Little Goffy

I'm absolutely convinced, just on the basis that it makes so much sense, that Valenti will be traded out under the new 'rookies can be traded onto the senior list of another club' arrangements. I don't think he'll get great opportunities at Melbourne behind Moloney, Jones and Scully in that kind of role, and there are other clubs who would see him as a worthy acquisition for a very late pick or slight downgrade, particularly one with a large turnover of players, an interest in inside mids and a culture of getting the most out of players who give everything (subtly hinting Sydney there, did you spot it?) Spencer I've fallen out of love with. That kicking... makes Jamar look like Davey. Re-rookie, use the 'trade a rookie' rule again, or just accept it if someone else decides to collect him before he slips through to our rookie list picks. I guess what I'm syaing is that I don't see great potential improvement and see more value in the player's which would be in the delist gun in order to make space for him.

What's a Christian name? Is it like a given name except from back in the British Empire? C is for cookie, and for... Clint Bartram - doesn't fit the 'star' tag. Colin Garland - isn't a 'star' yet either, just a very promising young player. Cale Morton - recently signed up for a few more years. Cameron Bruce Colin Sylvia So I guess it's between Bruce and Sylvia. Losing either would be unfortunate. My tip is that, after being banned from Demonland, Yze_Magic became an Essendon supporter and Cameron Bruce is switching clubs just to annoy the hell out of him :D But seriously, my tip really would be Cameron Bruce looking for better opportunities in a short-term finals bound side. Are we particularly interested in Lovett? Bruce and 34? This is of course hypothetical based on the 'another player starting with C' declaration.

Is it possible that part of the reason for delay on Davey's contract is that we're figureing out how much we need to pay him, and how much to frontload it, in order to push us above the require player payments? Also, note that frontloading contracts for 2010 means that there will again be a dip in 2011, for another round of front loading, and so the cycle continues. Hopefully we can keep it up until we have a couple of stars (from the Davey, Moloney, Rivers, Sylvia, Jamar group) on the veterans list, cutting their official salary for cap purposes to half. Eventually retirements to the last of the guns of 2000 (Green, Bruce) will open up even more space. Our salary cap position should mean that we are able to keep this amazing group of kids together for the full run. And after this draft, it's actually quite likely that we'll have the positional requirements all in place for the next decade, with the bare minimum (3 required) delistings/picks in each draft keeping the group tight and stable.

If it's anyone, surely it's Miller. He would be in demand at a number of clubs and it would probably be best for his career to stitch up a deal and start anew. It's all a bit of an exodus from the leadership group, but if it's best for them and best for the club, grit your teeth and soldier on. Maybe 2009 is the year for fresh starts for those players who fell under the 'curse of the future captain'.

For pick 4 straight swap? No, that's simply not credible. But I'll get behind anything that keeps Burgoyne away from us, it's nothing personal I just really don't see it as appropriate.

First thing's first - Scott Thompson, pick 16 in 2000 , so picks around there can be pretty handy, and Thompson developed well beyond what Mclean has reached at the same ages, so let's not compare too closely. Note that the Thompson trade worked against us primarily becasue of bad luck with injury problems to Moloney. He was chosen for both need and quality, he is now likely to be a top 3 in this years B&F and is a core part of the leadership group. Secondly, the loss of the 17 year olds from the draft only cuts the numbers by one quarter in raw terms as previously only players 17 & 3/4 were eligible anyway, and those very young kids are less likely, unless they are something special like Josh Toy (Or Watts and Blease;) ), to go at the very early stages of the draft. Even considering it as the full 1/4 loss, that makes pick 11 as 'bad' as pick 13, not '20' as freak claims. Finally, if we were looking at this year's draft and had a choice of a hard-nut leader but slow and injury prone inside mid on the one hand, and our preference out of three promising key forwards to work with Watts and Jurrah, which would you go with? The fact is that all three parties, Mclean, Melbourne and Carlton, are better off from this deal. It's a shame that Carlton benefit but maybe we'll be lucky and Mclean's salary will be the one that pushes Carlton beyond even their creative limits when it comes to salary cap management. Let's accept it, respect it, and look forward to enjoying our extraordinary draft.

First thing's first - Scott Thompson, pick 16 in 2000 , so picks around there can be pretty handy, and Thompson developed well beyond what Mclean has reached at the same ages, so let's not compare too closely. Note that the Thompson trade worked against us primarily becasue of bad luck with injury problems to Moloney. He was chosen for both need and quality, he is now likely to be a top 3 in this years B&F and is a core part of the leadership group. Secondly, the loss of the 17 year olds from the draft only cuts the numbers by one quarter in raw terms as previously only players 17 & 3/4 were eligible anyway, and those very young kids are less likely, unless they are something special like Josh Toy (Or Watts and Blease;) ), to go at the very early stages of the draft. Even considering it as the full 1/4 loss, that makes pick 11 as 'bad' as pick 13, not '20' as freak claims. Finally, if we were looking at this year's draft and had a choice of a hard-nut leader but slow and injury prone inside mid on the one hand, and our preference out of three promising key forwards to work with Watts and Jurrah, which would you go with? The fact is that all three parties, Mclean, Melbourne and Carlton, are better off from this deal. It's a shame that Carlton benefit but maybe we'll be lucky and Mclean's salary will be the one that pushes Carlton beyond even their creative limits when it comes to salary cap management. Let's accept it, respect it, and look forward to enjoying our extraordinary draft that will set us up as THE club to hold back the tide of the new upstart clubs for the next decade.

Hmm... These players who have left... Johnstone was traded after a disappointing decade. CJ insisted on a two year deal and the club said 'no, you haven't earnt it', so he left to play seconds for Carlton. Brad Green considered leaving, but in the end his decision was to pass up about $100k a year (at least) in additional payments for the sake of staying at the Demons. As for players not wanting to come to the Demons, consider this - The only reason it feels like we are being overlooked is because we are constantly being shortlisted. Judd, Warnock, now Burgoyne have all named us in their shortlists. Each time, a dozen other clubs have not even rated a mention. And when it comes to the crunch, the first two and presumably Burgoyne as well, made their decision against us because of a) inadequate payments or B) poor facilities. Mclean goes at his football 100% and gave the club 100% in his time with us, that is his ethic and it deserves respect. BUT His captaincy ambitions were clearly faltering, his salary was about to take a major hit, and even his regular spot on the list was being challenged by Moloney, Jones and even Valenti. Moving to Carlton gives him a chance to refresh his career, provide the genuine hardness that the Blues so clearly lack, and have a tilt at a premiership while still in his prime. Because let's face it, 100 games in and never having played a full season, he's not likely to be playing past 30 or be a 300 gamer. Those two years earlier on the 'schedule' that Carton can claim to be are surprisingly important in Mclean's situation. So, it's sad to lose an erstwhile major player, but the reasons are material rather than emotional and at that level we have done well enough oursleves. That pick 11 will be a key forward, no doubt on it, and could be just about the final piece of the puzzle if it works out. The only thing left to say about club culture is that we do what it takes, to keep salary expectations down, to get the draft selections we need, and to fit the team to a plan for ultimate success, whatever the pain along the way.

Bye Brock. I had faith in you because you were so vocal about loving the club. It took effort sometimes. Now I don't have to make that effort.

750k is far to much to pay any one Demon. I'd seriously doubt Davey or Green are on that kind of money, let alone any of the 22-23 year olds. Shaun Burgoyne is a very good player, but not a star. Paying that kind of salary to him would add about $100,000 a head to our ten best player's expectations for their next contract. He'll also be 27 at the start of next season. Nothing about him fits with the premiership plan. If I was making a tip, it'd be that Port will pay part of Burgoyne's salary for the first year or two (as we did with Woey, Johnstone) to facilitate the deal. Hawthorn might not find themsleves with free space anyway, but Essendon are losing Llyod, Lucas and Fletcher for next season or the year after, and also would believe they are in a better position to challenge with 26 year olds coming in. My gut says Essendon - they have the salary cap space and appropriate trade material, particularly with Andrew Lovett leaving, and it fits with their situation as far as wanting to push further into finals in the next few years.

Yeah, let's trade a devoted club man and required inside midfielder, plus a high pick in the last draft before Gold Coast and West Sydney come plundering, and pay twice as much money as the player going out, for a frick'n overrated mercenary who'll be 30 when we're supposed to be peaking. Keeping Brock Mclean and getting Shaun Burgoyne are at the opposite extremes of my priorities.

Yep, Saints got the better run from the umpires overall, no doubt on it. I wouldn't suggest any bias at all there, but just that's how it goes and it's a shame there's that little niggle on such an impressive game. Saints had a 'Star' tall, not a 'good' tall. Although I supose Koshitknee is a good tall, so I guess they had both. While we may be a long way off either of these teams now... (cue the ritual listing of kids with obvious massive potential)

I'd go so far as pick 18 and 34 and a player. Just how much further up that gets us is open to debate and of course depends on which player would be traded, and who would be interested in them. How far we need to move up is also moderated by Butcher and Fitzpatrick almost certainly going earlier than Griffiths. Let's imagine that Carlton wanted a hard-working mature-bodied key position player who can (some say) pinch hit down back as well; Miller and the picks might be enough to get their pick 11. Given that Carlton are ****house at drafting once it gets past pick 1, they wouldn't mind the slight downgrade plus the extra chance at the start of the third round.

For what it's worth. I didn't even make it to the end of yr12, and didn't get to party either ('convalescing' kind of covers it) BUT Qualified for entry to Uni through the adult entry tests, which you can sit as soon as you'll be 21 at the start of your first semester. Turned up not even knowing how to write a footnote reference, but plugged on through, gradually got the skills to support my extraordinary brilliance and all ended well. Meanwhile, we better keep some of you lot away from young Jack, I'm pretty sure 'orange doves' isn't a reference to field umpires, and probably not good for your game.

Exactly. This is why, and with Ben Griffiths as the example, we'll be pushing hard to upgrade pick 18 to something even half a dozen picks earlier.

It's been an ordinary year for Mclean by the standards we hope for, with a few genuine poor games. Still, he did show several times that he still has the will for it, and can deliver quality, tough football. Given the next couple of years will see us still have space in the salary cap, I'd suggest we would be well advised to put him on a perfomance contract of some sort - it's a better option for him than simply a pay cut, given that he'd have to back himself to lift again once clear of injury niggles, and it's a better option for the club because it means that they wont find themselves paying for non-delivery, and puts downward pressure on overall salary expectations. I'd be filthy if we traded Brock out, though. Those hard bodies and relentless efforts from the likes of Mclean, Moloney and Jones, will be priceless in the 2011-2018 finals. Slick runners can only do so much.

If you want a truly awesome comparison of teenage years, you can't go past Cale Morton 2008 - 18.4 disposals, 6.2 marks, 0.6 goals, 1 tackle a game, 19 games all up. 2009 - 22.7 disposals, 7.0 marks, 0.4 goals, 1.4 tackles a game, 21 games. Brock Mclean got 9 brownlow votes in his second season, still a teenager. Nathan Jones's 17.4 disposals and 4.1 tackles a game arnt him 5 browlow votes in his final 'teenage' year. Several other player's stats were better than Judd's first year, including Cheney and Bate, who were playing with the additional challenge of red hair. Liam Jurrah's stats across all aspects are the best debut year stats for a tall forward in a couple of decades, for what it's worth.

You trolling at me, kid? I'm not convinced that he's the next captain, but not up to AFL? Pfft. As had been said, set him amongst some quality running players and a bit more support in the middle, he could star. He definately has the ability and the determination, his only issue is his body letting him down. What he does, when not on half a leg, is get to contest after contest after contest turning them into 50-50 deals rater than yet another easy entry into our defence, or another failed thrust forward, when many other players simply wouldn't be able to will themselves there. There is a very good chance he'll return to the high quality we saw a couple of years ago before injury started limiting him. I.e. multiple BOGs in a season, the occassional real matchwinner, and no failures because he will always keep on going and going.

Trade week objective - a selection in the top dozen or so, advancing from 18. Pick 18 might get us a great slider. Pick 12 will get us something we absolutely definately want. It gives us a shot at one of the few truly promising talls, or Cyril Rio... I mean Lewis Jetta, or Gary Rohan who the clubs rates very very highly. We kind of start looking at a whole new level of 'sliders'. If pick 35 can be advanced to something in the 20s, that's a definate goer too. Our picks after 35 are confetti for decorating trades, or for facillitating 'career trades' for some of the fringe players. PSD 1 has to be held on to. It's just so useful to have the option of uncontracted players, and the time to hunt down the super-smoky. Note that the new rule allowing rookies to be traded (to another club's senior list) might as well be named the 'Shane Valenti Rule'. Miller is trade bait, as he simply is not progressing at Melbourne and talls are needed by a few clubs out there. The magic 1-2, I'm with the majority at this point. Tom Scully - ought to help our midfield along to a new level. Jack Trengove - more power to the midfield, but also adds to the goal scoring options. We are going to have a devasting, versatile and long kicking HF line capable of contributing strongly to midfield roations and delivering penetrating inside 50s to our highly agile tall forwards and smart crumbers.

Just putting my name on the 'Keep Rivers' list. He's not good value as trade bait, but he is good value as a player, and immense value as a leader.

Hmm... regarding the membership numbers, and the comment that it would be nice if they all turn up - I think the progress next year will be in attendences more than in memberships. I guess I'm thinking ' it will be nice when they all turn up'. But back to Scully. Given the kid is already established as a determined trainer, diligent and keen to learn, I reckon the club could quite easily just drop him a few basic tips on methods and how drills work at the club, maybe point him to a personal trainer/weights program of a friend of a friend of a current physical prep coach, that sort of thing. It'd be all he'd need to get him into the right structures. And for the record, I've never been quite happy with people comparing him to Chris Judd, though I understand it's more a matter of 'level of impact expected' than style that people are referring to. From the various pieces of footage that I've seen, and the descriptions of people who know better, he seems more of the Ben Cousins type of player, run all day, make smart extractions or be the second handball from a ruck contest that gets it open, run all day some more, navigate cleanly from congestion, spot teammates in better positions, all of that. Besides, Judd is overrated these days, anyway.

Any chance Jackie Chan will come along to a game sometime? Between the Kaspersky sponsorship and the sputtering legacy of our 'China Strategy', I'm sure we could make it at least look like a legit spruiking! Actually I'm sure Kaspersky would love to reinforce awareness of their sponsorships/spokespeople by having them together - 'What do these things have in common?' Also, I think it's sad that Jackie Chan missed out on AFL, growing up in the very different culture they have up in... Canberra.

To lose $800k now, in such a manner, would be the unequivocal death of the club. All support for Debt Demolition would vaporise, the AFL, MCC and all other contributors would never be able to back us again, and the fans would turn away in disgust at both the gambling fixation and the sheer recklessness of the club leadership. I wouldn't make that bet even if it was a genuine 50/50 chance and the odds were still $12. The important thing right now is to recognise that the Melbourne Football Club is turning a corner. We don't need to look at miracle cures or white knight benefactors, we need to work hard and smart on a day to day basis. There was something Cameron Schwab said recently that struck a cord with a few people, forgive me if I get the quote slightly wrong - "It's not about doing exceptional things, it's about doing things exceptionally well"

There aren't enough 'Smiley' icons on the internet to express how things went with Jurrah's jumper auction. It got a bit of momentum going, thanks to 'The Fork' and others. In the end not only was the jumper successfully purchased for the Yuendumu community, but the surplus pledges paid to have some representatives come down to accept it at an MFC function, and a few thousand dollars made it's way to the Mt Theo community program as well - the local youth leadership program. We did good. Thanks for bringing it up so we can bask in our pride some more! Hopefully the connections built will stay strong and we'll have more of this sort of thing in the years to come.

In my scenario, we're advancing BOTH pick 18 to 12 and pick 35 to 29. It's a pretty damn good improvement of draft position for one player, and is based on the assumption that Port really want a new, strong bodied, ruckman, and that Carlton are really keen to add Boak, and that they can't offer eachother anything much directly. We're getting a premium as the middleman in that deal. I understand the concern that picks even late in the second round will be less than gold, but I think that actually makes the shift from 35 to 29 even more useful - might get us into the stronger pool for the remaining players of interest, rather than scraping for possibles. Certainly by pick 5o or 60, I'd be saying 'bugger it, elevate a rookie, keep a PSD pick and see if we can pick out a smoky with the extra weeks of scrutiny'.