DeeSpencer

I'd swing it around and name it differently. FB: DBJ, Hombsch, Jonas HB: Hartlett Howard Broadbent C: Polec Rockliff Westhoff HF: Motlop Watts Boak FF: Neade Dixon Wingard Foll: Ryder Wines R. Gray Int: SPP Ebert S Gray Pittard Backs: Clurey, Houston, Austin, Bonner Mids: Atley, Amon, Drew Forwards: Johnson, Marshall Ruck: Frampton Interesting list. Lots of young defenders who will have to play at times and backline seems the weakness. Midfield and forward they have so much flexibility and should be able to play a really good ball movement style of game plan. The question mark will be if they or will they defend.

It takes 30 on your list to win games through the season and it's how you play as a team that has a far greater impact than one player from the 30. Especially not a top 5-10 player and Watts can't be a top 5-10 player because he's not a consistent performer that the side is structured around. With Hogan, Tom McDonald and Pedersen we have 3 good options to be the 2 key forwards who the forward line works around. Watts isn't the high level goal kicker who gets special consideration inside 50. He's not a gun half forward in the mould of Tom Lynch (adel) who controls ball movement. His class will be missed but in terms of winning games he is easily replaced by a player who contributes more in other areas.

Both Goodwin and Roos have tried that at various times but he's always been a media favourite and he's either played too well or too inconsistently to be a traditional role player. Having a game based on skills isn't really suited to just being a standard role player. If he routinely was the back up ruck and made some contests forward or if he was a hard running half forward every week then it would be easily to control the narrative about him. Unfortunately he's floated around different roles depending on the season/week/game and not got that continuity. A fresh start in a defined role makes that easily to control.

Maximum compensation should be pick 11 so all the non finalists get to pick first. Ironically if that's what we got we probably would've drafted Lever! If the max a team could get was pick 11 then the Franklin for 19 deal wouldn't have been so bad, especially when they signed Frawley for free the next year. Frawley and 19 for Franklin isn't such a bad deal, not when you keep winning premierships!

I think a lot of the lack of interest around Schache comes from the expectations on key forwards as well. So much easier to be a midfielder and play ok footy and sneak under the radar. Schache next year would be playing VFL at a Victorian club and copping criticism I'm sure. Balic can ease his way in at the Dees. The other factor is the contract, I'm sure Schache's extension came with a decent price tag. I'm all for longer contracts for draftees and tampering rules that stop clubs approaching players mid season. It's a real shame that Schache is having to deal with all this scrutiny. He had a very solid first year and is now an uncertain prospect.

Not sure that's all correct. 40 senior list players last season. Delisted 5 - Lumumba, Trengove, Spencer, Kennedy, Hulett = 35, add Lever = 36. Watts for Balic = 36. 2 national draft picks will make our list = 38. Rookie list A = Keilty, T Smith, Maynard, Filipovic = 4. Joel Smith - are we sure he's been promoted to the senior list or the Cat A rookie list? The numbers become 39 and 4 or 38 and 5 depending what we do with him. Then we can choose what do with our last list spot. We can choose to go 38/6, 39/5 or 40/4. Cat B = 0. With Smith and Maynard both moved on to other lists we'll have 3 spots regardless. Better start searching for some athletes.

Port had offered him a 3 year deal. The conditions I'd consider paying salary for would be: 1. To help a cap strapped team in return for a better pick 2. When a team takes a poor performing player on big money for you and you minimise their cap hit I doubt Watts is either of those and the 20% rise in cap probably makes it unnecessary. Connors probably just tears up his Melbourne deal and starts with a fresh 3 year contract at Port if that's the case.

Preseason is the most overrated thing in footy. As long as a player is doing one at a club what does it matter? I'd have a trade window from 7 October (need a week off for the Premiers) until when players break for Christmas (ie. 15 December). Then another trade window from 15 Jan until either before, during or after the first preseason game. I don't think where you finish should have any impact on when free agency starts. A good draft, fair salary cap and a footy department cap should be the equilisers. The run of bad sides - no more than Melbourne - came from compromised drafts, an inflated salary cap and an arms race of off field spending that left us miles behind. QLD teams aside I don't think we will see basketcases all that often nor will we see dominant teams with more free agency. I'm not a fan of players declaring their intentions ahead of time. I think that undermines free agency. Players can sign on with their current club or they can wait until they reach the free agency window at the end of the year. Stricter rules about tampering should be enforced so clubs can't be making offers mid year (or longer out). Clubs will know who is available and which players don't fit their current clubs needs but I just don't get what good comes from letting it all happen ahead of time. Getting more free agents available might actually settle the in season madness about which club is chasing/signing which player.

He played wing in 2015. Did well when matched up against the weaker opponents, when he came up against a strong body midfielder or a running machine he was torched. He had a very good year in 2016 hitting the wings using his running and spending time as an undersized ruck. Promptly rocked up to 2017 in less than ideal condition. If you could just magically give him an elite tank he wouldn't be traded and he would be a star.

Paying overs is what we do. I made a thread about it Do we have more than 3 list spots available? We might only take the 3 picks anyway. Not convinced that Balic isn't worth about the same as Crozier. Crozier has proven to be pretty ordinary in the 4 or 5 years he's been in the system. Balic has more time to improve.

I'd suggest Port trade to Gold Coast. Out: 30 and next years 2nd round pick In: 25 and 36 Then send us 25.

It's not so much a gamble these days when we are trading in other experienced players. We use a draft pick from Watts now, we can trade a different pick on an older player. There's also the chance for addition by subtraction where you take out a player with limited defensive traits and the team gets better. It worked for Richmond last year with Deledio. That's my hope

Back on topic - Gaff is a little flaky but his work rate is great and his kicking can be very good - he's started taking too many soft options of late. He'd open up the ground with his work rate and that would help us a lot. But he's too expensive to trade for now and the Eagles will be compensated well enough to not take a cheap deal now. I'm sure he'll be a big target next year and we have to win games and show him that we are a better option than Hawthorn or St Kilda and any other side that wasn't to lure him with big money.

I'd give draftees 3 or 4 year deals and allow them to be traded at will. If you aren't ready for the draft don't go in it. If you are then be prepared to move around a bit whilst you establish yourself. Maybe throw in a franchise year for a 5th year for a one off 700k payment. After that players become restricted free agents and can move to their club of choice if another club satisfies their original club with draft compensation equal to contract value. Then once a player has done 6-8 years they are true free agents open to move at will with the only compensation being end of 3rd round picks for clubs who lose more free agents than they sign. The trade period would be replaced by free agency and restricted free agency in October. Out of contract players like Lever (restricted) and Motlop (unrestricted) would be moving frequently. Actual trades for contracted players would be open all summer.

Those calculators overrate the value of later picks, specifically designed to make sure northern clubs don't give up too much for their academy players

I don't buy the get more done logic. Clubs have met for weeks, they know who is available. Time will tell but I don't think there's a rush to deal for Balic. The difference is if our first round pick goes bad. After 11 years of missing finals we are putting a lot of faith in making it next year

Do you want the club to try and win a premiership or to be known as the equitable trade team? Trade after trade we are leaving too much meat on the bone. Bit by bit it's meaning our list - which by virtue of having some of the best youngsters in the comp - is only average with gaps to fill instead of excellent.

Garlett - great pick up, fair trade for a player sacked from his club. Lewis - another fair trade for a player who's club didn't want him. Not convinced he was worth picking up. Another disaster in negotiating that we folded and gave him a 3rd year of his contract that will bite us in 2019. We offered 2 years with a 3rd year club option. Lewis said 'hmmm not sure' and we quickly gave up the 3rd year. Why? Hibberd - quality player with an injury history and a year off from a drug ban. Fair trade. Great work by the medical and coaching staff to get him in career best form.

Yes and it starts with not making your best offer up front. We want Lever for 10 and 27 says Mahoney on day 1 on the trade period. Keen to be seen as some kind of anti- Dodoro. Crows ask for 2 first rounders. 4 Days later we say yes. Pick 10 and a 3rd or pick 10 and swap of later picks would've been a smarter offer.

You don't give up pick 23 for a couple of good years of production in a bad team unless you're so keen to protect Paul Roos' reputation. Also you're factoring in what Vince was at Melbourne not his lessening value to the Crows who gladly parted with him. Either way, Adelaide jumped on that deal, desperate for a draft pick after facing sanctions. We were the suckers that went straight to them with a quality pick.

Why not 35 for him? Use the extra pick value on upgrading the later pick that we took Liam Hulett with who is now out of the club. Could've taken Harley Balic and had him 2 years in to our system. Whatever pick we use on Balic now could be used on a the pacey player we need. It's not about players it's about VALUE!

We could've taken a pick with 23 and found another Daniel Cross for maturity. That's what teams like Brisbane are doing now.

They were fair value deals in which the players have been excellent. But even if Oliver was a dud I wouldn't be upset with that deal because it was a pick for pick deal that made sense. What I'm upset with is paying above market rate. It's limiting our improvement. We don't have highly skilled athletic youngsters coming through the VFL learning footy craft. Each year we still have more players to delist than we know what to do with and back fill the list with speculative options because we haven't given Jason Taylor enough top 40 picks to work with.

I don't buy that logic. We gave up 6, future first and 29 3, 10, 43 The 29 we got for Howe. Making the Melksham deal early in the trade period did nothing for us. We could've done it on the first day or the last day just before the deadline. Essendon were never going to ask for more. They really couldn't. Yet somehow we decided it had to be done to move on to extra business, like we are incapable of doing more than 1 thing at a time.

Let's look at some recent deals: 1. Picks 2 and 20 for Tyson and 9 (Salem) Values Tyson at approximately pick 5. He'd barely played, had knee problems and the Giants didn't want him. Yes we got Hunt late but we would've got him anyway, no impact on the deal. Did we need a ready to play midfielder, sure? But why pay so much? Verdict: Clear OVERS 2. Bernie Vince for pick 23 Vince was 27 and playing as a depth mid for the Crows, really not doing a lot. We needed a mid and got 23 from Sylvia but we still gave up a solid pick for 3 useful years of a player. That Bernie played so well for us was more of an indication of our lack of depth than his value. Verdict: Overs 3. Melksham for 25 Again, the player has been ok but he was in the Essendon 2's at some stages and banned for a year. A solid pick for a depth player Verdict: Overs. 4. Lever for the farm Time will tell but the Tigers just won the flag avoiding giving 2 first rounders for Treloar and signing Prestia instead. We acquiesced to a trade demand on the 4th day of the 2 week period. Verdict: Overs Convincing players to come to your club with money and opportunity is a way to improve your list. You're meant to win trades by giving up market value then having the player do well in your system. Instead we are paying clearly over market value then hoping the players justify the trades. These players have improved the team but they haven't improved the list. It's the reason we still have big weaknesses on the list despite some quality drafting and development. We are using trades to return to the middle of the ladder, not to get ahead of other sides. Josh Mahoney, the last of the Cam Schwab hires, the journeyman player and failed Neeld assistant coach who did a short course at Harvard. It's time to go.