bing181

Just as there have been any number of recruiters who did the same and passed on players who subsequently went 3rd/4th round/rookie, and then went on to be AA and win Brownlows.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, there's no "slightly" in the trade period. You're dealing with the draft selections that clubs hold. If they want 10 and you've only got 30, you can't compromise and agree to meet in the middle on 20. It's not like a housing auction where bids go can up in increments of $1000. When you're trading picks, there are almost always big gaps between picks/offers.

Except that Goodwin doesn't make either list management decisions, nor trade decisions. Also, re the Watts trade, Mahoney (who isn't Goodwin last time I checked) has constantly stressed it was a FD decision. On the other hand, don't care who made it, clearly the right decision and best for the club (and for Jack).

Says the guy posting private information about a player, information received in confidence, on a public forum. Respect?

You're being sarcastic, right?

Get the man we wanted and the best player available in the draft: tick Move on someone we no longer wanted for what he was worth (2nd rounder): tick Pick up a depth player for a (very) low pick: tick Hard to find fault.

We also paid less than what Fremantle initially wanted for Balic. (But heh, ignore what doesn't confirm the narrative.)

You're right, I'm wrong. More "Emerging mid" (or even "Emerging half back").

AFL review of Trade Period. We're equal 4th (or equal second, depending on how you look at things ...) Port Adelaide - 9/10Essendon - 9/10Fremantle - 9/10Adelaide - 7.5/10Brisbane - 7.5/10Melbourne - 7.5/10Geelong - 7/10Richmond - 7/10Sydney - 7/10West Coast - 7/10Gold Coast - 6.5/10GWS - 6.5/10Western Bulldogs - 6.5/10Carlton - 6/10Hawthorn - 6/10St. Kilda - 5.5/10Collingwood - 5/10North Melbourne - 5/10

What they couldn't get done: The Demons had an extremely targeted trade period and hit their primary mark, Crows defender Jake Lever. Nick Bowen's verdict: Melbourne's post-season was a success from the time it landed the most exciting young talent in this year's trade period, Lever. Lever, 21, will slot seamlessly into the Demons backline and should help strengthen a team that already looked well placed to break a 12-year finals drought next season. The Dees also made the tough call to trade Jack Watts to Port Adelaide. Melbourne had been hoping for a pick in the 20s for 2008's No.1 draft pick, but eventually accepted pick No.31, feeling it was time to cut its losses. Homesick Fremantle youngster Harley Balic came at a bargain price and the Demons are excited by his ability to play a hybrid forward/midfield role. Rating: 7.5/10

"Nick Bowen's verdict: Melbourne's post-season was a success from the time it landed the most exciting young talent in this year's trade period, Lever. Lever, 21, will slot seamlessly into the Demons backline and should help strengthen a team that already looked well placed to break a 12-year finals drought next season."

They were thinking that desperate situations need desperate solutions. In their position, I don't mind it. Better an A-grade mid who's ready to go now than an 18 year old future star who takes a few years.

Also based on only one side of the story.

About the only thing that's staggering is that people think that the Lever deal is staggering. Thank god some of you aren't "negotiating" for us. The object of the exercise is to get the player you want, there are no bragging rights in not getting a deal done. To come out of that Trade Period with our picks intact but nothing to show for it but Harley Balic would have been a disaster, especially in light of what Lever brings.

Not to mention Adelaide re Gibbs (second year they've tried now).

Hindsight bias.

If it's true, it's all the more reason to ship Watts out, and only confirms Mahoney's comment re Watts' "negative influence" (whatever the exact wording was) on younger players.

No they don't. In any case, no-one's an "ardent fan of the decision", and as for "lament" .... Jesus wept, it's a list management decision that you think helps or you don't. You're also confusing the decision (i.e., the way it was made and the processes employed to reach it) with the outcome (JW leaving).

"Quite simply, previous regimes have been prepared to settle for less from Jack and I don’t think the Simon Goodwin cartel will."

Except for the bit across the middle of that where he was (the only player) effectively dropped during the pre-season. Fact.

In what universe? Watts was only ever a second rounder. And once again, what clubs say has nothing to do with how other clubs value a player. If it were the case, all it will take is for Free to talk up Harley Balic and we'll be falling over ourselves to give them a first rounder.

While I'm touched that you remember what I did/didn't contribute to the thread, I was simply posting a quote from Mahoney re who was behind the decision. (Hint: not just Goodwin).

Sad to see him go, the club won't be the same without him. Which is the point.

Interesting quote from Mahoney on where the decision was coming from: "the list management group felt that Jack's consistency of performance while at Melbourne hasn't been at the level expected"

- the "he was 6th in the counting before he was injured" claim has never been substantiated - it ignores other players who missed games early in the season, thus suppressing their vote (e.g. Hibberd, Lewis) and placing Watts higher than he otherwise would have been - it ignores average votes per match over the whole season - selective and smaller sample sizes (e.g., half a season) can produce outlier and unrepresentative results (both too high and too low) - it illustrates exactly what the FD have been saying about Jack's inconsistency Anyway, he's gone.