JiveTurkey

Tom Rockliff is a free agent as of the end of next year (2017)........... perhaps a realisation we didn't have the currency this year may not preclude an interest that we could look to fulfill next year.

Potential Trades ey... Just my thoughts on a (IMO) beneficial and achievable trade that I would love to happen. Pick 3 to Sydney in return for Mitchell, Reid and a whole lot of Salary cap relief!

Avid reader seldom poster here... Been reading along on the trade speculation (wont buy in to much being more than that at this stage, but fingers crossed) and felt a periodically mustered urge to weigh into conversation. Just a collection of my opinions really no insider news at all and maybe not the most appropriate spot but I suppose it does somewhat concern Dylan. It seems to me that at this stage pick 2 will be remaining with us, like me I am almost certain the club wont trade it for anything short of a guaranteed 20-24 yr old midfield star in the making, and to be honest I would be amazed if any other club would let a player like that go (mine included I hope in future circumstance). It just doesn't happen. I wouldn't trade Jimmy Toump for pick 1 this year even though I'm happy to admit, if not condemn him for the fact, that he was a little underwhelming this year. This means this kind of trade despite not being limited to it, is almost certainly only going to happen with an uncontracted player, or at least a player who is grossly unhappy. To my knowledge none of our purposed targets meet this requirement. So where am I going.... Well the though obviously occurred to me that some of them will in fact be out of contract next year or indeed the year after. Perhaps this whole episode is a somewhat elaborate ruse to put the idea of the generous contract they could be earning at Melbourne in their heads early, have our interest made clear to players that fit our criteria. Like many I am sure hopeful that our performance will improve next year, and we all know the perception of an improving club with 5 or 6 wins is better than a sliding club that may even have scraped into the 8 with 11 or 12 wins (for whatever reason). Could we be getting a sneak peek at what the MFC is hoping to pull of next year? A slightly more useable draft pick around the 4, 5 ,6 mark being offered for a now out of contract young gun like Dylan Shiel? Or indeed one of the other slated targets whom's contract status I will happily admit I'm hazy on.... Or mayhaps this scenario will be put to stubborn clubs like GWS this year to urge them to action. Something along the lines of "Hey guys you know he is going to be super keen to come here for way too much money after we string together a few wins under the super coach, and next year there is no way we have pick 2 to give ya.... soooo come on, trade with us.. please..." Ahh feels so much better to get these conspiracy theories out of my head, they argue to much in there.

Ive tried to crystalise my thoughts on the whole Viney situation for my own benefit and feel compelled to share. I beleive it is nonsense to think we can bluff our way into a position where other clubs wont bid on Viney because they are unsure we will opt to take him at the next pick, rightly or wrongly that horse has bolted. That doesnt mean the club shouldnt try to create doubt i just dont think it will work. However there is no great benefit for themselves to anyone who has a pick before us to bid for viney, maybe one extra player to pick from for their second pick (20+). The real benefit is for clubs immdiently above us on the ladder. So my opinion is GWS and GCS if they are the only clubs below us will bid for VIney unless we can offer them greater benefits. As such pick 3 in this case is gone in terms of selecting a player from the draft for ourselves (eg = no benefit to GWS or GCS) But we can benefit ourselves and GWS and GCS by trading this pick (3) in a three way trade with those clubs, seeing as how it would be used on viney in any case. It would have to be arranged before draft day and agreed to in principle but i cant see how it wouldnt happen as it offers greater benefit to GCS and GWS. Plus it suits what people have been begging for in a more mature player with some years in the system, and now it looks like it matches the GCS need to shed a few players from its list. My thinking is something along these lines. Trade pick 3 to GWS GWS U17 pick 1 to GCS and player from GCS to Melb Someone like a caddy who has been spoken about, or a prestia. It may be a slightly high price on the market for the GCS player but i would hope they would be a better (maybe i should say more likely) prospect than the kid taken at pick 20 something this year. Plus they are ready to go with lots of time left in there career. And its a great deal for GCS and GWS.. certainly more than they would get just by bidding for Viney. It doesnt just have to be a deal for nothing we can get something great out of it too. Certainly more likely than offering them steak knives not to bid. Anyway hope it makes some sense. Cheers

Been reading this topic a bit and i dont often feel compelled to post, but did so today. I dont have any concerns at all that the action taken by the club will be anything other than making the best of the situation they possibly can. Provided we finish as low as people are speculating (which personally i dont agree with) the possibility of having to use a very low pick (3 or 4 etc) was always going to be likely, much like the bulldogs using pick 14, from memory, on Ayce Cordy which may have been slightly overs, with more than one club with a lower pick bidding for him. If a player (father/son) is rated to be around a certain bracket than clubs have already shown they are more than happy to make a bid knowing full well that a club will be highly inclined to pick that player up anyway. So the concept of getting Jack as a second round pick if he is rated only slightly below our first pick is flawed IMO even if we hadnt taken the oppurtunity to get this extra development time into him. Secondly there may be an opportunity to benefit from the scenario being played out so far, even without using methods the AFL may deem draft tampering. Obviously trades cant happen before the trade period but they can be agreed upon in principle. So what if Melbourne, assuming a 3rd last finish as many are, organise a trade to be completed with GWS and GC in the trade period, involving ou pick 3. Surely GWS and GC would then not bid pick 1 or 2 which proceeds to tie up the our pick that was to be used in the agreed upon trade. It would only be harming their own clubs, after all the benefit for us using a higher pick on Viney isnt to GWS and GC. Perhaps as an example something like this. Melbourne trades Pick 3 to GC GC trades Josh Caddy to Melb GWS trades U'17 mini draft pick 1 to GC GC trades pick 3 to GWS All speculation until years end but I feel people are drawing overly pessimistic conclusions, probably based on our current bleak feeling as the team struggles a bit, and that no matter the circumstances there is benefit to be had for the MFC. End Rant, Cheers

Hi there people, to start with a cliche long time reader first time poster. I've never before particularly felt the need to post on these forum site's as my opinion is generally well covered within a collection of other posts made but this topic really annoyed me. I also thought it was great inititive by Davey to take it upon himself to slow things down. I wonder how many posters actually play football or did so recently enough to remember how its done. 'Tempo Footy' which is just a buzz word used to name something that has probably always happened, for at least as long as i can remember anyway, is absolutely necessary. Unless you are playing a team that is completely inferior the momentum of games will always swing back and forth. Just as its important to capatilise on your chances when up and about it is just as crucial to limit the opposition when they are playing well. The best way to do this is and i suspect always has been to control possesion and to play tight when not in posession. I think the end of the 2nd quarter was smart, effective footy. And the 3rd started similarly. It was our inability to do just those things (control the footy and play tight marking roles) that meant we couldnt squash the hawks momentum in the 3rd. It took the 3 quarter time siren to do that. So it isnt the idea that was off as far as im concerned but rather the execution. Had we be able to perform this 'tempo footy' better in the 3rd the game may not have been iced at the 3/4 siren. And before you claim that we dont have the ability to do this and therefore shouldnt i agree completely with an earlier post that we must learn how to do it properly and soon, because it is cruical to our future triumphs. I may only play in a lowly country victorian league but i can guarentee you we seek to do exactly the same thing. When the opposition gets a couple of goals you lock down on them, kill their momentum, then reset and go again yourself. Just my opinion maybe but I felt the need to come to aaron's defence.