Slartibartfast

And you cared enough to respond!

Thanks, made me smile.

I agree they were an attractive club but they didn't "poach" them which is the word you used. With Hale we had pick 12 and 33 whilst Hawthorn trumped our 33 with 27. Hale was playing for the VFL for most of the year he was traded, there weren't too many others interested and we wouldn't use pick 12 on him. The benefits Hawks had is good list management. Poach they didn't.

Are you serious?

Let's hope Trengove can be added to that list.

Well they didn't really poach anyone did they. Gunston ND 24 Lake ND 41 Gibson ND 25 Burgoyne ND 9 Hale End first round comp pick. There is no question that their ladder position helped but they have also been prepared to put up good picks for players which not many clubs are prepared to do. They have managed their list superbly drafting good talent and then filling holes with trades where players in the main were either undervalued by many or they payed full tote odds. What's made it better is the value picks they've got along the way - Bruest ®, Guerra (psd), Puopolo (nd66), Savage (nd 77), Stratton (nd 46), Young (rd). The only free agent they got was Simpkin and he was available to everyone as he was a delisted FA. We could have had him with pick 88! Everyone with half a brain knows that Buddy was worth more than they got but FA compensation wasn't designed to be full compensation. I don't like Hawthorn much but I admire the way they've managed their list.

Thanks Machsy, couldn't have demonstrated it better.

"Played his most consistent footy under Neeld" - the stats don't support this. Had more disposals and kicked more goals under Bailey in less (very slightly) games and IMO had less impact. http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/C/Colin_Sylvia.html I can't be bothered looking at the Rodan and Pedersen "Welcome" threads from last year or the training reports but people were excited. You however are a good thinker and probably had it in perspective. I don't see you as "typical" Demonland. Moloney got 19 Brownlow votes under Bailey in his last year and won our B&F. Finished at Casey under Neeld. You clearly weren't and perhaps didn't see him rip us a new one in Brisbane this year. Made every other MFC mid look dumb including his best mate Jones. Finished 8th in their B&F playing only 16 games and on a games played basis probably finished in their top 3. But of course group think thinking says he was no good. Thankfully we don't need mids. Rivers - good enough to get into Geelongs finals defence. Why would we want him? Look I think Neeld did some good list management things. Hogan, Dawes and Clark are all good gets. I'm glad he was given free rein to do what he wanted last year because the results he produced with the players he wanted were owned by him. My point, however, was that when players leave Demonland discount, at times heavily, their contribution and when players are brought to the club are overrated before playing a game. Look at Tyson and his change of image since being acquired. Look at the hype around Toumpas and the outpouring of anger when he failed to live up to the hype.

You'll find that the groupthink of DL will dictate that players that leave are no good and players that come are stars. For example nobody is lamenting the loss of Rivers and Moloney last year whilst the same people were wetting themselves at the arrival of Pedersen and Rodan. The truth is Moloney would still be our best midfielder and Rivers is still a clear best 22 player although his injury situation is unclear. Having said that having competent people running the show helps and the optimism this year is well placed IMO. But perhaps I'm getting sucked in by the groupthink as well!

He could have delivered us a flag in 1994.

I was suggesting that Hawthorns statements were not hypocritical.It's actually spot on point.

And McKenzie.

I don't believe there is any inconsistency in Hawthorn complaining about the compensation they received for Buddy nor in their opposition to the PP and their belief in competition equalization. Whilst the majority of supporters will equate most things to draft picks and players others will focus on what differentiates clubs the most. It's not players but money. It's the ability to pay 100% of the salary cap, it's the ability to attract and afford top flight CEO's, Chairmen and coaches. It's the ability to develop the players on your list. In short it's the ability for the club to provided the appropriate infrastructure for its players to thrive. The AFL have provided millions of dollars to this club to save us. Nobody seriously objected. The AFL played a primary role in Peter Jackson becoming CEO of this club which in turn led to Paul Roos and George Stone joining. For the first time in many years we now appear to have an elite off field team, a change the opening poster riled against a little more than 6 months ago. I reckon that the impact of this elite off field team will have so much more "equalization" impact on our on field performance than a priority pick or unfair Buddy equalization. Further I've not heard Hawthorn or the other big clubs objecting to additional funding to weaker clubs to allow them to pay 100% of the salary cap which is probably the single biggest "equalization" issue facing us today particularly since the COL allowance will most likely be significantly amended or removed. What many here seem to overlook is the AFL is not a socialist organization where they hand out a flag to you every 18 years but a highly competitive environment where the good will thrive and the poor struggle. The AFL provide an infrastructure to allow all clubs to succeed and it is not their problem that over the years we have managed to shoot ourselves in the foot with inept management and leadership. Thankfully the AFL is socialist enough to catch the inept few that fall through the cracks as they have with us but it's time now for us to start thinking like a good club and roll with the punches rather than look for every little thing to whine about. Those that still complain about the PP really miss the point. We had as many high draft picks as any non development club in the last 6 years or so and we were a rabble notwithstanding. The opening post misses the point entirely and just perpetuates the "woe is us" attitude that thankfully Jackson and Roos have rejected.

Was he contracted? PSD may have impacted. If not I agree. Ridiculously low compensation. I like the Vince trade. He may play for 5 years. He will play for three and his benefit will be well beyond his games. Shame we still don't have Moloney. As a third or forth mid he'd go ok.

Do you trust the footy department to get it right?

And Roos is on record as saying draft picks are over rated and players are under rated. I reckon he'd be thrilled to pick up a good mid for two plus a top 10 pick. I don't know GWS list well enough but if we miss on an elite mid and get an A- mid plus pick 9 I think he'd do it in a heartbeat.

Fair enough. But I think Roos builds teams and doesn't build a team around stars and his history at Swans would support that. I've got no idea what Buntine or Bugg will be like, hell I've hardly seen them on TV because watching GWS is like watching MFC - not much fun. But if we do it I'll back Roos to know what he's doing and to know the players. Interesting Emma says we won't go for it and I imagine it's just an opening gambit. And again I've not seen any under age footy this year but from all accounts there isn't much difference between 2 and 10. Did I read that PA are after 2 and 20? What on earth have they got that would justify that? They aren't going to give us Boak. Edit: Just as an aside I understand it's very likely we would have taken Kennedy last year if Toumpas wasn't there. This came from two separate sources one inside the footy dept. He ended up going to Collingwood at circa 19. If we know that with pick 2 we will take a player who will most likely be there at 9 then whatever we got from GWS would be a bonus.

Hmmm..... Doubting Roos already. Interesting. And coming off such a good recent record.

Roos is not about diminishing the talent on our list. He won't trade Frawley this year under any circumstances. Frawley won't get to the club of his choice next year without a trade. We'd match any offer and either trade or force him into the draft.

1996 Stanton and Killean Vintage Port. Goes alright!

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-10-15/vince-lyons-on-melbourne-radar This may help. We're just talking.

Why do we seem confident about Lyons? I've heard nothing other than we're interested. No comment from him about wanting to leave or us as his preferred option. I could see him being involved in the Polek deal too. I rate him as more important than Michie because he's played more AFL footy and proven himself capable while Michie hasn't done that.

Now you're taking the pizz! Just think about what you just said and then ask yourself what you'd do if you were a players manager.

Mundy, Butler, Gilmore, Willits, Polo, T Murphy, Dempsey, Bower, Stanley, Grigg, Hislop, Urquahart, Ward, Notte, Maric A, Strauss, Swift, Ballantyne, Griffiths, Fyfe, Bastinac, Smith, Pitt, Lamb. They are the picks 19 - 21 from 2003 to 2010. Of the 24 picks I reckon there are 4 or 5 good players - Mundy, Ward, Fyfe, Bastinac. There are some ok players - Grigg, Ballantyne and Smith. If we trade pick 20 for Vince given our situation I'll be thinking we've done a sensible thing. If we get Lyon as well it will be robbery.

How do you know he got paid out? If his pay at Essendon is less than the contract at MFC the we will most likely just pay the difference. If it's more we won't pay anything. He's done the right thing in not just saying "I think I'll take a year off on full pay from MFC and have a holiday". The slights at Connolly and Craig regarding their payouts are petty. Firstly if we were silly enough to offer contracts that were inappropriate then that's our problem, not the person who receives the contract. Craig specifically had a number of offers when he left Adelaide. Why should he be disadvantaged? And secondly the AFL is funding it all. That's what the money they are giving us is for so it's not actually costing us anything.