The Chazz

I've changed my mind about you - I don't think you are Schwab or Cuddles, I think you are Mark Robinson. Am I right? You throw that much shlt around at the hope that some of it sticks. Yeah, let's use our first 5 draft picks on recruiting kids (as you have posted previously). Then you think we use our first 5 draft picks to trade a heap of players in. I would normally say you will eventually get it right, but given your track record, I don't think you've had a hit yet have you? Your article over the weekend about Mitch was a beauty. Started off saying that "Mitch and his management were meeting with the MFC this week, where he could retire, he could ask for more time off, he could return to the club straight away, or he could head overseas for specilist treatment." If he didn't do any of those, what else was he likely to do? Pure genius, Robbo. Go and annoy someone else, please.

Therein lies the problem. While Neitz never backed away from a scuffle, he rarely, if eve, was the instigator. In the Hawks/Bombers fight as posted above, who's our Chance Bateman, our Richie Vandenberg? We are too nice to start a brawl, and it takes a dogs act from the oposition for us to even consider retaliating, and even then it's no certainty that we will do it.

We have no-one capable of doing anything like what Hawthron did that day. No team or opposition player is intimidated by any on our list. GWS showed that last weekend, and it has been a trait of this club since the late 80's-early 90's. I would love to see it, but it is the last thing I'm expecting to see on Saturday.

Why would they want to draft a KPF when they will have a ready-made one in under 2 years from us... (Nb. Just kidding) (Nb. I hope I'm kidding)

Probably the example where you named 5 young draftee-types that you would like to add to our list. The 5 that are "ready to go". Don't shoot the messenger Olisik, just posting how you write it. Your history shows that you are obsessed with draft picks, and the only trades you propose involve a minimum of 4 clubs and 13 players being changed. Then at the end of trade period when nothing of the like happens, you sulk and criticise the club. That said, I do find your posts amusing, so I should be thanking you I guess.

And during Naplan prep classes!

Given that if we received the 6 picks you floated above, and have clearly filled 5 of those spots with potential kids from this year's draft (by using a comparison with other recent 1st year players to make an immediate impact), I'm pretty sure I know which method you favour currently.

Who is using this in their argument about receiving assistance or not?

A big issue on this thread is that when people say that we need high draft picks, it's presumed that the poster means going to the draft with these picks. I can understand the confusion, as I'm in that camp is making the presumption. Unless it's Olisik that's posting, then I have NFI what they are on about. We won't get a number 1 PP, but the rest of your post has merit, although it'll be up to the AFL to police it, and that reduces my confidence levels of a fair outcome for all involved.

In one breath you are saying we should use our top picks on drafting the best kids in the draft, then in the next you are supporting our use of high draft picks to trade in talent. Which one is it? An AFL-enforced rule that any PP we receive must be traded will ensure we get some form of talented, current player, and our onfield results will ensure we get first crack at the best kid in the land. It's the balance that I spoke about in one of my eearlier replies to you.

When changing the rules of the PP system, I would imagine the AFL didn't think that a team, who had a number of first round picks during a 3 year period, would require a PP within 4 years of their "rebuild". The AFL did everything possible to scrap the PP system to eliminate rewarding poor performace, we just managed to find grey areas because of our own incompetence. The fact there was a grey area for us to expose is poor on the AFL's behalf, but not anywhere near as poor as the bed we made. Edit - it could be argued that it was because of certain clubs, and the MFC is at the top of that list, that forced the AFL to make radical changes to the PP system. We exposed (although weren't found guilty) loop holes in the previous system and milked it to our "advantage". The AFL rightly changed the previous system, and now we are crying poor over the current system becasue it has disadvantaged us.

I apologise Redleg. It came across that you were saying that the drafts were compromised, by the 2 new teams created, when we were also relying on these draft to "recover". I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I have answered your question, now if you would be so kind in clarifying what you meant for me that would be appreciated. Fact is, in 2010/11/12 and 13, we shouldn't have been in recovery mode. The early years of this decade should've been about fine tuning a superb list that we had built in the last half of the previous decade, not looking for new saviours.

I'd imagine that's how the AFL would feel WYL, hence any priority pick we receive should come with the condition that it has to be on-traded for a player. Us using a potential prioirty pick on a freshy would see 5/8ths of f-all improvement in 2015. There aren't many trades that invovled a Top 20 pick that haven't improved the side that received the player. We traded Pick 12 for Clark, who when he played, immediately improved our side. The AFL need us to improve. We need us to improve. Time is ticking.

Amazingly, Olisik, players like Bail, Terlich and Nicholson were actually picked up using draft picks. Players like Vince and Tyson were brought to the club via trade. Which players have made the biggest impact so far? If we end up with Pick 1, it would take rare circumstances to even consider trading it. If we end up with 1&2 (because of Frawley's possible/likely departure), you keep pick 1, and possible look at a trade with pick 2, similar to the deal we did last year with GWS/Tyson/Salem. Given you have clearly witnessed the last 7 years, like I have, you would see the need to find a balance of bringing kids in as well as experience. The important part is getting "good" experienced players, not hacks that are in the twilight of their careers and playing a large amount of reserves footy at their current club.

Given we have just had our number 1 KPF walk out on us, and that we are likely to get a top pick in a draft that has some good KPP talent at the top end, WTF would we want to trade our hig picks to a team who is also looking to fill the same need as us? If we have pick 1, we take the best player. If it's a KPP, we either groom him to play CHB (if Frawley leaves), or we shift Hogan to the backline for the first couple of years of his playing career, and look to trade in a designated defender when/if we start to push for finals (potentially allowing us to shift Hogan back forward). Dawes is a one-trick pony who we need to keep on the track. His sole trick can be a bloody valuable asset to our forward line if he stays fit for the next 5 years. If Frawley does leave and we get pick 2 as well, then we trade it to a club who offers the best ready-made player (midfielder). With Adelaide suffering draft sanctions, I'd imagine they would be a club willing to look at a potential trade of a (potential) Frawley/compo pick. I can't see anyone on Carlton's list that would be worthy of a pick 2, even if it involves other clubs. The other thing that will likely stop any trade with Carlton is that on current form, they will be getting a pick in the Top 5 anyway, so there will be a strong chance they will be able to get a KPP through that pick, without the need of having to give up "something" to improve their draft order 1 or 2 spots.

Redleg, the sooner some realise that the above is incorrect, the better. We were in the "perfect" window to bottom out. We had 3 drafts to nail it, 2007, 2008 & 2009 before the drafts were severley compromised. Fact is, we fcuked our chance up by picking spuds. You could argue to some degree that the 2009 draft was compromised in our favour - 4 picks in the top 18 - including the number 1 & 2 picks, with just two of those players left on our list, and both those not in the senior team. If any club/s have been disadvantged by bottoming out at the wrong time, it'd be St Kilda and Brisbane. There is absolutely no excuse for us being in the position that we are currently in. We can't blame the AFL or any other external body. We have to take 100% responsibility for poor decisions made during this time. We can whinge about the AFL gifting GWS with our former number 1 pick, but gee, they looked after us in regards to compensation. It's too early to tell if we are the winners from all that - given our recent history I wouldn't be surprised if we lost out of it all. However, if it turns out we won from it, it'll prove to me that we may have turned a corner.

I have been away the past month and have only watched 1 game this year (against GWS), so I'm not as scarred as some. I would appreciate it if you don't read my posts next Monday!

It's about the only way the AFL would be able to issue us a PP and have the other clubs approve as they will potentially benefit from it as well. I didn't really give a toss about the other clubs emotions, but it's clear that some clubs dictate to the AFL, so finding something that benefits us that will get the "approval" of the big clubs is quite important. The best way for that to happen is have something that they will benefit from as well.

Never have I seen a poster so obsessed with draft picks. I'm starting to believe "Olisik" is either Cameron Schwab or Cuddles, just can't work out which yet (probably leaning toward the latter at this stage).

Personally, I think any "Priority Pick", based on poor performance, should require the side to trade that pick. The whole idea of "awarding" a club a PP is to assist with their improvement. Generally speaking, if a club is to use that pick on a 17/18 year old, you are looking at 3 years until that pick has a reasonable chance of improving that list. Trading that pick - which regardless of it being a number 1 pick (ie $cully), an "after first round" pick, a mid-first round pick, and end of first round pick, the pick will be in the range of 1-19. Under trade conditions, a pick of that calibre will improve the list in the following year without doubt. That's my view on how/why the AFL should award Priority Picks - to improve the club's list the following year, not "hope" that picking an 18 year old juniors star will improve the club in 3 years time.

I'm not sure I understand your double standards here "the Master", given that Ben Mathews was himself a newsagent less than a handful of years ago (after he left the Swans).

Should that be "and"?

Toady, I have no idea what to make of these pictures. In the first one that you posted, which I presumed was the "before" shot given he was wearing an old training top, Mitch has many tattoos on display, in particular one on his right quad, as well as his left forearm. In the "after" shot, they freakishly disappeared like Marty McFly did in those photos in Back to the Future. To top it off, it hasn't been confirmed or denied that Mitch has had his left leg amputated at the knee. I'm bloody confused.

To be fair, Neeld had this "no BS" attitude, it's just that the players didn't like and/or respect him, which contributed to making him look like a total incompetent tool. The only other person that contributed as much, if not more, was Neeld himself. But in Neeld we did have that "no BS" directive that you speak of.

I was going to say it'll look a lot like what we, and Roos, saw on the MCG during the Round 17 match in 2010, with a step up in our defensive pressure. To my surprise, there are only 8 players remaining on our list who played that day (Garland, Bail, McKenzie, Dunn, Frawley, Jones, Watts, Jamar). Sad to think that it was probably our best performance in the last 7 years, was only just over 3 seasons ago, and we have just over a third of that team still playing (for us).