Ouch!

Sheesh this is starting to make me look like I don't like Balic, and I've never seen him play!!! Again your comment is not true. Balic may develop a stronger work ethic, he might try harder, he may tackle more than Watts by the end of his career, but trying to compare these players just serves no purpose. Why would someone even want to compare both of these players, different styles, positions, age etc... Balic has played how many games? why would anyone think it worthwhile comparing to Jack Watts except to bash Jack on this board? Using your logic Haydn Crozier will be better than Jake Stringer, why even bother making the comment in the first place? Lets just welcome the player to the list, rather than comparing him to players who aren't on this list anymore!

Normally I quote, but given that it attracts the person that you are quoting back to the thread, I didn't really want to bother!

Huh? read the context of my thread. I wish Balic the best, and us getting him for pick 66 is a good trade for us. But he's going to have to push himself very hard to make the 22, hope he and all our players are putting in every effort to fight to get into the 22, but at this point he has been recruited for midfield depth. My post referred to the stupid 'Will be better than Watts' comment above mine.

.... please stop with the crap! he's a fringe player at the team that was in the bottom 4. Balic is untried, and has been bought into the team for Depth. No need to compare him with Watts, stupid comment to make!

Just remember Nth had an offer in front of Kelly and Martin rumoured to be 1mil-1.2mil over 5+ years.

He won't be involved in anything at Collingwood until after this trade period. Guy has already said Lever is at the MFC. Not too much to worry about.

I'd advise you not to look in the Jack Watts thread....

I thought the Geelong model was no one earns more than the Captain??

Jade Rawlings, Nick Stevens, Luke Ball (.... almost) Lever can say he wants Melbourne all he likes, until the point that it breaks down and he heads to the draft. If it falls through and he goes to the draft, other clubs only have to match his asking price. Nth Melbourne and the Saints would be able to easily cover Levers asking price. Saints don't need his type, so might be fine, but Nth need to plug a huge number of holes everywhere on their list. Collingwood would not be too far off getting him and have a pick too and a need for his type as well. Going to the draft is a very big risk for Lever and the MFC and Adelaide get nothing. Doesn't work for any party!

In terms of the threat of Lever going into the draft, lets not forget that Nth hold pick 3, and have stupid amounts of money that they were using to try and get Martin and Kelly. They are not a destination club, but they can certainly match our financial offer to Lever if the draft is the way it heads...

Fair question. Again, I think he can play small and tall defender at a pinch he plays a third tall. Admittedly I am probably thinking about him at his best which is behind him... that said I still see value keeping him on this list, and not as a delist and wipe contract.

Nah, respectfully disagree on the versatility. I think Garland still has versatility at his best (which we still need to assess) pretty certain. Vince can play the lock down role, but isn't really a midfield option any more. I don't expect either to be lock for the 22, but with a list size of 38-40 and then rookies on top I'd still prefer with our list demographic having some veteran players like Garland and Vince than an untried rookie.

I don't have a problem with Garland remaining on the list. How different is it to Bernie Vince and his one year contract. Both would have been told that there are no guarantees of seniors, and why not set them both the task of 'development roles' with our younger players at Casey. If they get games due to form or injury, then good on them! That's what depth on your list is all about. As to the argument of him taking a rookie's spot, Meh! Rookie picks are speculative at best, we know what we get with Garland, Vince... as we did with Trengove this year. I'm very comfortable having a couple of veteran players. If we need a place for a senior listed player (either via trade period or wanting to take a set number of players in the draft) and they negotiate an outcome for both parties that is mutually beneficial then great, but that would probably be unlikely as we will trade out some players as well...

I think I'll be disappointed if we have to part ways with Watts or Salem if it is only part of trying to secure Lever, however if the MFC has greater plans and are trying to secure some other players, Gaff or ... whoever it is @ Geelong that people are speculating on, and in order to do that we need to release some of talent on our list then I might be up for that. It will be about the sum of the gains / losses

Don't agree,... completely I think Kent, Spencer, JKH, etc .... they all have some 'currency', others such as Kennedy perhaps not as much. I still think that Trenners could get a place @ another club,... but thats just a left field guess!

I'm just chuffed to have you respond to my post ET haha!

Was purely putting out there as a hypothetical, I think Tom is a better player (due to age and experience now) than perhaps Lever is currently, but Lever has the upside in the long run. I guess it depends on whether our window is still 1-2 years away and Adelaide is firmly there now.... However if we managed for instance to effect a trade... lets say TMac for Lever, with some loose change exchanging hands. Allowing us to keep a first round pick to target someone else... knowing that Adelaide is potentially more open to the idea with Lever and possibly McGovern leaving... the currency for a swingman like TMac is more desirable, and we might get better value in the trade. I was being mischievous and I am tired of seeing posts where we are trying to 'lure' a quality player away from other clubs for what amounts to peanuts. We will have to give up something good to get Lever. Look at the Hibberd trade, how many people screamed about giving up what was it a second round pick? We clearly won out on that trade!

Thanks for the clarification on the 1st rounders, I know I will get shot down for such a thought, given how he has performed this year, but is Tom McDonald an untouchable in our team?

If the talk is that the difference in salaries between what Vic clubs would offer and what the crows have on the table is around $300k, then it stands to reason that the offers in front of Lever are around $800k - $900k which would make him one of our highest paid players on our list. Just a couple of thoughts,.... doesn't the MFC have to use a first round pick this year? We might have to work with some of the currency that we have on our list, which possibly at the moment would be players like ANB, Kent, JKH, Stretch, Frost, Spencer and possibly Trengove. I have no idea what Adelaide needs, apart from a mid that can help chop out and help Sloane some more. If they lose McGovern and Lever, they would want a tall also... Given that it is reported to be a deep and even draft, a player that can slot into their side immediately, a pick upgrade or two and a 1st rounder of some form should be enough...

Just confirming this is referring to players in the backline? because in terms of top draft picks, and players who should be 'elite' I find it hard to swallow that we don't have enough elite players...?

A lot of people confusing end of year delistings, with player trades. Spencil for example, I can't see any way he would be delisted, but I can see him leaving to seek opportunities elsewhere, or being traded.

.... can we start the footy season again? I didn't think I'd say it, but I am questioning why we even play test cricket, the players all say it's the epitome of the game, and the purest version of the game, but they get paid more to be playing for franchises, it's less stressful on their bodies, and it's a bigger and better spectacle for the crowds. surely those facts alone suggest that test cricket is dead... I have almost 0% interest in it these days.

Tend to agree, and what else it provides is depth. I don't recall to many times in the last 5-6 years where we can say that we had 3-5 players that could be considered unlucky not to get a game for the seniors. This year ANB, Grimes and latter in the year Trengove... possibly Michie, White, Newton, Garland, Dunn and the like that were getting games although NOT knocking the door down to be selected who can't get a game now even when in form. I see the role that Hibberd can play, Melksham too, but we are accumulating a lot of half back flankers that can run and take on the game. In the past though, we haven't had a lot that delivered the ball well...

Hi Sue, You are correct, my words were trying to infer intent of the players to do something illegal from the outset. I suspect that the players knew things would have been 'right on the edge' they were asked to buy in as a group to the program and to keep it to themselves. But at this point .... if the players were told to keep things from the doctors of the clubs, how this DIDN"T raise alarm bells with any players, or how any of the coaching staff didn't get wind of this is astounding. Further on from this when ASADA began to investigate, the players withholding information could have been as much to do with fear (still not a valid excuse) as much as anything. Bottom line if they don't think they did anything wrong with the program and didn't think it was illegal, why wouldn't you tell ASADA in the regular tests etc in regards to supplements, it doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of this does.

Well Said Fifty-5, My take on this whole thing.. Essendon, at the end of 2011 wanted to be stronger and fitter and wanted a program that in a highly competitive competition that was cutting edge and gave them an advantage over other teams. They got it horribly wrong, and the players unwittingly or not got caught up in it. Fact of the matter is that players are responsible for what goes into their bodies and regardless of the idea of 'team mentality'/peer pressure. I feel sorry for the players (and their families) because I don't believe any of them 'intentionally' wanted to be taking enhancing drugs and to work outside of the drugs code. But not asking questions is not an excuse either. The penalty is harsh, but fair. I just wish the AFL and Essendon had approached this whole thing in a better way than the arrogance stance that saw them try to control the situation and contrive an outcome which spun out of their control, and caused this wreck. In terms of players coming back, they have their penalty, they serve it, and then they should be free to being able to play again, I would like a bit more humility or contrition as Fifty-5 has said, but that might come with time. I also think some people read too much into the drug cheat label also... If these players are serious about wanting to play and move past this, you would think that they would be prime candidates for assisting with drug and education programs in sport/schools etc.. Plenty of people have stuffed up their lives in one form or another, it's how you learn from the mistakes that defines you and makes you better. These players do deserve that opportunity equally as much as they deserve the punishment that's in front of them currently.