pm24

Surely this can't be true.....I thought Mahoney was meant to be a dud. There's no possible way he could work such a deal, surely........ However, in saying this, we must clearly rank two players quite highly this year given I thought next years draft crop was meant to be stronger.

Not surprising really. Moving up to pick 3 would have been a really good result, and who knows maybe there were also plans for other players (like Gorringe) or picks to move. An upgrade from pick 6 to pick 3 in this draft probably has more value than any second round pick Collingwood might send our way. He's probably feeling like a whole lot of constructive time has now been wasted. I would also not be surprised if they'd lined up some other trades on the assumption the GC deal would be done.

Mahoney up next on trade radio, can someone summarise the conversation?

A 2nd round pick might be overs in another draft year but given I thought it was reported that after the first 20 picks in the draft there was a big drop off in a talent, a 2nd round pick this year may be the equivalent of a 3rd round pick (or lower) in another draft year. It's not just about the pick number, it's about the talent level of the players you can select at that pick. If the talent in this years draft is low, it might be worthwhile punting away picks outside the top 20 or so for established players if the view is that we'd be unlikely to find a player who could be a regular AFL player at that pick.

Ummm, 1 minute to go, Round 11 2015 v St Kilda Quote from Match Report: "It looked like it would finally be the Demons' day when Howe slotted a tough set shot late in the game, only for Melbourne hearts to be broken seconds later." Remember that game at all??? Not saying I disagree with your premise regarding them overestimating Howe's ability....but you might want to be a bit more careful when making such finite statements when there is recent contradictory evidence available.

Some names that I think we should consider: Lewis Johnston - KPF provides depth, and had a strong finish to the season in 2013. Jared Petrenko - has had a tough couple of seasons, but from all reports is a talented player. Leroy Jetta - I just wonder if Roos could be the guy to turn his career around

Not signed off by who??? Us (unlikely), them (more likely), or the other possibility would be the AFL!!!!

I actually think Blease cam across really well in the interview. Sounded much more polished than Burbury from Geelong who followed him. Yes some of the messages about him not fitting with where the club was going stood out, but he demonstrated a desire to work on his deficiencies and knows what his strengths are. Someone will take a punt on him. I'm actually disappointed it didn't work out with us, because I believe he has the ability to be a game breaker with his goal-kicking and speed. But in today's game, if you can't do the little things you don't get a game.

I was happy to hear this. I remember some passages of play in his first year where he was one of the only players who was composed when delivering into our forward 50, and on multiple times he was hitting our leading forwards on the chest. He has the skill, it seems like he just needs a solid preseason, and to get some confidence in his body again.

Why is it that when I look at the above I can't help but Collingwood are the big winners in that. Also the trades don't make sense to me. Just focusing on the trades we participate in (keeping in mind that for the trade to work both parties would typically be exchanging players/picks) we trade: pick 3, Clark to Collingwood for????? pick 2 to Adelaide for Dangerfield and Pick 25 (from Brisbane) - (this is a good deal for us if we kept pick 25) on-trade pick 25 (from Brisbane) to Collingwood for Lumumba?? So, there's one thing missing in this for me. We're sending pick 3, pick 25 and Clark to Collingwood for Lumumba.......WTF!! I understand the summary of what we'd end up with, but I still don't understand how Collingwood are not sending us more given there are effectively two trades we are making with them. But again, it would appear that Collingwood are big winners from this. Given the rumours regarding a straight Clark for Lumumba swap, they are effectively getting pick 3 and pick 25 for Beams and they still keep their pick 8 to use on Moore. I don't see why we would need to send so much to Collingwood. Collingwood would come away with potentially Petracca/Brayshaw or one of the young talls like McCartin, plus Moore (F/S), Clark and pick 25 from this period, and we give up picks 2 and 3 plus Clark for Dangerfield and Lumumba. I would hope that we would at least get pick 25 from Brisbane, or Adelaide's pick 10. To me this is overs. It's the rumoured pick 2 and 3 for Dangerfield, and the straight swap of Clarke for Lumumba but it still leaves me feeling we're not getting enough back. Why would we want to facilitate this for Collingwood without getting more back from them?? It's fair for Adelaide yes, fair for Brisbane, a massive win for Collingwood, and so-so for us IMO.

Riley could make way for Trengove, as could Bail, Mckenzie and maybe even Cross. As Roos has said, we need more class in the middle, and Trengove has more of that than those I have listed, even though they have a great amount of determination and heart. Edit: I'd also add Matt Jones to the list of players that could make way for Trengove.

After sitting through the game yesterday I think the next step is for the players to have confidence in their attacking abilities. They appear to be confident in implementing a conservative approach, with strong defensive principles, but the lack of risk taking, or even awareness was the biggest killer yesterday. A number of times we had an extra player on inside the forward 50, only to have the lead up player who was 70 out, turn their back, run back 10 metres behind the mark, and then lose the advantage we had. Once it was Bail in the first quarter, Tyson in another instance. Also the players need to be more aggressive in looking to score. In the first Tyson was in the clear and chose to kick it long and high to Gawn near the square, but the kick lacked penetration and gave the defender time to get back on Gawn. Tyson needed to have the confidence and desire to just blaze away at goal. I believe this has also contributed to our lack of forward 50 entries. Too often are our boys turning their back on the play only to miss the early leads from our forwards, and then when nothing is on, we chip it backwards or sideways. I think if we fix up those sorts of things, we take the next step and become more dangerous offensively.

After sitting through the game yesterday I think the next step is for the players to have confidence in their attacking abilities. They appear to be confident in implementing a conservative approach, with strong defensive principles, but the lack of risk taking, or even awareness was the biggest killer yesterday. A number of times we had an extra player on inside the forward 50, only to have the lead up player who was 70 out, turn their back, run back 10 metres behind the mark, and then lose the advantage we had. Once it was Bail in the first quarter, Tyson in another instance. Also the players need to be more aggressive in looking to score. In the first Tyson was in the clear and chose to kick it long and high to Gawn near the square, but the kick lacked penetration and gave the defender time to get back on Gawn. Tyson needed to have the confidence and desire to just blaze away at goal. I believe this has also contributed to our lack of forward 50 entries. Too often are our boys turning their back on the play only to miss the early leads from our forwards, and then when nothing is on, we chip it backwards or sideways. I think if we fix up those sorts of things, we take the next step and become more dangerous offensively.

I don't think there is much to take away from the interview. Watching his eyes, and remember the guy is taller than most, although the camera was at head height it looks as thought he is most likely being interviewed by someone shorter than him. I assume it was the woman who was relaying the story on AFL.com who was the interviewer, which might explain why he was looking down. They also show some highlights of him talking to Dunn, and he's looking Dunn in the eyes every other second. I put it to those of you judging his body language, is it not possible that his body was angled away from the camera towards the woman interviewing him, who was most likely shorter than him (given there's not that many people who are around 193cms tall), resulting in frawley looking down in an attempt to make eye contact with the interviewer, albeit infrequently. Now if that was the case, how would you view the video? I only raise this to show that it would appear flawed to rely on this video clip to form a view on whether or not he is staying unless you are 100% certain of how the the interview was set up, where the interviewer was, and what the height of the interviewer was. Also, factoring in that he has never appeared comfortable in front of the camera, his body language could be viewed as consistent with previous interviews and therefore not suspect in any way. To me, if we can we 3 or 4 more games, and really challenge finals bound teams, he will stay. He will see what happened with Port last year and this year, and see that the direction we are taking is similar. We have solid young prospects all over the ground, which some other promising young teams (outside of the expansion clubs) do not. I assume that every club in the league would be hoping they can land him.......really, every team in the league could do with a KPP like Frawley. 25, a past All Australian who can play multiple positions, and who possesses a combination of strength and athleticism that few his size do. If we keep going as we are, and win more games and don't get blown out, showing that we are consistently improving, i reckon he'll be back. If anything, this year has shown to me that we do actually have a talented list (which Roos acknowledged when he started) and they just needed proper guidance. Now that we have that, I reckon we could be pushing for finals next year.

I think many here have very skewed views on what should be a priority in life in respect to Jones attending the birth of his firstborn. Nathan Jones' football career will take up just a small part of his life. His family will always be there, and the birth of each child is a once in a lifetime occasion. Jones should be putting the most important things in his life first when it comes to events like this. I support the club, and am a paid up member, but I'd want all of our players to feel free to miss a game for the birth of their child. The birth of a child is more important than a game of football. Can you imagine if there were complications during the birth......how do you think he'd feel if he chose to be playing football as opposed to be by the side of his wife. And Jones' first child isn't due until JULY!!!! So lets' move on shall we.

I think Jetta will come in and I don't think his inclusion creates any problems for the line-up considering he would have played last week with the aforementioned 6 other defenders, if not for gastro. To me that indicates that he is being used as a shut down player in general, not just in the defensive half. I think the fact that he was replaced by Toumpas supports this view. Chip should come in for Dawes, obviously, to give us that extra leading forward while Gawn provides the deep option again. I think Toumpas could come out, as he did some nice things, but didn't get enough of the ball for mine, and wasn't the defensive presence that Jetta provides. Give that defensive pressure is now our calling card, Jetta would have to come in. I think Salem needs to be given another full game. JKH's first full game wasn't great, but he built from there. I think Salem should be managed the same way. So for me, it's minimal change: In: Jetta/Frawley Out: Toumpas/Dawes (suspension)

It certainly was sad to hear the news about clark, although I admire his courage to give up on what has been and would have continued to be a very financially rewarding career to look after this health. Not to mention giving up a game that he no doubt loves. I also believe the club needs to be applauded for their handling of this situation. Despite the on-field performances, the management of this club, and particularly it's handling of this matter has rekindled a sense of pride in me about being a Melbourne member. Contrary to the way in which we handled the departure of players like Junior and Brad Green, in this instance the players welfare has been put first when it needed to be. It takes guts for a footy club to put aside the financial issues and just treat it's players as people. I'm very proud of the club for the way it's handled this, and certainly Josh Mahoney who basically put those journo's back in their place when they asked about the financial implications of Clarks retirement.

I can see us leap frogging St Kilda nextyear, staying ahead of GWS, maybe jumping ahead of Dogs/Lions but that's about it. So based on that, I see us finishing around 14th or 15th, but not much better. That's an optimistic take as well because I'm hoping like hell that Tyson is as good as his original draft position suggests, and that he can come straight in and have an impact. It's also based on the additions of Hogan and a healthy Clark giving us one of the most dangerous forward lines in the league. But, our mid's are still young and not as developed as some other teams, so it'll take time. The other club that could fall a bit next season is west coast. With all their retirements, I'm not sure they are as strong or deep in the midfield as they once were. There's cause for optimism, but only cautious optimism. If we get rid of the floggings, win a few more games, and show some potential for further improvement, then that will be progress enough.

Reports coming out that we've spoken to the Hawks about a trade for Shane Savage, who the Hawks will help facilitate a trade for. More info here: Hawks happy to help Savage search for new club I don't know much about him, but he seems that his been mainly a fringe 22 player due to the hawks midfield depth. With that said, he could be a good insertion into our midfield for maybe a 2nd round or 3rd round pick. Still just 22years old, and has kicked 5 goals in the VFL preliminary final I believe. So, could be a good cheap Sylvia replacement.

So you don't think four years of losing prior to Neeld, under Bailey, might have also influenced his decision to move given he hasn't experienced a successful season for over 6 years???

I've got no problem with Sylvia leaving. He's given 10 years to the club, and I put him down as just another player that we failed to develop to his best potential. He probably had his best season for us last season, so it's disappointing to see him leave, but when a guy has an opportunity to go to a club that just played in a grand final while he has only a few more years of football left, I don't begrudge him for taking it. He owes us nothing. It's his life, and his career so he can make the choices he wants to. This is why the players wanted free agency.

Why is it that when I first saw this I thought, it must be Neelds fault. I mean the departures of free agents last year was Neelds fault......wasn't it??

That would actually be a smart trade for GWS. They can then pick Boyd, who by all reports, is possibly better than Patton, then trade the other picks for established senior players. Dogs would also win big given there are few talls in this draft (their area of need), and they don't need any more young developing mids. I seriously hope that we don't send pick 2 to GWS in an Adams trade though. I'd rather we send them a combination of pick 20 + player for him, and do a straight swap of Pick 2 to GC for Swallow.

Moloney left via free agency and I've said it many times before, I don't really care that his gone given his reported attitude and selfishness. Rivers, from all reports the club knew he had some knee issues, so they obviously weren't going to spend a bucket load on him, and I'm not sure we really missed him given we still had Garland, Frawley, and McDonald as key backs. I could only assume he might have taken Dunn's spot in the backline, but even then, it looks like he would have missed more than half the season anyway. Gysberts for Pedersen - I'd actually say a small win for us given that Pedersen provided us with some necessary depth when players went down, though he didn't perform well. Also it's questionable whether Gysberts would have gotten a game for us this year ahead of Evans or Jones, Toumpas or Viney. Rodan replacing Morton - Morton would have contributed very little based on what he has shown. Rodan reportedly had a positive impact on the list in helping to lead the young players. I'll take the Rodan acquisition. Bennell - hard to know given he was coming back from a knee reconstruction, but figure he would have struggled to get a game this season. I think Dom Barry will provide what we wanted from Bennell. No real loss. Byrnes - I thought played reasonably well for most of the games, though it was again his impact on the training track that was required. Did not star for us, but I don't think that's why we brought him in. Cost us nothing, so not a bad move. Petterd - the only move which I kind of regret. I think the club should have tried exactly what Richmond did and move him back to the half back line, where he started his career. The question for me is would he have contributed more than Terlich or Clisby, and was the change in environment the thing that saw him improve? All in all the de-listings and other movements didn't really cause the club to lose much. Same would probably said about this years de-listings. We can't just hold onto players forever when they are fringe 22 and not showing that they will take the next step.

Fair enough, I can respect that view. It is just our perceptions that differ.