poita

If you don't want to be subjected to dynamic pricing, buy a membership.

I've been saying it all year, 90% of what Oscar does is excellent, 10% is atrocious. There is so much positive stuff in his game, he just needs to eliminate the bad stuff, and that will come with experience and confidence. Yesterday he didn't go hard enough at marking contests a couple of times early. Thereafter he was excellent. I fully expect him to play each week, irrespective of match ups. If anything, Frost or Tom can play on the smaller forwards, eg Dickson this week.

I'd be more than happy to have Zak on board, but the trade price is key. Hawthorn got Tom Mitchell for pick 14 and a swap of late picks. Jones is not worth that, but I'd certainly grab him for our 2nd round pick, which is currently sitting at 28. That's about what we gave up for Melksham, and I rate Zak higher than Jake. Sydney might be forced to deal at that level, unless North or another team jumps in with an earlier 2nd round pick. PS Supercoach points are not a reason to trade or not trade for players.

I just don't see key position defenders as being our weakness at this point in time. We have one (Tom) who is borderline A grade and two (Frost & Oscar) who are on their way to becoming very good players. Keep in mind that Frost & Oscar have played only 47 & 25 games respectively, they are very inexperienced. Throw in some flexibility from the likes of Hibberd and Joel Smith, and we are okay down there. Sure, May would make us better, but it will be a marginal, short term improvement, for a big cost. I think our midfield still needs more depth, particularly on the outside, and this would be my focus. Plus another marking forward if we can find one.

Why waste any more time dealing with these pr1cks? There is zero interest in Hibberd from any other club, including Essendon. We have offered a deal that is probably over the odds given Hibberd's age, his 2016 suspension, and his playing history. After caving in to Essendon with Melksham last year, I'll be bitterly disappointed if we do the same thing with Hibberd this year.

Expect that (a) Dangerfield hasn't had serious injury issues in recent years and (b) Geelong didn't have to get rid of the best young key position player in the competition to land Dangerfield.

Are people blowing their load over Hibberd because they think he fills some desperate need we have, or because someone (albeit a middling player from a crap team) actually chose to come us (read: nobody else wanted him)? The last thing we need is another half back flanker, particularly one who hasn't played a game for 18 months. Offer Essendon a third round pick and move on if they won't deal. They need to free up salary space and we clearly paid overs for Melksham last year.

He has had 12 months to think about things, and get himself in the absolute best shape possible. I am not convinced about Melksham as a footballer, but I would be bitterly disappointed if he is not the hardest worker at the club between now and round 1. He should be absolutely desperate to prove himself to the club and to his teammates.

Amazing that the price for Hibberd with his 80 odd so-so games (none for over a year), is about the same as what we paid for Vince (a former B&F winner at Adelaide). All you need is one bad decision (ie overpaying for Melksham last year), and that becomes the new normal.

A four year deal on good money for a 27 year old with less than 100 games of experience and who hasn't played for twelve months? No thanks, unless he comes for free. What exactly he is going to bring that we can't get from Salem and others? We should save ourselves the hassle of dealing with Essendon and move on. Draft a good kid with the pick.

Of course we are inexperienced. We play guys like Michie, Neal-Bullen and Vandenberg who aren't AFL standard. These guys are inexperienced because they aren't good enough to play at this level and therefore don't deserve games.

Our players just need to learn to tackle better. The Bulldogs were able to get their arms free far too easily last week, then we kept whacking a bloke around the head this week (yes, I know he ducked, it happens, move on). Other times this year we have had a spate of in the backs paid against us because players dive forward in the tackle. We just need to adjust accordingly.

Number of games is a false indicator. Are players like Pedersen and M.Jones inexperienced, or just not good enough to have played more games? I can see that age is a bit more relevant, as a 25 year old will generally make better decisions than an 18 year old.

Of course, he could do his knee on day 1 of next season, in which case we would be two years into a four year contract for no return. It was a bad trade at the time, and this confirms it.

I wish Clayton all the best, but I can't believe we traded up in the draft just to get him when he most likely would have been available at pick 6 anyway. I was rapt with our selections last year, but am fairly underwhelmed by this year's crop.

Shaun Smith looked 40 when he was 25, but he hasn't aged a day since. Good luck to Joel.

Lumumba Riley Michie Newton Cross (served a purpose but already gone) Frost (played two games) If that is "generally knocking it out of the ball park with trading and drafting", then you are very easily pleased. By my count we have brought in nine experienced players under Roos for three wins - Vince, Garlett and Tyson - and six that have been of dubious benefit. Forgive me for not doing cartwheels over any of Melsham, Kennedy and Bugg, particularly when Hawthorn are about to add Carlisle to their list and West Coast have picked up Reddan and Jetta.

So glad we spent the extra 3 and 1/2 days ironing out the kinks in that deal. At least our negotiators can feel like they've achieved something this week, whilst everyone else is circling the big fish.

There seems to be three possible reasons for the delay in finalising the Melksham deal: 1. Essendon are being their usual dumb arzes and asking for more compensation, in which case we should stop negotiating immediately (and wait for them to come crawling back to us next week), or 2. We expect to get away with paying less compensation. I don't blame us for playing hard ball, but I think we are kidding ourselves - slap $1.6 million worth of contract in front of a player and there is a fair argument that pick 25 is reasonable compensation, or 3. We are still working on a deal for a much better player than Melksham (please let this be the case).

I'm still not convinced that Melksham is the player we need, but it's not up to me. The two things that really bug me about this are: 1. 4 year deals for average players are not good practice. By all means, give Hogan a 10 year contract, and the rest of your top 10 players 4-5 year deals, but we need to stop handing out long term deals to everyone else. Dawes, Lumumba, Jamar, McKenzie - the list of poor decisions is becoming rather long, and that does not include the inappropriate shorter deals given to Barry, Evans and Terlich. 2. Why make commitments to players, particularly average players, before the trade period begins? We have no idea who might become available once proper negotiations commence, and I would hate to think we might miss out on a quality midfielder because we have given up our 2nd round pick to get Melksham.

I'm not sure what part of the (proposed) Melksham deal is worst - the four years, the $$$, the second round pick or the player himself. It is a shocker in every respect. And whilst some around here are in love with Roos and co, I think our trading last year was a bare pass at best. Lumumba was a clear fail, the jury is out on Frost, Newton has been disappointing, and Garlett is a clear win.

Putting aside the WADA shennanigans for a second, Essendon are by a large margin the worst team in the comp to trade with. They severely overvalue every one of their players, which makes it almost impossible to trade with them. I wouldn't want the club wasting it's time negotiating a trade with these morons, let alone for a mediocre player like Melksham. We've got more chance of trading for Dangerfield.

The problem is that a number of the players in the gun are players that Roos brought in two years ago (Riley, Michie, Cross, Hunt, etc). And we will be having the same conversation about Newton and Lumumba next year if they don't improve markedly.

Riewoldt is a super player, we all know that. But Roberton, Dempster and Schneider are experienced players that cost St Kilda very little to bring in. That's not to mention Bruce who was quiet yesterday, but has had a great year. Why do we pay massively over the odds for players like Dawes and Lumumba who give nothing, when there are so many decent players available if you look hard enough? It is highly debatable that our young players are better than St Kilda's. Hogan and Brayshaw probably are, but I would be happy with any of McCartin, Billings, Dunstan, and Goddard over the rest of our list.

Nothing against Tyler Roos, but I would have real issues with the club taking the coach's son as a speculative draft selection. Sure thing if he's a genuine top 20-30 pick, but anything outside that is asking for trouble. Particularly given our recent draft history.