Little Goffy

While it's true that we don't exactly have the upper hand on many teams in the last few years (except Freo), it is also true that the Demons have struggled against North for quite some time. The key things I remember being a problem were - 1. Their tall marking forwards being able to take contested grabs from very long kicks into 50. 2. That little Harvey bastard. My read of that is that Warnock is our only defender (right now) capable of contesting in body strength with a truly BIG forward. There's no denying the prospects from a few of the other young defenders, but it may take a year or two more to get them developed to the point we don;t have this weakness. As for Brent Harvey... it's not often you hear about 'champion' taggers/back pockets, but we must all be hoping someone like Bennell, Bail or Jetta steps up to become a speedier Whelan capable of controlling players like Harvey.

The thing is, the kid has had plenty of time to think about the move to Melbourne and to talk about it all with his parents. Nobody's parents (well, some people's parents do but that's not the point) are going to put a bad spin on what their kid is going to be doing for the next two years minimum (by contract). So they'll be sitting around the dinner table having a chat about what a great team Melbourne is going to be, googling the club, looking at Jack Grimes' profile, having a little chuckle about how he'll get to meet Ron Barassi at club functions, which will lead them into thinking about Melbourne's history and how they were the ultimate football superpower back in the day, and how they are on a clear mission to bring that back and will be the top 'traditional' team in place to fight off the Gold Coast and West Sydney upstarts. By the time it even gets to the draft, Jack Trengove and his family will be sending thank you cards to Jordan McMahon

I think he's one of the few people who actually live up to a saying they like to use, I can't remember the exact words but it was along the lines of 'What we're doing isn't unique, but it is special'. Sums up his whole attitude to managing the club - not looking for magic bullets and messiahs, just picking out all the things that need to be set right or done well, and doing them. Would anyone else understand what I meant if I said that for the first time I can recall, it feels like we really have a CEO as a CEO, a president for a president, and a footy manager as footy manager? As a club, we've never been better run. Ever.

There's an important factor to this - attendence figures at games overall boomed in the 90s. This was largely due to the reshuffle of AFL/VFL, the introduction of interstate clubs, the closing of small venues and the killing of small clubs. The comparison - in the mid to late 80s overall average attendance was in the low twenty thousands, even slipping to 21,000 in 1987. Ten years later the overall average was up to over 34,000. Unfortunately, despite a preiod of success of sorts, or at least a return to competitiveness on the field, the Club failed to press itself in the new 'marketplace' and simply didn't ride that wave. I'd suggest that not having any recent history and glory to point to was part of the problem - it's all well and good winning games in a given season or even having a run of good seasons, but clubs like Essendon, Cartlon, Collingwood and Richmond, the 'Big 4', all had recent glory to carry their image. Throw that together with a pretty amateur club management style, and there you go. Over time, some of the other clubs which didn't quite ride that wave for whatever reason have put it together to varying degrees of success, like Hawthorn and St Kilda. It is very clearly our turn to push up now. But the key thing to remember is that there is no question on loyalty - the trouble has been lack of growth.

Holy Crap, he did too. I even remember watching and musing on him at the time, really early in the season. Came in when basically every other ruckman, was injured. He did ok, or at least, he did well enough to not write him off just yet. Hell, at one stage he was the 'winningest' player on our list, with one win out of two games! That's really odd that I forgot. I've watched guys like MacNamara, McKenzie, Spencer and even Newton pretty closely all year, keeping an eye out for anywhere that significant improvement might come from. I hope it's not an omen. However, embarrassing at it is to have forgotted that cameo, I think the points I made are still sound.

I have to respond to the 'we have four designated ruckmen' comment. Being designated a ruckman type doesn't make someone an AFL Ruckman. Paul Johnson is entering what may well be the last year of his career if he doesn't take another step, particularly in consistency and disposal. I say this as someone who has long respected him. Jake Spencer... I listened to the hype, I watched closely, I don't think it's there I'm afraid. John Meesen is essentially 'unknown with an edge of unlikely'. He hasn't played a senior game for us, we can't bank anything on him yet. Stefan Martin is being groomed as a 'key utility' and even if he fulfils the clear promise he has shown, he won't be a major ruckman. Leaving Mark Jamar as our only established ruckman right now, let alone in three years or more as any ruckmen recruited now come into their own. We've got to pick up a likely ruckman this draft. There's a reasonable chance that one of Vardy or Fitzpatrick will be there at 18. They are the best two going this year and in our circumstances pick 18 is a bargain for even a moderately good ruckman, if that is all they eventually develop into. EDIT: As pointed out by others, Meesen has actually played four senior games for us early this year. I'm appropriately embarassed to have forgotten them. He did ok. We still 'can't bank on him yet' though.

The number of places which open up on lists is larger than the number of players who have been delisted and re-nominate. Take the total delistings and subtract all the genuine retirements (about a third) and all the guys who simply aren't gonna make it (let's call it another third). The credible re-nominations are actually a pretty small group. For guys like Tenace or Buckley who have a shot at being picked up, a few extra chances make a big difference. If it goes from just four picks used on recycled players to eight picks , that's double the chances for them. But for the general mass of nominees in a draft of perhaps sixty picks, those four are only about 6.5% of the opportunities.

We'd better be careful we don't give those insoles to Cale Morton (unless it's to eat), because that would bump him up to 192 and then we'd have wasted a top draft pick. Hopefully all those foot/ankle issues Garland has had will keep him from growing the fatal 1cm, too. Come to think of it, I'll bet the reason the club passed on Tom Swift was not so much a worry about his shoulder as a concern that he would grow that cm and end up a spud. And knowing our luck, even if we hadn't lost pick 4 in 1999, and had grabbed Pavlich that draft, he probably would have had a different diet and we wouldn't be talking about a 191cm superstar at all. Nick Riewolt's sometimes fluffly, sometimes spiky but never 'down' hair? The extra 1cm he needs for glory. David Neitz went bald specifically to keep the lid down. Make no mistake, that centimeter is one of the most critical factors in a player's potential. The only time those guys look good is when they are matched up on eachother directly, like Lloyd and Scarlett.

'Dawn of the Demons' Poster with a deep red dawn rising with dark blue storm clouds either side, and a vaguely threatening partial Demon face watermarked into the sun. It's our decade, kids, lap it up.

If there was ever a draft to have the top two picks in, this is it. Last year it was an small incremental decline as you went down the pecking order, right from number 1. This year there really seems to be these two absolute standouts. Everyone else has either slid down the order (e.g. Butcher) or is considered very good but not at that 'super' level. 2009 also looks like a very good draft to have first round picks rather than second round, again there is a 'dip' it seems. And might just be a very good draft to have PSD Pick 1. Best since the last time Collingwood were told to F off at the trade table.

Hmm... After last year's significant loss, beaten out by the Debt Demolition campaign, we've taken a number of steps to improve the balance sheet. 2009 player payments were at least $0.5mil less than 08. 2009 interest servicing of debt will have dropped somewhere between $100-$200k. 2009 there has been no sacking/replacing process of the CEO, board and president. 2009 we received $1mil from the MCC and $1mil from the AFL in a support boost, a major increase on Competitive balance payments of 2008. 2009 we have received (the deal was backdated for season 09) an extra $100k per game at the MCG. Call it $1mil. That looks like about a $3.5 million improvement on the balance sheet. Much of this is one-off windfalls. But all it would take is a modest improvement in general operations and we are looking at a significant cash injection from 2009. Then Debt Demolition of $800k. It's possible that if the club chooses, we could be debt free this year. But I agree with the club's direction in putting as much as it can into player development resources. We have to be 'trying to win', not 'trying not to lose'.

I like what I've heard; he's probably worth 34 without any sentiment. But the club will have had good information on him, he's probably met several players thorugh his brother, likely some officials too. And actually, yes, there is room for sentiment in football. There is also room for psychological advantage, unity, motivation, culture. It's not a computer game, y'know.

Buckley would surely be picked up somewhere, he has a lot going for him and many clubs would be happy to use a late ND pick on him ahead of a raw and 'unlikely' kid. Valenti certainly has the guts and attitude right, and is good at getting it. We all know his limitations but I'd reckon he'd at least find a spot on another rookie list. So yeah, all the best to them, but not quite what the Demons needed. And if they don't get picked up by any other club, well, that hardly is evidence we should have kept them!

I think it's a fair move all round. For Miller it's good, if he finally has his break out season in 2010, as opposed to his break out three games here, two games there and so on, then he can be re-signed and will get a generous deal. If he has another so-so year, then 2010 would be just about the best possible year to be going into the pre-season draft, given the presence of a new club with an interest in a few mature bodies. He won't be brought in as a star, but would be a useful presence. Even the Gold Coast will have a need for the 'good ordinary' players and they wont be keen to spend their first two or three years getting pummelled because they have talented kids and only a few 'star recruit' mature players. From our perspective, it would be nice to get some kind of draft pick in return, but the first priority has to be to get through this Gold Coast introduction with minimum disruption to the mighty team we have assembled. I'm more worried about Jamar also being place on a one-year deal. Overall the story is roughly the same, and many here don't rate him very highly, but he is structurally quite important now. Finally, I'm feeling grubbier and grubbier talking about players as commodoties like this, I think I'll have to start signing off with a disclaimer like - 'I have real respect for the players discussed, my points are related only to the specific needs of the Club'

It doesn't matter a whole lot, but being 'number one draft pick' is like winning an award, certainly in media eyes at least. Wouldn't want him to have a 'Brownlow hangover' before he's even won his first Charlie. (That goes for Scully or Trengove, they'll obviously both get one ) Meanwhile, anyone else starting to get the feeling we wont even pick as far as 34? Particularly if Ball is happy to go PSD. That means just one more delisting plus any shunting for rookies.

I think the Demon's plan is to get Ball and McDonald to sit down in a cafe and have a chat. By the time they leave, even they will be confused about which is which. The only risk is we might end up having to grab McDonald in the PSD.

I like the way we time 'pre'season training. The early start is balanced by some extra breaks during the program, particularly christmas, based on the observation that you don't lose too much condition in a shorter break, whereas a four or six week lay-off can really set a player back if they aren't very disciplined. Obviously it'll need a little re-jigging once we're late into september every year , but by coincidence that will also be when we only have a couple of totally raw kids coming in each year and most of the list has a few preseasons already under their belt.

Tanking during trade week is not new to Richmond I'm afraid. Exhibit B - article from today's Hun. Richmond delists everybody? An important check for anyone starting to count chickens from our draft pick eggs, I guess.

White clash jumper for Blues? RED! RED! MORE RED! A bit of red trivia for you - at the 2000 olympics a study was done on the psychological advantage of colours - they examined all the Tae-Kwan-Do bouts for the whole olympics and found that the comptetitors who were given the red sash for their bout won 55% of the bouts, while those given the light/medium blue sash obviously only won 45%. he colours for Tae-Kwan-Do are randomly assigned on a fight by fight basis, so it's actually a pretty rigorous piece of research. Red is an advantage almost as good as having an extra player out there!

I dunno if I'd want Judd. Frankly, you've got to question his leadership. It's all very well getting articles in the paper about how you sent a bowl of wedges back, but if you can't pull them into line on, y'know, serious addictive/binge habits... I don't want Scully to be like Cousins in every way.

DAMMIT!! I got a text message at the exact moment Burton took that mark. I was at the frickin game. I was there and I was getting into it because I was with Carlscum mates. And I get a frickin text message and look down for half a second.... ROAR! I hadn't even opend my phone by the time it happened. There's a lesson in that.

A little ambitious, no? Touch optimistic on trade value of our players. I like Majak Daw too, but we'd be fools to 'pay' forty picks or possibly even a whole draft ahead. I'd hold out until our Rookie pick 1, if we miss him, it's not a disaster, but that should be enough. Honestly, I don't think there's much need to push for extra picks this draft, and that further trades would be more about moving players on in a friendly, career-continuing way. I had been a spruiker for 18+Miller to Carlton for 11 or something like that, but we have 11 now and still have 18, so I'm happy! I won't declare preferances for who I think should be delisted, but in respect to your preferences list I think it's only fair that I put my dream draft out there. It includes 2 guns, 1 bolter, 1 slider, a freak and a brother! 1. Tom Scully - We all know the story here. If we can give 4 to Watts and say he's Norm Smith, then we can give Scully 31 and say he's Barassi. 2. Jack Trengove - There's always room for one more gun midfielder. Hard at it, puts the damage on the scoreboard, known leader. Yes please. 11. Serhat Temel - Would probably be around much later, almost certainly 18, but give me the guy who has proven he can do the job in finals. To my mind the whole selection of other FF options (Panos, Butcher, Griffiths) has question marks and this guy just seems right. Big, powerful, accurate full forward. 18. Jake Fitzpatrick - The chances that he'll slide are boosted even further by our selection of an unexpected tall (not to mention the fun of shaking up the draft coverage with the first pick after the 'countdown'). Fitzpatrick was 'the next tall after Butcher' six months ago, a mid top-10 selection in a lot of books. Inconsistency and poor form will push him almost certainly this far and probably into the 20s, so I'm confident that we would be able to collect for ourselves a 200+cm ruckman with genuine potential here. There's none better this draft, let's lock it in. Unless someone wants to bank on Jamar, Meesen and Johnson filling our first ruck spot for the next ten years? 34. Troy Taylor - To quote Jason Mcartney (on about seven occassions) "He has a little bit of the Daniel Motlop about him". 188cm forward, livewire kind of deal. I like the idea of a forward line loaded with players who thrive amongst chaos and can create something from meagre opportunitites. 50. Dylan Grimes - Not rated super high it seems, but he's got all the character of his brother. Good speed, good read, decent (190ish) height, would be a worthy asset backing up for the likes of Frawley, Garland and Rivers when they aren't available, and may well continue to develop. PSD 1 - I'm happy to wait for Rookie pick 1 for the speculative option. I'm a sentimental guy and I've already condemned another two players to exit the club (beyond those we already know about) with the picks I've used. So, unless something particularly juicy turns up for the PSD, I'll skip it this year. So there you go, I've got my own crazy picks, and sentiments.

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.