Adam The God

But you're not really listening to posters arguments here. Amon would have cost significant TPP...

Because they were brought in to fill a need. Hunter was a genuine winger who enabled Gus to move to half back. Billings was brought in to allow more flexibility with Lingers, who played between wing and half forward in the first half of the year. We needed someone with the running capacity to cover those wing minutes, and we weren't expecting Windsor to play as many games as he did, nor to the level that he delivered on. So they're not random salary dumps. That's irrelevant. They are strategically and cheaply acquired assets.

Agreed, but it was his calf wasn't it?

Yep, I reckon he can.

Derksen is another potential cult hero that the MFC media team can get around, @Jaded No More...

Which by the way, isn't a mile off Port's 2018 draft and could transform our midfield depth, bring even more youthful exuberance to the forward half.

If we get three top 25 picks, we can afford to take a risk like this if we think he's good enough.

I'd absolutely be trading our future 1st and banking on other clubs believing that we'll have a repeat of this year in 2025.

Guess who owns most of the the Victorian debt? The RBA. It could be written off tomorrow.

If we can manage 3 picks in the top 25, you could in theory land Jagga Smith at 5, Taj Hotton at 14 and Cooper Hynes 20.

Hope so. Jagga Smith and Cooper Hynes with Rivers, Kozzy, McVee and Kolt would transform our midfield.

I'm not suggesting we'd have finance locked in, I'm suggesting we should have a finance plan in place. ie. we think we could get x amount from the AFL, x from MCC, etc etc. And in order to have a good idea of how much, you'd need to have preliminary conversations based on an idea. ie, if we get the go ahead with Caulfield, how much support could we hope to get from you, AFL? etc etc

So who do you think was our preferred target last year?

Two very unlikeable sides, but at least it doesn't involve Geelong or a Victorian side.

Again, surely you'd have a finance plan at this stage.

That's fine. Believe what you want. A poster I trust already confirmed what I've said on the same pages of Demonland a few days ago.

Indeed. It'd be a weak draft if he was anywhere near the best 5 players.

It was both. We didn't want to pay what they were asking, so CSM through us under the bus and used Trac as the excuse.

You don't think the initial feasibility study should have covered financials?

That's true. I meant Spargo more in that he struggles to kick over 30m and chips the ball a lot. I admit Jagga Smith, who I have as my number 1 target, lacks a bit of penetration in his kicking too, but Smith has pace and agility.

Our supposed poor trading is overstated as Demonland opinions tend to swing to the extremes. The clubs that are often compared to Melbourne more favourably like Hawthorn were bottom 4 and have not just won a flag. That fact needs to be acknowledged vis a vis TPP and available draft capital. Hunter was a win in 2023. Billings was a low cost contributor in 2024. McAdam was a fail for 2024, but still has a year and another pre season to turn that around. Schache was cheap cover for Weideman. Not a great trade, but you win some, you lose some, and sometimes you get the strategy wrong. Schache may well have helped Turner develop at VFL by providing additional KPF cover - it's a little hard to measure as we don't know the behind the scenes strategy. While Fullarton was another cheap gamble, but that hasn't paid off. If you look at what we've had to play with, we haven't lost much except for list spots. Would players like Chol and Meek have solved issues and list holes for us? Probably, but TPP comes into it, as does opportunity. Meek would have been coming to play VFL for 22 games this year. There is also the Grundy experience that was worth exploring and was moved on from quickly, but this would make it tougher to attract a Meek. I'd be hoping JT and co would be able to pluck more McVee and Turner's, but their record is still pretty damn good. I hear we're going pretty aggressively for certain players that I think would make us better, but not necessarily cost the world, so we'll just have to see how we go.

I don't see the pace from stoppage that Parish can offer, but we'll see in 5 years who was right. 😉

I see the quick hands. I think his ceiling is Sidebottom and his floor is perhaps Spargo. Sidebottom has been a terrific player, but I'd prefer others and I wouldn't have him in the top 5, and if some talls go early, he may slip outside of the top 10.

You could argue 2023 was the season Scott also needed to have. He failed to make finals having just won a flag. This is the thing, it's incredibly difficult to do what Goody did and back up three years in a row and finish top 4. McRae has just failed to make finals after winning a flag too. Yeah, I think we did lack composure in front of goal in the finals last year, but that's not on Goody. We generated enough opportunities and in the QF, guys like McDonald and Fritta who are usually beautiful kicks, missed sitters they would normally dob, and would certainly dob on dry nights. The Carlton match saw a lack of composure and execution from many of our leaders, including Max and Lever. Again, not on Goody IMV. It just didn't go our way, but Goody has shown he likes continuity, because that is how you form cohesion in elite sport. It took half way through 2022 for Collingwood's new game style to click, before that they were a rabble. Likewise, Carlton in 2023. And there are numerous other examples. I think missing finals after being top 4 three years in a row will drive the playing group and light a fire under them. Healthy stuff. So better pre seasons for all our key players, get some more youthful exuberance and talent in the door, and pair it all with a new look game style that still focuses on contest, but brings something different offensively or defensively (or both), and we're cooking IMO. We'll also have a softer draw.

Reid could be a handy player, but I wouldn't have him anywhere near the top 5. I don't see it, but each to their own.