1858

If the first question is based on who do I expect then PJ. If based on who do I hope (if given the opportunity to prove himself) then Martin. The ruck question should have included a 50/50 scenario which I think many clubs will entertain given the stocks.

PJ might be Martin's ruck coach. On a serious note I think we have nothing to lose in prioritising Martin as a ruckman this off-season with as many resources possible (even if it is 3 or 4 years too late). Sink or swim.

Deeluded aside, Brisbane haven't done too badly out of this if reports of them getting a compensation pick as a result are true.

Care to elaborate?

Common sense prevails, we're not getting cought in an Ahab and his wHale scenario. "Market value" is such a meaningless concept. It essentially is dictated by what the most desperate club is willing to give away and on this occasion it looks like we have drawn a line which responsible clubs do and not try and rationalise a rediculous trade with "market value" in mind. Big question now is will our 2nd rounder do the job? Hawks look set to beat that if they still have their comp pick. It would have been nice if they asked Harrington about the likelyhood of including a fringe player which is about all I could see them doing as a last resort. 12 is sacred, all Hail pick 12.

lol it's the quick and the dead sometimes with breaking news.

I'm not (unless it is for a 3rd and a fringe). I've stated my case in the 'Hale' thread but there is no point reiterating that. My point was more to do with the trade tactics irrespective of the player. It's great to see us throwing it back at another team in trade week.

laughs aside it is a very good tactical move by Melbourne. 1) They pressure Hawthorn to secure him up if they want him which means they won't have currency for Hale. Naturally our position becomes stronger. 2) It may also show Hawthorn's hand how much they actually want Hill in the first place. Hawks are definitely playing games so let's flush the bastards out. We can sit on Hale all week if we have to.

rofl if that is fair dinkum then that is bloody brilliant! Suck on that Hawthorn, 2 can play at that game. God I love trade week.

I agree in that this is a possibility which I don't see how AFL research can fully counter. Theory is great but it will come down to the clubs in question and how they respond. Teams will probably have default players who are designated to be subbed if no injuries occur by a certain stage so they may be pushed harder than the other players who will be rotated. I also question the concept of the end of the 2nd ruck. I think the reaction to this rule wrt a KPF who can pinch hit is over the top. Yes, ruckmen will need to be competent in other positions or roles and have pretty good endurance but clubs will still need and (in most cases) play 2 standard ruckmen. Whether they are still considered a first and second ruck or perhaps just 2 rucks who share close to an even load will come down to semantics.

Not necessarily mate, perhaps you've lowered the bar a bit but it's all opinion at the end of the day. The reality is that we can encapsulate this whole debate to a judgement call. Most posters wouldn't trade pick 12 for Hale. Most posters would be happy to trade pick 47 for him. Somewhere in between (pick 32) is the judgement call where there isn't a general consensus and I tend to think that the differences of opinion that have been well thought out and conveyed in this thread (by both sides) are ultimately shaped around that pick. Personally I'm a no and many seem to be a yes. I respect every one elses opinions and there is no point trying to change the way people think on the matter. I won't comment any more in this thread as I've bored people to death but I've given my reasons why I'm a no at pick 32 and accept that my opinion counts for didley squat. The other possibility is that we have a subsequent trade which fetches us a another pick which may slightly change the scenario. If we take on Hale no matter the pick I'll wish the club all the best and hope he can make an impact. Looking forward to trade week and season 2011.

I agree that PJ is diabolical and the Russian needs help - nobody disagrees with that. If it comes down to Hale being the only option then go for him but if they want our 2nd then I'd leave it alone and bite the bullet with PJ for just 1 more yr. It is a judgement call but it's a cost/benefit analysis - we rotate Jamar and PJ 60/40 which throws the gauntlett down to PJ and take on a good prospect with pick 32. que?

I appreciate that, the game will probably change. But what it also means is that Jamar will have a bigger load on him than ever before - he'll be on the field longer which means that the weight of his job needs to be diluted. The role of the traditional second ruck may change but it doesn't change the fact that we still need one. Further more (another parroted point of mine) Hale has shown nothing up forward to show he is any better an option up forward than a "stock" or "second" ruck anyway. We should look at maximising our options not limiting them. None of us know the exact answer to this - all we can do is discuss trades on merit. With all due respect I know that I have parroted "stock-ruckmen" and many people reading my posts may be yawning on that point but the reality is that there is no better option than that as it stands. I would be surprised if there aren't some decent rucks on the market during the week but if there are then I would opt that way - I don't really know what extra you need me to say on that. You see, this is the problem, I think many posters are actually trivialising what we need. Our ruck stocks (regardless of interchange rule changes) are very slim. In dealing with this I beleive we end up dealing (in large part) with the forward problem. It's nice that you actually agree with the price Hale is worth (which goes some way to showing how much value you think he brings) even though you disagree on other matters.

On the contrary, you're missing the point. Giving away our 2nd pick to do this is madness when it isn't necessary. This years draft is still a massive part of our big picture. I know exactly why the club is going after Hale - I'm not questioning the rationale, simply the unnecessary price. My point is that if we give away our 2nd pick then go after a competent stock ruckman who can share the load with Jamar more so (forward and ruck). This means Jamar goes forward more, lasts longer and we have an extra ruckman on our books going into the future instead of someone who has limited application other than sticking them somewhere and playing a role that a stock ruckman can play. There is a big possibility of Hale becoming another Newton where as (unless they are worse than PJ which won't happen) a stock ruckman will at least be useful in the stopages. There is a big contingency here on Hale being effective up forward and our future ruckmen coming on board the way we hope and also that Jamar won't get injured. I'm definitely looking at the big picture not idealising some 5 minute role to give us all a fuzzy that we don't have to rely on PJ. We need another competent stock ruckman and if we do settle for Hale then no more than a 3rd and a fringe please.

Yep. Honest player for us and then moved to the Crows and played above his weight as a very competent defender for years. Just the type of instructor we could do with.

Nathan Bassett would make a great support coach. He's managed to get a young Norwood team into the SANFL Grand Final and is highly respected in the footy coaching fraternity over in SA. Touted to make it to AFL coach one day and if you have heard him speak is a very level headed and respectable identity. Works very well with young players. Snaffle him up Dees! Oh yeah, and played for the Dees so he may be open to coming over.

No arguement but as per my original post if that is our benchmark for improvement in the context of trading our 2nd pick away then god help us.

It that is the complete trade then yes.

When you play goal square you should have at least some KP attributes or we may as well stick with PJ. I understand what the club is trying to achieve and I agree we need that type of player for structure but there has to be some more strings to the bow if we're talking 2nd pick. Nearly any ruckman with an ounce of skill can perform that role and it is in this light that Hale should be scrutinised. Hard to know what all the options in trade week will be but I'd go with a stock ruckman who will earn his keep at the stopages and then perform the role you mention in the square (which shouldn't be too hard going by your definition of the said role). If we end up opting for Hale (which it sounds like we are) then 3rd rounder and a fringe player (nothing more). If Hale promised something more over a stock ruckman up forward then I'd say push for him even if we over pay slightly but he doesn't.

Would be $400k cheaper.

lol wow A stock ruckman is more likely to accomplish this.

Given what we could potentially be offering up to get him and the $ he will be on why shouldn't he be put under the microscope? I'm all for improving our list and obviously we don't need the best players to do this but there is still such a thing as over rating a player (at least in context of a potential trade). I don't think I have seen anyone argue that he isn't an improvement on PJ. He's actually after more time in the seniors let alone the ruck and his "forward pro-ess" hasn't been good enough to ensure that in a year where he had the perfect platform to produce. That was then this is now. If he was in '08 form he wouldn't be on the table. 1 or 2 goals has been my point, a stock ruckman can deliver that. No arguement with the experience factor. For sure, but this applies to any player we acquire in theory, attributes come first. Ultimately if we take on Hale I won't automatically condemn the decision as he would add incremental improvement to our list. If we overpay (which IMO is on the cards) then I'll be severely disappointed though as it isn't necessary for what he brings.

In that case Hale should be a better forward option to facilitate this. Jamar won't be an AA ruck for ever. IMO he is just as good if not a better forward option than what Hale would be and I said use him "more" up forward not predominantly up forward (ie a forward who rucks). If we obtained a stock ruckman with even the remote amount of ability I can't see why they couldn't return us at least a goal and a half per game ala Hale this year. A 50/50 rotation with Jamar could be ideal, would reduce injury risk significantly and perhaps keep him fresher longer over his career. Ironically the setup at North with McIntosh and Goldstein seems to be in the direction of a 50/50 setup. Hang on, what happned to the doesn't have to be a world beater mentality? In the case of Hale it is ok if he plays a role (ie a goal and a half per game) but if we acquire a ruckman they have to be better than Jamar all of a sudden? Lets keep it simple. What I'm proposing is that I haven't seen Hale produce anything up forward this year that suggests he is a better forward option than a stock ruckman in a rotation (before you mention PJ he isn't even a stock ruckman). People just can't get it in their heads that he was tried at North for this exact role and was not up to it. At least with a stock ruckman they can ruck. People use the arguement what if Jamar gets injured (which is a valid concern) I can tell you Hale won't save us but a more competent stock ruckman may. This is the thing, if we pay over the odds then that is aruguably not the best outcome. Sadly best does not always equate to adequate. As we have previously agreed price will be the issue here both in what we trade and the salary of the said player.

Ok, that sounds reasonable rpfc. I agree with the "role player" description of what we need and I think it is a sound move to try and acquire someone experienced to help Jamar (who can also go forward). Firstly wrt decent ruckwork if you look at Hales numbers over the last couple of years he is hardly any better than PJ. On paper he should be though. A lot of North supporters regard him as a forward who rucks rather than a ruckman who can go forward and I think his ordinary hitout numbers reflect that mentality. Arguably in his prime and over taken by a 22 yr old. Secondly wrt being played as a forward. Bash and crash is great, a contest is great but the reality is that this was simply not enough for North this year in a year when Lindsay Thomas was their highest goal scorer and Drew Petrie played just 2 games due to injury - Hale should have shone out in these circumstances yet he averaged a goal and a half per game. The exact rationale we are applying was the exact same process North actually put Hale through and yet they want to offload him. The "role" he played at North was substandard. Unless we have set the bar very low then why will he perform any better at Melbourne? The contest aspect of his play up forward (which is a crucial component to many arguements I have read so far) is one dimensional. Unless he takes a grab he'll be out of the contest. Hale is a 201cm Michael Newton. IMO we should target a stock ruckman (not a world beater) and actually get a package that can deliver in 1 area rather than be a hack of all trades and use Jamar more up forward. Even a stock ruckman with a remote amount of talent will deliver just as many goals as Hale (who's main advantage on PJ is height) if given the chance. As I said earlier, if it was between PJ and Hale then Hale is the better option but that doesn't say much. It is important that we get a reasonable commodity if we trade our 2nd pick (or equivalent player). Now that you have come around to the spud factor how many spud ruckmen are acquired potentially for a 2nd round pick in a strong draft and also on $400k per yr? We can do better than this.

What would be the minimum return to justify Hale in our best 22?