbourne management feel justifiably slighted by what they consider a betrayal after the efforts they have put in and are making noises about the door being that way... The questions now are whether it's all a storm in a teacup, what the other clubs are willing to offer him above what we did, and whether Mitch will decide that integrity is more important and stick with the sensible offer from Melbourne vs a better but possibly less reasonable offer from elsewhere (read Bombers and Pies).

He's exactly the sort of player Bailey wanted. His side was going to be built on speed, good disposal and relelntess attack. Basically he wanted the Demons to be Brazil. Sadly they were always going to get shown up by the Italian and German teams, as in fact happened.

I'd rather not. He's kind of a poor man's Gibson to my mind. Not the best defender, but a decent rebounder.

Kent also has tons of courage, is a good mark and works hard for his teammates. He may not have the out and out pace of Blease, but I'll take him every time.

I have it on good authority that the Saints plan on bidding pick one for him in an attempt to force us to use pick 2. Their recruiter is on record as saying he thinks the lure of the son of a club champion will be too much for us to resist.

Personally I think that offering him a 1 year deal on lowish wages is the only responsible thing to do. We put him in the system for a year, see if he holds up both physically and mentally and then offer a better deal if he's going ok. It's fair to the club because they won't be paying overs for a dud and it's fair to the player because it gives him a platform to work from with minimal pressure and no massive expectations. If I were Mitch I would jump at an offer like that.

Honestly, I had him on my list of straight delistings with half a chance of a low trade. Pretty sure anything we get for him is a bonus along with freeing space up on our list. For all his talent, Blease is lazy and only ever runs one way. If he thinks he'll get a better shot at another club with that attitude he's in for a rude shock.

The "Bluey:" 1 N. Jones 2 D. Tyson 3 B. Vince 4 L. Dunn 5 D. Cross 6 J. Howe 7 T. McDonald 8 J. Frawley 9 N. Jetta 10 J. Watts Demonland: 1. Nathan Jones 2. Dom Tyson 3. Lynden Dunn 4. Bernie Vince 5. Jack Viney 6. Daniel Cross 7. Tom McDonald 8. Neville Jetta 9. Mark Jamar =10. Matt Jones Jack Watts All in all quite similar lists.

All I can say is Muggsy Bogues.

He's a rookie pick who hasn't played too many games. Shouldn't cost much.

He's just an ok player. Not really an upgrade on anyone we're getting rid of. I don't really see a need for him to be honest.

Not sure I could go for that. They'd have to throw in a sweetener to get it across the line. Maybe swap our second rounder for their first?

I've had a slightly nasty little thought regarding all this. How much luck have the Pies had recruiting a second key forward so far? Lynch was a lemon, White has been average. If the trend continues, it could be a sure indication that they'll be getting another lemon in Clark. It could turn out to be as good a deal for us as swapping the Gys for Pederson turned out to be.

No, I always liked Nev. I did think his time was up, but when they promised to rookie him I was thrilled.

No redrafting of certain delisted high draft picks into the rookie list thanks.

Is Nev's lady pregnant? If so we need to get him up to the 100 game mark in preparation.

I can see two scenarios that could work out very well for us here. 1. Clark is going elsewhere: The MFC float the idea to the commission that due to Clark's fragile health it would be better for him to get to the club he desires with a minimum of fuss and as such it would benefit all parties to have him declared a Free Agent and Melbourne be compensated under those rules. Factoring in the loss of Frawley and the ongoing request for unspecified special assistance we make a play for a package compo deal for all of these elements and call it either Ablett-level compo for the loss of our AA Fullback and star full forward, or at the least one pick after our first round and another mid-first round. Best case we wind up with picks 1, 3 and 10-12 or so. Otherwise it could be 2, 3 and 10-12. Maybe lower at 2, 3, and start of second round ~20. Either way we wind up getting some pretty decent picks as compensation for the losses and Clark moves on to a top side where he may or may not play. 2. Clark is staying: The MFC and Clark come to an agreement on a new contract. In this case we may have to push the line with the AFL that he is a total unknown at this point and could wind up failing to get back, having another breakdown or just not being very god anymore. Important to run this line as his return could be used as an excuse to deny us special assistance once again as they did last year. Frawley compo is once again considered top-tier at pick 3 (let's face it, if they do nothing else for us over the special assistance request, they have to give us that much), leaving us with picks 2 and 3 in the draft and Mitch working his way to possibly coming back as our FF. My reasoning in scenario 1 regarding floating Mitch as a FA rather than trading him is simple. I don't think we'll get anything of note in a trade for a player as damaged as him. We would be far better off having him walk and using that as ammo for compensation than actually trading him. I know there has been talk of a straight swap for Lumumba, and that may not be the worst thing ever although it is a short term solution, but I think I would prefer to get the high pick and trade for something we really need rather than yet another mid-sized/tall defender, especially one with that much baggage. Much better to throw those early picks into a play for Dangerfield I would have thought. I think the second scenario is pretty self-explanatory. I'm not sure it would be the best outcome for either the MFC or Mitch, but it could well wind up being the best we can get under the circumstances.

If you want to take a player via the FS rule you need to nominate them. The only time this could obligate you to actually take that player is if no other club puts in a bid, in which case you can use any pick you like on them. If another club does bid, we then have the option of using our next pick not including FA compo, priority picks and trades, or passing in which case the club that bid have to take him with the pick they nominated. We won't have to use anything earlier than our second round pick on him regardless (unless you think the Saints will bid pick 1), and that only if someone throws a top 20 pick at him. He would be rated as somewhere between 15-30 in this draft judging by the commentary so far, so it's a bit of a 50-50 whether we get him with our second or third round selection. It's also worth reiterating that FS selections and bidding occur before the trade and FA periods, so we can't trade off our second round pick and use the third round pick on him instead. Once we have taken him that pick is out of play entirely.

WTF happened was the club shafted Norm Smith and nothing has gone right since.

So if Mitch wants to go to the Saints as some are reporting, we'd want to include swapping pick 2 for pick one in the deal. Otherwise they get their key forward and Petracca and we're shafted again.

He won't be a delisted free agent. If we've made him an offer then that outcome is off the table. His options are playing for us, being traded or walking to the draft. We won't be letting him walk as a DFA because that would net us nothing at all in return. Goodwill only goes so far.

I would hope that the AFL's solution to this is simply to hold him to his contract. If they declare that he is still our list then he's still contracted for another 2-3 years. That would give us the upper hand in trading him and prevent him from going either to the draft of the FA pool. If he chooses to walk away from his contract then the standard two year ban applies. See if anyone will take him at 28 when he hasn't played for three years. Not only is that a club playing hardball, but it is actually fair to all parties.

Check these articles out: May Play Again Demons want a say

I saw him play once. He wasn't great, but there were a few flashes of awesome in there. When he gets in space his pace is blistering. He just needs to get a bit bigger so they can't just bully him out of it. Saw him do an amazing run down the wing and nail the pass to HF which led to a goal. Even if he doesn't play next year, I think we'll be keeping him on past his first contract.