Radar Detector

To be fair, Frost hasn't actually done anything yet. Looks a likely player but on output, we can't call pick 23 a win or a loss as yet.

All the comments about Jeremy stuffing us around seem to miss the more likely point that we are forcing his hand and leaving him with little option. As another poster alluded to, he is the opposite of Watts in that other clubs perceive his value to be more than what we do.

Either way, our crowds should improve. Apparently he brings all the boys to the yard.

What post were you reading Stuie? I think the suggestion was that being an average kick doesn't necessarily make you redundant as a player, in fact you can be an elite player with average skills if your other attributes are sufficiently strong. Nowhere was it stated, or even implied, that Bugg or Jetta were approaching the calibre of Fyfe let alone his equal.

I haven't really seen much of Kennedy other than QB but that looks like a pretty fair/decent trade for us CIP. Still don't like the 4 year deal but otherwise seems to make some sense.

No, I described the potential trade as "meh" and suggested that the idea of a four year contract is unnecessary. To me, the issue of whether we recruit him and the offer we make are linked. A change that improves the list in the short term is a good thing in isolation. However a change that improves the list in the short term but holds you to ransom in the medium term is not. Melksham is a dime a dozen midfielder. I'm not particularly offended about adding him to the list, however I am not particularly excited either and I just don't think we should be throwing 4 year contracts at players of his calibre.

I do absolutely understand that. Just as I understood that Mark Neeld didn't expect Matt Jones or Dean Terlich to be fringe 22 players when they were signed on three year deals. That doesn't change the fact that the contracts they were offered were an error because of their duration and it is possible that this will prove to be also. As I said, most players do not get offered four year deals let alone known quantities who are mediocre at best. By all means recruit the guy if it is perceived he will add to the 22, bolster depth or improve training standards. I just don't see the rationale for locking the club into an unnecessary long term deal for a player of this calibre.

I think the asada issue is probably being overplayed here a bit. But the potential recruitment is just so meh. We should be aiming to recruit players who will be long term members of the 22, not who will be fringe initially and hopefully Casey regulars by halfway through a contract. Four years is ridiculous btw. There are seriously good players at all clubs who aren't offered 4 year contracts. We don't need this guy anywhere near that badly and by 2017 we will be asking the Matt Jones and Dean Terlich questions all over again.

I agree with your sentiment however it is misplaced in this instance - McCartney is clearly a leader in his field and would be a big loss if he were to leave. The same is not true for many of the players who have departed recently. Nor was it a view widely shared upon the departure of say, Brad Miller, from the coaching panel.

Trading 101. Well said.

Maybe both of them will be support for Frost next year. Or T-Mac.

If Danger was any chance to come here, he would've done it for the same money last year when the best possible draft compensation was offered to the Crows via our trade offer.

Most poignant thread of the last few weeks

Do the people starting these threads watch football?

Are you fabricating opposing arguments to your own to make your position sound more credible? I recall a number of posters suggesting that trading Jack is only worthwhile if we get something of greater value in return. I recall none espousing your quoted notion above.

The draft and trade caper is all about what you get for what you give up. Melksham is a largely known quantity with both good and bad attributes. Would ye be better than some on our list? Yes. Would he be guaranteed best 22? No. Would he improve our depth? Depends on who else goes out and in. I would make the assumption that McKenzie, Riley, Terlich et al will be gone anyway and replaced with top 40ish pick in the draft. The likes of Brayshaw, Stretch and ANB based on last year's draft. So who would Melksham really be replacing? Is he an updgrade on Matt Jones and Bail? Probably. Watts, Garland or Howe? Probably not. It's ridiculous to compare this situation with Garlett who was also a known quantity (a 40-goal a year forward for most of his career) and one that we picked up for steak knives. And it's even more ridiculous to compare him with an A-grade midfielder who will instantly transform our best 22. Like RPFC said... meh. Should be one of those late trade period resolutions once you can see where the dust has settled on everyone else.

And yet replacing Watts with someone like Melksham seems like pointless deck chair shuffling. Happy for Watts to stay or go but let's be sure we're improving the list.

Agreed. If he is up for trade it is likely because the FD believe someone else will give us greater value than what we perceive he brings to us. Personally, I think trading him for a draft pick doesn't make a lot of sense as anything other than a top ten pick will likely not make us better off, at least in the crucial short term. We may be best served using him to attract a quality player. But if he stays, I will be happy with that also.

Look, we've fallen into this trap before and overestimated our youthful talent compared to others. In actual fact, the leadership provided by the older players is crucial in helping the young guys maximise their talent. The Bulldogs are a prime example. Our leadership, in contrast to the Bulldogs and St Kilda has been a perennial weakness. Carlton are now in the same boat as us a result of Judd's retirement and may find it difficult to rebound quickly. I don't disagree that on paper our young list looks healthier than St Kilda's, but I would caution that progress is rarely linear and improvement won't just automatically happen for this group, just like it didn't go to plan for the last group. I think we are fortunate to have a couple of young culture changers in Viney and Brayshaw who can hopefully break the mould, although the same could have been said about Scully and Trengove after their first season. As with all, time will tell.

Jeremy Cameron was pretty good at 20 IIRC

Let's not get too silly

BB your views are so black and white I'm surprised you don't follow Collingwood!There is not a team or recruiter in the comp who can identify 4-6 ready to impact types from every draft every year. There are too many variables at play like who is available at a given pick, team deficiencies etc. The overriding objective is to make the team better. Are we likely to get sufficient value from delisting or trading Toumpas to outweigh his potential future upside? Probably not. In actual fact, he would likely be replaced by a younger, more speculative, less ready to go type.

So your argument is that we shouldn't develop our young players because we are not a good team? Hmmmm

If his career to date hadn't been so injury interrupted I may agree. But he has not had clear runway to build confidence and show what he can do.He may not be up to it after his next contract, but he will be taking the place of a kid ranked 60+ in a weak draft on low money so isn't much of a risk. There is far more downside keeping a known quality like Dawes or lumumba on big money imo (ignoring intangible benefits they may or may not bring to the playing group). Toumpas may yet turn out to be a good player.

He played with and against both Wines and Toumpas and his old man was charged with looking at both... Hindsight is great but more people had Toumpas ahead at the time than vice versa, even if you have been consistent all along.