deejammin'

If this gets done we get Dawes and Pederson for Ricky and 20 and I can exhale and enjoy the rest of the trade period.

Are we drafting Mick Martin or Scott Cummins?

The fact we won't give it to them, if the Doggies bid pick 5 or 6 they will get him as we won't give away 4 for Dawes alone. We know where our tipping point is, but the fact is if the Doggies think he is worth 6, that is his market value and no amount of thinking he is worth a 3rd rounder will change it.

Market value is determined by what other clubs are willing to pay, not some absolute value that a player is worth. We would know where our stopping point is, but the fact is the Bullies are willing to use pick 21 and a late one; this is Dawes' current 'market' value and we have to match it if we want him. I personally think that Dawes is worth the pick 20 and that it is a fair deal. Lets not forget two years ago his market value was our pick 12 and that was our highest pick! This year we have 3 top 5 draft picks coming into our club over the next 2 years, pick 20 is far more expendable, and others are bidding similar amounts.

For those that are concerned that Clark, Dawes, Pederson would make our list too top heavy compare it to the current premiers KPF stocks: Sam Reid, Adam Goodes(Played as KPF many times during the season), Mike Pyke (Ruck/Forward), Shane Mumford (Ruck/Forward), LRT, Tommy Walsh, Jesse White, Matt Spangher and they still want Kurt Tippett. Compare this to ours: Mitch Clark, Mark Jamar (Ruck/Forward), Stef Martin (Ruck/Foward), Lucas Cook, Jack Fitzpatrick, Colin Garland (?), Jared Rivers (?), James Sellar, Jack Watts. Compared to the Swans we have a versatile player who may fill role like Goodes, LRT in Watts and our two Ruck/Forwards are nowhere near as strong in their forward role. Cook, Fitzy are still not regular AFL players, Sellar, Garland and Rivers are far better as defenders. In fact of this list only Mitch Clark is a proven forward. I think there is plenty of room for 3 more KPF over the next 2 years even if they end up depth like Spangher and White.

Wasn't suggesting we roll over, but rather that Dawes could have huge upside for the Demons and that our midfield will be improved signficantly next year by this draft and our current players regardless of pick 20. I trust Harrington to get the right deal done, he's nailed this trade period thus far.

I am amazed at the way some of our supporters are so willing to talk trash about a Premiership KPF who is 24, has played more finals than almost every player on our list, has a professional attitude, a great training reigimen and tremendous upside. Dawes would be an excellent pickup for Melbourne. I think that Neeld sees tremendous upside in our young mids. If Trengove, Grimes, Sylvia, Mckensie, Jones, Viney, Pick 4, Taggert, Ray?, Blease all play throughout the season we may well have a better midfield than many expect. Also Davey, Byrnes, Tapscott, Bail, Magner and Couch could play in there also if their form warrants it. Our midfield is bad compared to top teams, but not as dire as it was last year. Also the Draft is a lottery, its a risk, even though pick 20 has value a lot of it depends what the 19 picks before us end up being. Even then we have to develop the player, trust that they will have good luck with injuries and be able to handle a first year training load well enough to make the AFL team. In our current situation a proven player like Dawes is a solid preposition and we will still gain at least 3, possibly 4 with Ray, quality mids in this draft, before even talking about later picks and rookies (where we have done our best work the last few years). Edit: Forgot Barry

I actually think that this is a great sign for Neeld. If all the potential trades go through and Dawes, Pederson, Viney, Pick 4, Ray and Byrnes run out for the red and blue there will be very few excuses for the type of performance we saw this year. Bailey constantly had his recruiting team go it about it in a way that gave him a youth and inexperience excuse, we need KPF, we draft Watts and Cook and preach patience. We need mids, diddo Scully et al. Neeld took a year to give the whole list a chance to prove why they should stay. Now he's sorting the wheat from the chaff and will stand by his results. Its a brave approach, its a daring approach, but overall I think its a hugely positive move for a club that has been playing it so safe for so long. As for standards, he has doubled the FD, increased training loads, attracted one of the best fitness guys going around in David Misson who has put the club through the hardest pre-season in memory and set clear goals for every player that must be reached, no excuses. Has refused to play players on reputation and has dropped several who would not have been dropped under Bailey, providing positive results for Watts, Blease and a few others, and sorting out which of our players were total sooks for those that couldn't handle it. He hasn't told us as supporters that success is just going to happen on the back of good draft picks, he has basically attacked everything that came before him in terms of elite performance in all facets of the club and he is putting himself in a position where he has backed himself completely and will live or die by it very early in his coaching tenure, rather than trying to preach in a way that keeps his job. He has also taken the most agressive approach to a trade period that our club has taken in a very long time in response to poor performance this year. Pretty good if you ask me. Lets see if it works before we bag him out.

I think that alot of D'landers are neglecting Viney's true value, should we take a mid with pick 4 (and GWS take Grundy) we have 2 of the best 4 midfielders in this draft as well as Barry (ranked a potential 30s pick), add to that Taggert who is effectively a new mid having missed last season and you have 4 highly rated young new midfielders coming in to our midfield. Add to that Dawes and Pederson who will bolster our forwardline (whilst simultaneously bolstering our backline by allowing Garland, Watts, McDonald, Riv?, to remain KPD). They will also aid the development of our young potential superstar in Hogan and Byrnes will fill a role that this year was a clear void in our playing list (might even rejuvenate Davey having another small forward around). And I think that in the first week of the trade period we have filled (to the extent we can) almost all vacancies on our list, obviously an experienced midfielder (I still think Wellingham would have been great but you can't win them all), would be amazing, but it still may happen, Farren Ray would be icing on the cake. Dawes is a great pickup, he is an experienced KPP coming into what is meant to be the prime of his footy career (25-28) he has played in a Premiership, proven that when in good form is a 50+ goalkicker and pack busting machine. He has been out of form this year, but I think that between Nathan Buckley's new style (it could be they don't get along, lets face it Nathan is notorious for this), being forced to play the ruck role which he isn't good at, Cloke's bad form putting extra pressure on him and the fact that his confidence has been low there are plenty of reasons to assume this is an anomaly. I suspect that coming to a new club with two coaches he knows well and gets along with combined with getting to play his favoured role could see a Mitch Clark like spike in form. Not only that but he could be another 7 year player for the dees, we may well could have a Clark, Dawes duo for almost a decade. Also, should the Dawes deal turn out to fail we still have options to replace him (Hogan and Pederson) so he will still have to earn games. Well done Mr Neeld.

YEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS! Viney with 26, awesome, Rivers may stay, awesome! This is one of the best days being a demons supporter recently, a little sad, but great nonetheless!!!!!!!!!! If any deal was done Melbourne could easily deny it, after all what can GC do? Its outside the laws of the game if they did a deal, so there's no way they could claim it if Melbourne denied it. No-one would have been dumb enough to sign anything, so, it never happened, give GC nothing. Too risky for both clubs, either it didn't happen, or one or both clubs will claim it didn't happen, or nothing will come of it.

Luke Darcy using the phrase "for mine" at the beginning, middle and end of almost every statement. Eg. 'For mine Melbourne are not skilled enough to beat Essendon, they lack pace for mine, and the just won't win, for mine"

I am sorry that you find my argument so unclear. But in regards to what you are saying there are multiple examples within society of many people buying into things that may or may not exist, obviously religious examples could be given, examples of cult or guru mentality, scientology, etc. I think there are many examples of all these people buying into something that may or may not exist and arguing for it as a reason for almost everything. In regards to football reporting look at the difference between the way Mitch Clark and Kurt Tippetts (potential) trades have been described. Mitch Clark was descibed as money hungry, no one even remotely argued he would be coming to MFC for the culture, to represent the oldest team and bring it back to former glory, etc. He was coming to Melbourne for more money and security for his GF. Kurt Tippett however, is going to Sydney, "for the culture" in the words of his manager "who wouldn't want to go to Sydney right now". The money has been sited far less as the key reason. Through my eyes both circumstances seem very similar, both are going primarily for the money and the security, for the potential success and because it was the best option to move to at the time. It seem the media is buying in to the swans culture as the reason, but is it nescessarily the truth?

As you don't want me to reply, as you say in the last two paragraphs, I won't, but: Here is me replying to Gonzo which you insinuate I didn't. Oh, and I know what puerile means, clearly calling my arguments boyish and unpracticed is meant, at least at base level to be insulting. I also understand tone, and your tone towards me in this thread has been condecending and patronising, perhaps you will give me the latin meanings of these. Also I shouldn't have used the word idiot, you are right. But I make no apologies for attacking the integrity of a player who regularly punched other players on the field, I have met Barry Hall and as I said, have found him to be a nice bloke off the field. Thats all, you made it clear you want no more of my input, so thats it from me in this thread. I would have thought that there would be room for people who's opinions contradict those of others on a public forum, and if as you say my argument is so unpracticed and boyish I wouldn't have thought it would do you any harm to set me right. Also I feel I have tried to engage everyone I have spoken to directly in a friendly manner. I certainly don't want to attack my fellow demons supporters. I would have more to say on the subject of your description of culture (which to me seems split into many parts and facets and then coalesced into a whole in a largely solipsitic argument), but given your desire for me to leave this thread for you and others to debate how the demons acheive your version of "culture" I will leave you to it.

I would argue that it is too intangible to be A reason for sucess and that if it can be argued this way its influence would either be too obtuse to quantify or infantesimally small. Yet many in the media, on this board, in the football public speak about said culture as if it is the be all and end all, that is the very attitude I am arguing against. Also I think it is so unique it cannot be replicated so it bears little to no relation to our club.

Great post, ultimately I agree with your conclusion that it is a myth the players buy into and stick with what I have said above. In fact the only eason you seem to think you are arguing with me is because you have completely misread my opinion. i disagree on Barry Hall however (it is my belief that he would have been out the door after the 05 prelim if culture came before needing to have a good power forward), and I also like what Ben H has said about players buying in, it is incredibly important and obviously having players buy into some sort of myth helps with this process. But I didn't equate swans culture with success, this has been the media, many on this board, Paul Roos' etc argument from the beginning of the year and remains many people's explanation for why the swans are such a good team. In fact the idea culture has anything to do with success is the argument I have been refuting since the beginning of this thread. I have no doubt that this culture feels great for the club and people involved but, as you said, I see equating culture with any sort of success as reductive in the same way lack of culture can't blamed for lack of success. In fact the equation you called puerile is not mine at all, it is the very equation I have been arguing against, I never stated I thought culture didn't exist, I said it had nothing to do with success! I said in arguments above that those that are positing 'culture' as the reason for success are the ones who are being, in your words, "simpleminded". But hey, misrepresent my argument and litter your post with personal attacks, good on you! As for Bloods culture, yet again, I am sure the players did do it for their long suffering supporters and that the Bloods culture is about solidarity with their faithful. But this has nothing to do with results, as I have said before and you seem to have agreed with. The reason I used the Bloods results from the VFL era was to refute the idea that somehow in reigniting this culture the swans found the magical secret to success, not to argue that there was no long standing desire to make up for the lack of success in the clubs past. I have no doubt that when our club lifts a cup they will declare it was for us, yet our support from year to year apart from keeping the club going doesn't have a direct line to results. If you want my equation how about reading between the lines in my posts rather than accusing me of opinions I do not hold and never stated: Culture = intangible concept unique to each club that has nothing to do with success, yet is sited by said club as reason for success as they like to justify it this way. Those that associate said culture with results = idiots buying into a concept that in this context becomes a myth or smokescreen for the real reasons behind the success. This has always been my argument. If you want to engage in dialogue in future how about keeping insults like simpleton and puerile to yourself.

If.....and I know this is a big if...... Tippett attempts to get to the Swans through the PSD like Ball then someone must pick him up before them. The fact Ball was able to rort the system like he did has set a dangerous precendent where players seem to think they can nominate where they want to go, hold their own and other interested clubs to ransom by threatening not to play etc and get what they want. Someone needed to take Ball even if he sat out 2 years, that draft rorting could have won the pies a flag and has made trading very difficult for the players original club.

I am sure everyone on this board is sick of me talking about this, so unless I am asked direct questions on this topic I willl stop saturating this board with my opinion and go back to using it for info on our team etc. I like this board as it gives me a way to talk to my fellow dees supporters and I would rather discuss our club and get excited/not for next season with you all than keep talking about this however: So far I have heard that the swans culture (which I think has reached mythical proportions, not in the sense that it doesn't exist but in the sense it is talking about in hushed tones as the reason the swans are so good) boils down to: Leadership groups setting standards: It is my belief all clubs do this, the swans weren't the first to do it, they didn't have any more strenuous standards than alot of sucessful clubs and clubs with very little sucess have layed out similar standards for their players. All modern clubs have leadership groups setting standards and across the league these tend to be very similar. Also many teams with terrible off field cultures (Eagles circa 2005-6 is the most poignant example) have enjoyed sucess completely independant of their 'culture'. No dhead policy: First of all Barry Hall almost got himself put out of a GF with one of the most undisciplined acts of all time in the 2005 Prelim. It is my belief he should have got weeks and would have if not for the romantic notions of the Tribunal at the time. He may be a nice bloke off-field but onfield he was a colossal dhead punching players, head high bumping well outside the rules, breaking cheekbones behind the play and getting himself suspended so often it hurt the team. He was kept around in spite of this policy as long as he was playing well enough and until the swans literally had no choice after he seemed to have actually gone insane. Several other players at the swans have entered the club with bad reputations so I hardly think this policy exists. Maybe the swans like to think that they are all great blokes and coined this policy to make themselves sound really good, this smacks of being a bunch of arrogant dheads to me. Traditions of the bloods: The Bloods were one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history it makes no sense that their culture would all of a sudden be more sucessful than any other club. The unique feel of a club as determined by location, people within the club and the relative sucess of the club in a given era: This is the version of culture I give creedence too, of course this exists and of course when a club is sucessful they like to site this as the fact is hard training, good coaching, good recruiting, certain advantages (salary cap, home ground, being out of media spotlight) are far less glamourous sounding as a reason. The fact is that all clubs have this and the factors I have just mentioned have far more to do with sucess than this version of culture, I would say this is such an intangible indirect concept that it can not be seen as a factor in determining results. There's what I have come to in this thread.

Surely you admit HT that leadership groups at all clubs set high standards and that many in the comp at the same time as Sydney had almost identical standards but were not as sucessful due to multiple football related factors that had little to do with culture. Also it still strikes me as curious that Sydney's main competition during its 2005-06 period was a team with an infamously terrible drug culture and yet they still came away 1-1. If its about leadership groups setting high standards why did they not have it over a coked up WC team every time?

In this case I was purposefully being obtuse, however I gave the Goodes example to show you that Sydney don't stick to steadfast rules which contrast to other clubs, they have played out of form players several times and had the faith that they would come good when it counted, fortunately for them they came good, unfortunately for us the opposite has happened many times.

Three things; 1. To those saying that the cap doesn't make a difference the results show 5 of the past 12 Flags won by teams with extra cap, also bear in mind that both these teams played in extra GF's so thats 7 of the past 12 years a team with extra cap has made the GF. Considering how hard it is to get to a Grand final and how infrequently clear lines can be drawn between grand final teams this pretty damning in my opinion. (throw in our GF in 2000 and Carltons Premiership and it becomes increasingly obvious how salary cap can influence results, maybe have a talk to Melbourne Storm if you still think its irrelevant). 2. The cost of living between cities also depends on the pay bracket you exist in. In the property market there may be a large difference in what you can get for 300-400k but very little difference over that, etc. Also there may be a difference in groceries at Coles but not at higher cost farmer's markets etc. It is a very difficult thing to prove. In general at the moment Melbourne and Sydney are very close and it is possible to live well in both cities for around the same cost, certainly 23k a year is exorbitant. 3. How heavily do the AFL follow this/ police it. If they are looking at all first year contracts and rookie listings and making sure this extra allowance is paid as a percentage across every contract then it is almost fair. However if Sydney can implement it however they want then they may just pay their list the same as everywhere else and use the extra money to lure players / take risks on NQR recycled players, which is clearly a completely unfair advantage.

I think your constant quoting of Military History and Polish political movements in relation to football borders on offensive. No offense meant to you personally, we are both demon supporters and I like alot of your contribution to this board, ultimately I am sure we want the same things for our team. However, we are on a forum about a sport, not life and death struggles or political activism and I think comparing the two actually belittles the significance of the latter. Footballers are not fighting for freedom, or giving their lives up for ideals, they are not activists fighting for an ideal they believe is bigger than them, they are entertainers paid to play a game people like to watch. That is all. Stuart Maxfield was not an activist, and I understand your point, in so much as you mean one seemingly inconsequential person can make a difference. However Football and activism are quite different, activists inspire with integrity, intellegence, empathy, cultural awareness, dedication and an ability to inspire and endure despite all odds. Footballers, as much as they may possess these qualities, play a game that has nothing to do with ones character and a lot to do with being good at being a member of a team in order to get a footy through some big sticks. Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett Snr, Barry Hall and Ben Cousins are all the kinds of people that have done things so far removed from the integrity of your Polish friend that they don't deserve to be mentioned on the same board, yet they are all successful legends of AFL, why? Cause sport is more about fitness, training, skill, teamwork and gameplan than integrity, culture and intelligence.

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history.... I would put more credence into Roo's implementation of the flood and congestion heavy football to suit the SCG, Misson and co's fitness regime, a home ground advantage, being away from the media spotlight, drafting recycled players to complement younger draft picks, a extended salary cap over the rest of the competition and a bit of luck.

Umm, Barry Hall says hi, also Rhys Shaw hasn't always had the best reputation....

I agree, I think Dunn and Watts would be playing through there, although structurally it looked weird if I wrote it that way. Also yes, I am aware Riv may not be there, I was thinking best case scenario, also Bartram still seems iffy to play again with his knee. I definately think good kicking running backmen need to be a priority, maybe this lineup if riv goes?: Nicholson, Frawley, Garland Watts, McDonald, Tappscott/Strauss

Bartram, Frawley, McDonald Garland, Rivers, Nicholson Watts, Grimes, Wellingham Blease, Dawes, Sylvia Davey, Clark, Byrnes Jamar, Jones, Trengove Int: Mckensie, Howe, Bail, Sub:Dunn Not bad I reckon. Medium/small running backline players would be good, also the backline would have Watts in it and be shuffled if we lose Riv. Could have Howe on a Wing or HF, but with Wellingham in the mix our spread and variety of mid-fielders is looking a lot better. Inside: Trenners, Jones, Grimes, Mckensie(tag), Bail (tag) Outside: Wellingham, Blease, Sylvia, Davey?, Byrnes?, Watts?. Also if Davey can get himself right he and Byrnes would be good small forwards.