Carrot Top

Nothing to add here. I just quoted it so it can get some more love.

What? You don't think there is more to come? This was about getting rid of those under contract that were not seen as part of the future. The ones OOC come next.

It's not about being nice. It's about getting rid of contracted players without having to pay them out. We need the space and we didn't need them.

I wish somebody would pay me money to randomly assign letters to things.

My guess is that it'll be as a goal sneak specialist sub. Hit 'em fresh, jag a couple, screw the defensive side unless it happens by accident.

Give 100% 100% of the time or @#$% off. Have you got a better message you'd like to send?

Odd hoax, this one. Maybe we need a hoax about Cotchin coming over to us.

Hmmm. Maybe we need someone around the club that is good at gruntling players. Or should that be adding gruntle? What is gruntle anyway?

Not your greatest moment either. I guess you don't actually watch many games.

Hmmm. I hate the culture of near enough is good enough that the club lived and breathed since Northey left. We just ruin players. Our list of what ifs, what could have beens and 'geez he looked alright in his first year or two' players would make a strong man weep. How can you hate players that haven't been taught properly and who are surrounded by other blokes that have learnt the same bad habits?

I was one. Didn't rate Clark at all, and was only happy because we'd convinced someone - anyone - to come to the club. I was chowing down on humble pie much, much earlier than round 10 too. If Neeld and co think a player is a good fit for us, and reckon that paying x pick for them is value, then I'm supporting it. They have a plan (heh. a real one. it's been a while fellas. it's been a long while) and they have the drive to carry it out. Maybe it'll work and maybe it won't but at least we won't die wondering, and that's good enough for me because right now trying and failing is much preferable to watching the world go by while we wait for a miracle..

Saves one delist and having another play in the ressies all year. I'd be pretty happy with that.

Cart before the horse IMO. That's not to say that I'm not impressed with the way he is going about building the sort of team that he thinks he needs to be successful, but there is much work to do yet. I am quietly confident that we are heading in the right direction, but I think I'll wait until we have a top 6 season under Neeld before I offer the haters a serve of humble pie.

Selling some of our spuds to the unwary, I'd assume. At least that would be the hope.

Keeper.

I'd suggest that it would only leave very small teeth marks, and most certainly wouldn't break the skin.

20 I'm fine with (well, not really but if that's what it takes...). I'm not fine with paying over that unless it's a player we're going to (or would like to and can't) delist, or a pick we know we're not going to use. Dawes just isn't that good for them to insist on more. I don't know how the club views Petterd but if I was going to wield an axe there'd be plenty of other players getting the chop ahead of him.

Good. Go outside and chew on a bone for a while.

It would be nice to get it done but not at any cost. We can live without these players. Time to play a bit of hardball and possibly miss out.

Too much. Let Dawes got to Footscray and let Collingwood settle for #21.

Wouldn't have a clue on the outcome but I hope that we end up keeping him, and that getting put on the table and then ignored scares the crap out of the kid, and makes him realise that he's not the next big thing but just a kid with some talent and a poor attitude who is an inch away from playing in the country leagues. But if Neeld thinks he's the sort of bloke that will hold the club back or infect other players then I say get rid of him however we can.

Or possibly because they picked up so many bad habits during their time with us that they are damaged beyond repair. I think we've both picked crap and ruined potential good ones in our last decade. In any event I wouldn't take anything less than an established A grader from a team like Port.

I've been watching clubs pick up our rejects for the last couple of years while wondering what the hell they were thinking. It never ended well for them. I'd like to think we can be smarter than that.

Rockliff was PSD. Dalhous was a rookie. Suckling rookie, cut and re-rookied. Last time I looked we've still got picks there. Other than that you've listed 7 players out of how many hundred that went #19 or over? Why not list all the rubbish picks as well? I'm not overly wrapped about Dawes for #20 and the rest of the shuffle, but I do support the theory of what Neeld and co are doing: draft the best available, and trade for needs. #20 gives you an OKish chance at a good player, and a good chance at a rubbish one. What it won't give you is a good chance at drafting a good player that also fills a need. Far too much would have to go right for that to happen. The powers that be have decided that we need a big unit or two added to the list (and ready to play) so we are trading for them. We won't get what we want with lower picks so pick 20 and a shuffle it is. Will Dawes be worth it? I don't know. I didn't think Clark would be but not many would argue that today. Will Collingwood pick a 100 + gamer with #20? I don't know about that either. Maybe they have a one in five chance at that. Maybe less. Maybe they'll strike gold. What I do know is that you can't look at a draft from a previous year and say 'Well Joe Bloggs went at pick 27 and became a gun, so we should never trade #27 unless we are given a gun in return'. It doesn't work that way.

Best result for all concerned.