Dr. Gonzo

The midfield is poor due to other factors. However it has failed to improve in part due to Royal. I don't really see what this has to do with Gysberts though. The kid was injured all season - give him this pre-season and next year to show what he's got and if there's nothing there cut your losses.

It's funny, I suggested at the end of 2011 we should trade one of Martin or Jamar because their respective trade values were at their peak and I was howled down. I agree with you about Jamar, Martin has similar problems though. Both of them can be serviceable but neither of them are particularly very good and both are one dimensional without being particularly damaging. Having both on the list when you can get rid of one and address another area of deficiency is a no brainer.

I had a read there the other day and was surprised - the comments on the official NM website below an article or his profile (can't remember which) also were glowing about him and couldn't believe they were going to get rid of him. As far as I can gather the "questions" about his character seem to amount to his dissatisfaction with not being given a go especially considering Tarrant & Hansen were given multiple opportunities without showing much.

So no Darwin game next year?

Agree rpfc - on paper a pick in the 30's may be overs for Pederson, but if we trade away Martin for that pick and on-trade to North (effectively trading Martin for Pederson) I wouldn't be unhappy.

So why would Brisbane be interested in him? Don't they have Leuenberger and another young guy?

Not saying it would prove anything one way or the other, but would be good if we could get "hitouts to advantage" stats - unfortunately doesn't look like their available freely.

I doubt that very much.

or Who would you prefer?

Haha yeah I know - what I meant was he looks like another of these skinny kids whose frame will see them struggle to add muscle/size - compared to Wines who looks ready to go and in another 3-4 years will be a tank.

I definitely think Martin is dispensable but then again I would rather have him on the list than either Fitzpatrick or particularly Spencer. The afl.com.au article states that the Lions have picks 23, 30 & 43 (as well as pick 8) - getting 23 or 30 for Martin would be OK depending on how we were going to use it. Saving it for the draft would be a 50/50 proposition but if we had a player in mind to on-trade it for (particularly a midifielder like Ray) it could be worth it. It's probably too early for Pederson and hopefully we'll use our FA compo pick on him. It's definitely worth considering a trade for martin but only if their were a greater plan in mind. No point getting rid of players now just for the sake of making changes/racking up picks and also need to bear list management in mind as we will need to make further changes at the end of next year. At the very least he can still be a handy back-up in all areas of the ground even though he's not really very good at any of them.

Without knowing little about them, I hope not. Based solely on the photos of each I hope we don't take O'Rourke, looks like another Cale Morton waiting to happen. Wiens would suit us to a tee, hopefully GWS take Grundy so we get the choice of Toumpas or Wines.

Would rather throw cash at Clinton Young - seriously how many over 193cm NQR's do we want to collect?

They have been relatively active - whether it is successful or not remains to be seen.

Half a million, if true, is a hell of a lot of money for Dawes. Yes we paid that kind of money to Bruce, Green, Davey etc - but you think we'd learn from past mistakes.

An uneducated guess as the only knowledge I really have of these guys is based on the write-ups on here and BF but I've gone Toumpas just as he seems to be rated a highly skilled player who can complement guys like Viney and Jones. However he will be gone by then so Wines it is who will be great for us I think as he seems to have the right attitude and desire to hit and be hit in the contest. He also seems to be a decent finisher and likes a goal which is something our midfield sorely lacks.

Pretty sure I never said our ruck stocks were much chop - in fact I said the oppposite earlier in the thread. All I said in the post you quoted was that we have a lot of dead wood/list cloggers on our list in the form of one dimensional ruckman who haven't even shown they have what it takes to make it at AFL level. Hopefully following the trade period we see at least one of them dropped from our senior list (though from memory Spencer is still on the rookie list anyway?)

So if 3 years is fine, why not give him 4 or perhaps even 5? Of course there is a difference between 2 and 3 otherwise we wouldn't bother haggling over deals and only offering guys like Bruce 1 year and Rivers 2. I don't think I ever said we should have gone into 2013 without him and even so I don't see much of a difference between Jamar or Martin as first ruck with Spencer as a back up and then Fitzpatrick and Gawn further down the scale. That is 5 ruckman who can't do much else on our list I think we can afford to lose one.

That's no my issue with this - I don't mind getting Dawes and can understand his need for our structure. I'm just concerned that we aren't addressing what I see as our biggest deficiency which is our midfield and players with exceptional footskills. But I acknowledge we can fix this up in subsequent drafts and harder bodies on the field should see us be at least competitive in each game and hopefully a bit harder to play against.

Could be. Could also be that he had a broken ankle and then a broken jaw which kept him out for most of the year and ruined his fitness base.

Even if Grundy was still available at pick 4 no way we'd take him after getting Hogan and Dawes (and probably Pederson too).

I think he's the albino?

I'm not averse to getting him but I hope we don't give up pick 20 for him. We need midfielders and I hope we have picks 4 & 20 to use on them.

Well in an ideal world we would already be planning Jamar's succession so 2 years would be being generous with him hopefully being phased out in year 2. A 3 year contract for someone of his age and with his ability I think is too much - he had a fantastic 2010 but the rest of his career has been neither here nor there. BTW I don't know where you're pulling these stats from but I'd like to know how often Jamar actually kicks at least one goal a game and how often he actually gets more than 2 kicks. You may just want a lumbering one dimensional giant who wins the tap and disappears but I would rather a Cox/Stynes type player who is effective around the ground as well as in the ruck. If Jamar was truly effective as a big man he would either plug the hole down back or push forward to pressure the opposition defense and he would also provide a decent target for our kick outs instead of just standing 60 metres out on the boundary and asking the full back to kick it on top of his head. I don't want to give the wrong impression, I am not a Jamar hater and I think he fills a need - and despite the number of rucks on our list you're right none of them have shown that they will be capable of being first ruck, or even a decent back-up ruck - in the future. It's not the end of the world but frankly in the best of all possible worlds I'd like to think we would have only signed Jamar to 2 years.

dee-luded, you'll start having more fun when we start winning again.