Little Goffy

It'll be a true sign that this club has turned a corner when one of our players give articulate and thoughtful interviews and nobody says 'he should be captain', but just says 'good to have another responsible presence at the club'. I'm a big fan of Garland the footballer and Garland the human being (from what snippets we get), but I don't think he'd even want to be captain. Leadership group for sure, but he doesn't seem the type to want a life of constant attention.

Is it seriously the 'Pssst' article that people are wailing about? The one linked to earlier in the discussion? Pretty light jab, I'm stunned that anyone feels it warrants a big reaction. Robbo going off like that is just, well, pathetic. Standard to the thin-skinned boofhead type, I guess.

I'm not sure this club is ready to draft Garlett. The coaches can probably handle him, it sounds like he's matured enough to be worth working with, and he's definitely a talent. But clearly the supporters can't cope with the debate and are already calling each other names just at the possibility of drafting him.

Well handled? Milne case: St Kilda coterie members and (allegedly) officials lean on St Kilda Police to cover up ('not proceed with investigation') serious allegations in a case deemed credible and reopened for investigation 7 years later. Schoolgirl: St Kilda officials and coterie members circulate demeaning videos and jokes about the girl, publicly '[censored]-shame' her, make absurd threats to claim damages, and in the process basically keep the issue in the media for much longer than would otherwise have happened, by which time an apparently somewhat unhinged teenage girl has become a publicity addict with an axe to grind. Meanwhile, players and, incredibly, player manager Ricky Nixon, have managed to get themselves further entangled in a pathetic and sordid drug and sex web. Meanwhile, they also blew the re-signing of Ross Lyon by making him wait and wait for even a solid contract extension offer, their relocation to Seaford has been a shambles (an expensive shambles) every step of the way. They also sacked Grant Thomas in a year (2006) he took the team to finals despite several top players being injured (and, indeed, if not for the rampaging might of Nathon Carroll, Brock Mclean and Cameron Bruce they would have continue past the first elimination final), a process done with considerable, enduring acrimony. The next year Butters was also overthrown and much of the board departed, again, in acrimony. Far from being well-managed, the St Kilda football club has lurched from one conflict and media storm to another for the last 8 years, held together only by what would appear to have been two top coaches (Thomas and Lyon) and the strength of the core group of elite players which are now retiring or leaving, with few apparent replacements. They have failed to build a solid financial base or to mobilise an active supporter group in the last ten years, despite being one of the most successful teams on the field with several of the highest profile names in the game - St Kilda's membership numbers have barely been ahead of Melbourne's for the last five years. I deeply worry about St Kilda's situation if they also now have to deal with a very long period of being uncompetitive. Their best ten players, with the exception of Jack Steven, are either on the edge of retirement or already out the door. Put another way - they turned out a pretty dismal year in 2013 despite more than half their Best-22 being at least 27 years old. Right now, they are in a worse on-field situation that the Demon's season of 2007. And there's nothing going on off-field to suggest it will be responded to effectively.

Hey, as a bottom team we've been given a draw that matches us predominantly against other lower ranked teams, that's fair enough. It is of course, just a coincidence that the teams with the largest supporter bases and the greatest financial resources are all in the top half of the ladder... JUST. A. COINCIDENCE. That said, while I understand the AFL's reasoning for keeping the friday and saturday night games mostly for the 'high-demand' games based on a magic equation of 'current momentum X baseline appeal' of the teams competing, it kind of makes a mockery of things like the equalisation fund. It is time the AFL made it explicit - some clubs miss out financially in the process of the AFL maximising the overall income from the most lucrative game times, and as such the equalisatoin fund should provide a direct compensation for that which the low-status clubs can use to actively promote their club, mobilise existing supports and attract new ones.

All I'm going to say is that this game will be interesting. Last season it was the veteran players who gave St Kilda some semblance of competitiveness and respectability. A scattering of young talent, despite a few standouts, looked worrying inadequate. As much as officially they've only lost Milne and Dal Santo of that group, the others aren't getting any younger and collective they'd put very, very few games into younger players. Ben McEvoy is a huge loss and one of not many serious player they have under 27. Or, let's be blunt, Nick Riewoldt and a handful of veteran midfielders carried the Saints in 2013, and it is only going to get harder for them next year. At least we don't have that issue. Our issue is that we have no real idea what we've got.

In the 1999 pre-season draft we also snared another 100-gamer, the mighty, beloved and deeply missed Simon Godfrey. Craig Cameron did alright as a recruiter overall, Jones, Frawley, Thompson, were all about as good value as any from their respective drafts. Sylvia and Mclean were ok acquisitions at the top of one of the worst drafts ever! It was the quest for a tall target to replace David Neitz that did him in - Nick Smith (15), Luke Molan (9, but so much bad luck who can you blame?), Bate (13), Dunn (15) The other error was a willingness to trade decent picks to acquire second-rate players. Earnest tryers generally, and no knock on them, but the decisions to spend on them were not ideal. There was also a sustained list management issue with over-paying our 'franchise' players as if they were stars, instead of just very good players. We'll never quite know what went so horribly wrong in 2007/08/09, and there will always be bitter recriminations because so many of those guys seemed really promising in their first year or two. And getting back to the 1999 draft... ohhhh boy what a draft it was. Like shooting fish from inside a fish in a barrel full of salted fish. 25 players, more than a quarter of those taken in the national draft that year, went on to pass 200 games.

I agree with the point that when you are weak, your best six keep you from being pathetic, and when you are strong, your weakest six are what can push you right to the very top. A quick look at Carlton tells the story, really - they can look truly potent when key players are having good days, and are generally competitive, but until they add that depth they aren't going to be advancing anywhere further than mid-table/lower end of final 8. I still think Richmond have to make that leap, too - their recent history has been all about their best six. I'm sure we've all experienced those conversations where a Richmond supporter rattles off a quick list of their 'big names' and challenges anyone to match it. Cotchin, Deledio, Riewoldt, Maric, Martin, umm... Jake King?

If Zak Jones is available, obviously that's a steal and mst be done. From the lists at the start of this thread, I'd lean towards Spina. Convinced that with later picks you should go with the 'natural footballers' and see how far they can come in a fully professional environment. Assuming the we are, now, a fully professional environment. That, or some roadrunners to mix up the pace a bit.

Possibly the only list management decision I'm really bitter about was keeping Newton on for an extra (seventh?) year, at the cost of picking up Dylan Grimes. It was a direct alternate. A clear demonstration of recruiters becoming trapped by their own bad decisions, unable to concede the loss. One of Neeld's credits is that he was prepared to make those tough calls, and to dump a whole lot of those 'mistakes'. Made a few errors of his own, recruiting-wise, it would have been interesting to see if he'd have retained the willpower to cut those losses as it became apparent.

It is very confusing when you mix in a couple of 'captain obvious' statements with some really out-there vague claims. Not even sure what you mean by 'return to their roots'... I get the feeling like you think a global financial collapse will bring down the wicked apparatus that is funding the gays and femonazis, and hence precede a return to traditional values and curmudgeonly older men being at the pinnacle of social status? Though I confess I am reading to type - that's the usual drift of this particular structure of ranting. Kind of the Australian version of Tea Party Monthly, or the 'I'm not racist but' quarterly.

Seriously, If GWS think Shaw is of equivalent value to Adams, or worth a five year deal in itself, they have some issues. I'm suspicious of an externality here. I.e., a technically illegal forward agreement. Also, this all kind of makes a mockery of Eddie's ranting about how Collingwood will 'come after' GWS if they try to poach the Pies' players. I'm still holding out hope that GWS will offer Buntine and a pick for Dunn.

Whaaaaaat? Whaaaaaaaaat? Whether something is capitalism or not is in no way related to whether all parties benefit. Fundamentally, capitalism is defined by the cycle of reinvestment of income into further income-producing capability. This can apply very broadly - an individual who invests in their personal development through formal training or simply self-directed learning is investing to improve their productive asset, just as an individual or corporate entity which allocates money to expand or improve their production facilities or even land viability. The 'Capitalist System' historically refers to the architecture of capitalism such as savings and loan facilities, company formation, share ownership and contract-oriented (rather than obligation-oriented) labour relations. There is no inherent moral or ethical dimension to capitalism, it is not inherently negative and it is certainly not inherent positive. If you defined capitalism as 'not really capitalism unless every transaction benefited all parties' you would a) have very, very few, if any, examples of capitalism in practice, and b) be laughed out of the room by any serious economist you encountered, regardless of political perspective. I don't know where you're getting this 'crony-capitalism = communism' nonsense either. Communism is a radical, and dysfunctional, system of centralised control of the capitalisation process and labour relations (implicitly on an 'obligation' basis, which is a lovely historical irony) ostensibly in order to meet the goals set by the state, theoretically 'on behalf of the people's collective welfare'. Crony capitalism can mean different things to different people, but the Indonesian example is considered classic in that the movement and distribution of assets and the decision-making basis of ostensibly commercial operations was made on the basis of the political and social relationships with key figures, leading to accumulation of wealth and productive assets on a hierarchy of proximity to a central core of power. Capital flows to cronies; crony capitalism. Also, racism is systematic. Or more to the point, it is only problematic when it is systematic. If a society normalises racism, then it is a problem. If one person is racist, then they are just an a4s3hole. Historically, the implicitly racist colonial system played (and is playing) a significant part in creating 'opportunities for accumulation' which accelerated the process of but was not inherently necessary for he emergence of the capitalist economic system. But it is true that personal liberty and rights were a critical factor in the emergence of capitalism - if people live under the understanding that their property and/or labour can be appropriated or devalued without notice or due compensation, then obviously they would be much less inclined to accumulate a pool of productive capital. This relationship between personal security from sovereign risk and the success of capital business enterprises drove the initial bond between liberalism and capitalism, however something confusing has happened where in the present political context 'liberal' business environments (minimum regulation etx) and 'liberal' personal rights have diverged, such as in the Tea Party movement which simultaneously argues for radical minimisation of government 'public good' activities while also supporting the use of government as a tool for imposing sectarian social expectations. Bizarre, eh. So. I hope that helps to clear a few things up. Let's get back to the trade and draft discussion. AND NEVER SPEAK OF THIS ON A FOOTBALL FORUM AGAIN. ... I'm keen to just draft with pick 9, as there seem to be many good options. But if any reasonable deal could be struck for Taylor Adams, I'd be keen. I do worry about which player(s) might have to be given up to sweeten the deal. Wow, imagine if GWS wanted Pick 9 and Lynden Dunn? He does fit their stated needs...

Little Goffy, on 08 Sept 2013 - 8:06 PM, said: Ha ha, a subediting error - should read 'a good midfielder and a mid first round pick'. Which obviously I'm delighted to see was actually what happened.

MELBOURNE B: Garland Frawley Terlich HB: Grimes McDonald Cross C: Tyson Jones Watts HF: M.Jones? Hogan Howe F: Clark Dawes Byrnes R: Jamar? Trengrove Vince I/C: Viney Toumpas? McKenzie? Blease? Fitzpatrick? Jetta? Evans? Michie? Tapscott? Spencer? Evans?

I'm not going to engage with the betting part; five years ago if you tried to discuss football in terms of online betting odds, people would've thought you were a bit odd yourself. So, how realistic is it that the Demons can make the eight? Which is easier, thinking of eight teams that would come ahead of us, or ten below? Possible below - St Kilda, Bulldogs, Brisbane, Western Sydney, West Coast, Adelaide And that's pushing it, hard to say how West Coast and Adelaide will go. Peronally I think if we finished out of the bottom four it's a good year, ladder wise. Top teams not sinking anywhere serious in 2014 would be - Hawthorn, Geelong, Fremantle, Sydney So for four remaining slots we'd need to do better than at least four of - North, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Port, Gold Coast, Collingwood, Anyway, I hope in future you can think of better things to do with $200.

I second the motion. Close thread. And let's only open it again if there is actual news about Liam Jurrah related to football.

It annoys me that it's Hawthorn that have been dumped on here. Only because it is quite true - they have been screwed around. Late first rounder for Franklin? Totally absurd. They got dudded last year too, if I recall correctly. Free Agency was a near-sighted job that is still being handled terribly. A really gross case of incompetence on the part of the AFL.

I've always enjoyed and been sent crazy by the 'what is an A-grader' debate. Recognising that the actual All-Australian team is a political, media and popularity fap-fest, I still think there's a useful 'zone' from it to describe A-graders. Here's my habit - Player's who in a good season are in the discussion for All-Australian selection, I would call 'A-graders'. At Melbourne that would historically mean players like Yze, Robertson, White and Neitz, and right now for example it would include Jones. Those players who are constantly under consideration for All-Australian and other team-of-the-year types of recognition, I would describe as 'Champion'. We're talking about Pavlich, Cox, Watson, and of course Ablett. Any time I think of that difference, it makes me reflect on how long it has been since the Demons had a 'champion' player on their list, and I sometimes wonder how many of those 'A-graders' were being paid like champions because of the lack of a really outstanding reference point. It's also something I think will affect GWS - having the traded-in 'A-graders' (or less than) on the money of champions may well create long-term pressures, since some of the kids are clearly, clearly, going to be champion quality. what will their expectations be? But, back to the topic - Dom Tyson is clearly an A-grader with a long career in front of him, and our chances of getting another A-grader from pick 9 is only marginally less than pick 2, so WOOHOO!

Reassuring to know that Denham grates just as much on fresh ears as on those who've put up with his drivel for years. In any town there are some places to avoid... one of those in Melbourne is 'anywhere you can hear Denham'. Anyway, welcome to Melbourne Srjennings, make sure you introduce yourself at training sometime.

The difference between 2 and 9 in this draft is incremental - we will still get a serious quality mid or HBF. Giving up that margin and pick 20 to get a definite top-5 quality kid in exactly the role we need. A no-brainer, absolutely a win. I can't believe how hard some people work to make anything look bad.

Ha haaaaaa haaaa haaaaa http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-10-18/dom-tyson-highlights http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-17/stone-joins-melbourne-coaching-staff http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-17/melbourne-secures-michie-from-freo And still have pick 9. I think 'Robbo' went a little early with getting the fangs out.

I'm all in favour of picking Koladjashnij. The name issues solve themselves; great fun yelling "Scrabble" at the footy.

Heath Shaw for Taylor Adams is such an outrageously unbalanced deal if I were a list manager I'd be insulted if it was even suggested to me. Adams may well be better than Shaw in 2014, and will certainly be better for most of the next ten years. If that deal went through there would have to be an AFL investigation because clearly there would have been other inducements at play.

I'm excited. I've got it stuck into my head that Buntine would be a great addition to our defensive set up (medium sized, mobile, very smart, responsible) and is supposed to go alright in the midfield. It's a mystery why he has been so plain for his two year's so far - you don't win the AIS Ben Mitchell (did I recall the name right?) award if you have a poor attitude, that's for sure. For a reasonable price, I'd be stoked to have him on our list.