pantaloons

Or we could lose, take picks 1, 2, 18, 34 and PSD1 into the offseason instead of 1, 17, 33, 49 and PSD1, and allow the only inoffensive premiership option of 2009 to go into the finals with a win! We've come this far in the rebuilding quest, it'd be criminal to ruin it now. It's one more game. We should be able to play our best and still lose anyway, so we can cheer all we like.

Any club looking at Robbo would have a fair idea of what they will get. Barring injury, they're pretty much guaranteed 50+ goals from him - he's not going to have our rancid midfield haphazardly caterpaulting the ball into the forwardline to him. If its extra goals a club is after in a quest to put themselves closer to a flag, then they may have some interest. The CV of a forward has become a lot more diverse of late, and clubs will need to weigh up whether Robbo's 50-odd goals for 1-2 seasons are what they need, or a more versatile forward with a stronger defensive focus.

Jamar's certainly the pick at the moment. I like Martin's versatility, but I just don't think he's a forward at all. I'd much rather see him moving between the backline and ruck. I don't see much of a future for PJ or Meesen at Melbourne. Spencer needs to be persisted with. Unless we're going to start picking ruckmen in the draft, we're going to need to develop Spencer. When was the last time Melbourne picked a ruckman in the national draft? Of the current 5 ruckmen we have, two have come via trade, two off the rookie list and one in the PSD. White was obtained via trade and from memory Jolly and Simmons I think were rookie listers. I'm just thinking out loud here really, but it does illustrate a couple of things to me for starters: Firstly, that part of our current ruck situation lies with the lack of drafting ruckmen, but also the nature of the ruck position and the amount of time and patience required when dealing with ruckmen, hence the alternate routes to Melbourne our ruckmen have taken. With this in mind, I'm persisting with Spencer. If Meesen shows something next year then I'd put him in the same boat, but I'm not holding my breath.

Welcome to Demonland!

Nice post. On Robbo playing for another club, provided its not Collingwood or Carlton, I'm ok with it. If he got a gig with Geelong or the Bulldogs and had a crack at a flag, it'd be great to see him go out in style. I don't think he's got much in the way of reputation to lose by nominating for the drafts and getting rejected. The end of this season being in and out of the team isn't the most glorious way to bow out anyway, so it's worth a shot. All the best to him.

You can hand it to Tom Scully now.

Well done to Robbo on a terrific career at Melbourne. He brought an extra excitement, enthusiasm and passion to Melbourne games that few players have done in my time following the Dees. I'll remember Robbo for many things - the spectcular marks, great goals and even better celebrations, and dragging the team into the finals in 2005. Thanks for the memories Robbo. Going to the footy won't be the same without #24 out there. Well done.

Lloyd Richardson Neitz Grant Tredrea Hall Lucas Robbo O'Loughlin Rocca

It might be a good chance to weed out some of the chokers though. If you can't kick in front of a bunch of recruiters, good luck having a ping at goal at the G in front of 80,000. It's staggering that this hasn't been a part of the process before, though I suppose recruiters will have had the chance to see enough of their kicking in game situations.

I think we're running in circles here. One of the few positives of being outside of the finals is that it affords you the chance to farewell your players properly. It'd be insulting and ridiculous to leave someone like Robbo out of the side in Round 22 if he's fit. And for what? To confirm that Buckley can't kick or that Miller isn't going to be the 75-goal key forward we're after? Rhino's already pointed out that there really aren't many options when scouring the list to find players to bring in anyway. The three players not to play this season are all out of action. In any event, the supporters who have sat through three years of bile deserve to send off some of our favourites with a farewell game. We didn't get to with Lyon, Stynes, Neitz or Schwarz for starters, and that's disappointing. These farewells are part of the emotion and experience of following footy. We as supporters aren't droids, and I for one would feel cheated if I didn't get to farewell the trio and Robbo in particular in a fortnight's time. A lap around the G in a Volvo simply doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

You don't have to delist a young player to allow Robertson to continue, you only have to delist McDonald. Not saying that should happen, that's just the reality.

For where we're at right now, I'd like to use a general rule that if we going to trade for players, they have to be players that the club feels can contribute to our next premiership, say around 2012-15. Sure, Seaby is a premiership player, but he'll be nearing the end of his career in that span and I don't think he'd be much more of a contributor than any of our current thin ruck division. McKinley I don't see as a premiership contributor. Reilly could, but as 1858 pointed out, what would it cost to get him? You're not going to get him without sacrificing a valuable draft pick (a big no-no in our current plight) or a good young player (also pointless). That's not to say it's pointless talking about this stuff, Todd, but I'm playing it conservative in trade week this year. Nobody's touching our first two picks or young talent, and that's all we have to offer.

I can't see us being overly active in trade week. If we're going to be moving up draft spots, teams aren't going to want our phlegm in return. A possibility if we were only looking to use 1, 2, 18 34 and PSD1, would be to trade 34 and 50 for 30 or something similar, to a team who wants to use a pick that late. It's not a massive return, but it could make a little something out of nothing for us. We end up with 1, 2, 18, 30 and PSD 1, while the other team ends up with 14, 34, 46 and 50 instead of 14, 30, 46 and 62. Just a hypothetical though. I've no idea who will even have those picks, likely the Dogs or Crows.

Bell and Newton would be two of the first to go, but both are contracted for 2010 so they stay. While both Robbo and Junior may pull the plug at the end of the year, only Bruce is eligible for the veteran's list next year outside of those two, so if both McDonald and Robertson retire, their two omissions only open up one senior list spot. In essence, we could have Junior on the list and have 40 players or not have him and have a list of 39.

Jaded, I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular. There's a great deal of support on here for Bailey and I like that. I'm actually not unhappy with the direction of the club, I just feel the jury is still out on whether Bailey can coach, and that it's not unreasonable for us to have a good look at how we're doing during next season before extending his contract.

Not necessarily in order: 1. Watts 2. Grimes 3. Morton 4. Davey 5. Frawley 6. Garland 7. Blease 8. Bennell 9. Jurrah 10. Jones Jones likely won't be in many people's lists, but I'd hate to lose him for diddly. That leaves the likes of Strauss, Warnock, Moloney, Maric, McLean, Rivers and Martin and Sylvia exposed. I could probably swap the names Jones and Bennell with the likes of Sylvia, McLean and Strauss, but I'll leave it at that for now. I should add that for me, Watts, Grimes, Morton, Frawley and Garland are the only certainties to be on that list.

I find the unwavering support of Dean Bailey on this forum quite interesting and out of proportion to the views of the numbers of Melbourne supporters I know who don't use this site. I'm happy to give him next year to see if he's worth persisting with, but I don't think some discussion on whether he is actually any chop is unhealthy. Provided it doesn't turn into a witch hunt and Bailey's given a chance that is. Thus far, what has Bailey shown? There are positives and negatives. He's shown a willingness to shelve or trade ageing stars and focus on building from scratch. He hasn't played favourites, usually selecting players on merit. Similarly, he's tried to enforce a culture where off-field shenanigans are completely unacceptable. That's not saying Neale enjoyed such behaviour, but it's been more apparent under Bailey. Maybe its just that Carroll's out the door now. He's also tried to adopt a gameplan more up to date with the direction football is heading. This took a long time to start to bear any fruit though. On the flip side, Bailey has won 6 out of 41 games. That's a damning statistic, even if he's tried to lose a few towards the end of this season for future gain. Some will point to a very ordinary list, and I don't want to turn this into a debate on how good or bad the list was when he inherited it, but in many ways Bailey chose to rebuild and dump players like TJ who could have helped the side immediately (obviously the TJ trade was a cracker, no denying that). He's opted for short-term pain. It's unlikely that any coach in Australia could have netted less wins in this time than Bailey though. The team could probably have managed 6 wins in the last two seasons with a magic 8-ball as coach to be honest. How much the players have learned and developed in this time is crucial. There are signs of improvement in many on the list. I'm fine with the direction we're heading, on the sole proviso that next year we start to see serious signs of improvement in our play and in the wins column. If we're still in the bottom two or three next year, that is completely unacceptable and a change is unavoidable. I can't sit here and laud what I've seen the last two years as a masterpiece. It would be beyond a celebration of mediocrity, rather a celebration of the completely inept. I don't want to be a supporter who calls for the coach's head every couple of years, but at the same time gleefully lap up the excrement currently being dished up. There comes a point where you have to stop making excuses and produce results. The Kangas side that made the preliminary final a couple of years ago was woeful, but yet they found themselves on the second-last day of the season. Essendon were tipped by some to win the wooden spoon this year, but until their late season stumble have been very promising. I don't disagree with Bailey's decision to nuke the list and start afresh, but we must start seeing results next year for him to get the chance to continue. I'm not asking for finals, just a realistic improvement in the wins column and the quality of the team's play. My gut feeling is that we will start to see some very positive signs next season, and that Bailey's focus on teaching and development will start to pay off, with around 8 wins and a 10-12 finish.

Thanks old. You mentioned Martin's name and role late in your post. I do think that the role you foresee for Hale can be filled by Martin. That's not to say that picking Hale in the PSD is a terrible move for Melbourne, but I'd be loathe to trade anything useful (of which Jared Rivers is) for him. You've put together a fair argument for a spot in the side for him - I just can't agree to trading for him at this stage.

It's interesting you bring up the Hawthorn analogy and I see your point. I reckon North could say the same thing about dumping Hale as well though! He's not going to be at his highest currency now, but with McIntosh and Goldstein he's found himself on the outer. When you're 25 and unable to get a game in a cellar-dwelling team, that can't say a lot. I stand by my view that we should only be looking at bringing in players who can help us win a flag. If folks like you, graz and old think he can do that, well great. I'm just highly doubtful he can. Then again, and this really contradicts what I'm saying, if he's the best available at #1 in the PSD, we could do worse. I'd still probably look to pick a teenage kid over him though.

I wouldn't touch a Rivers for Hale swap with a ten foot pole, mainly because I really don't rate Hale. I can see why some would find getting him tempting. After all, our ruck division is laughable. However, I'd much sooner draft a ruckman this year and look to bring quality into the side. We're in the process of weeding out the duds and building from the ground up, not plugging holes with NQRs. Could Hale be a first ruck in a premiership side? Surely not. I'm through with trading for ruckmen who are incapable of holding down the number one ruck spot. Keep Jamar as the #1 for now while we're useless, work on Spencer and you've got Martin in a relieving, versatile role and Johnson and Meesen as your backups.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree! I watch scarcely any junior footy and this is the first I've heard of him. Any good father-son selection is always welcome though. Toughness is always a welcome attribute, provided he can actually play.

I'm not a lottery fan in general. Scrap the priority pick (in a year or two of course) and keep the system as is after that (eg. 16th gets 1, 15th gets 2 and so on). Old, under your system, this is the breakdown of the percentage chance each team outside the 8 has of securing the #1 pick: 16. 22.22% 15. 19.44% 14. 16.67% 13. 13.89% 12. 11.11% 11. 8.33% 10. 5.56% 9. 2.78% In my opinion, that is nowhere near enough of an advantage for the lower teams. Of course, if you did this, you'd have to implement something like what the NBA has where the bottom-ranked team can fall to no lower than pick 4, otherwise you could end up with the unlikely but ludicrous situation where the spooners don't pick until 6, 7 or 8. Ultimately, while a lottery has noble intentions, you're just going to draw the attention of the whingers and conspiracy theorists to other targets. Instead of people moaning about a team's list management, there would be utter uproar if a 9th placed Collingwood or Carlton wound up with the #1 pick, similar to the 1985 NBA Draft, where people still complain that commissioner David Stern pulled out New York's "frozen" envelope first so that the big market team could select Patrick Ewing. We now have a system that allows the poorer sides to reap some benefit in an increasingly rich-get-richer climate. Ditch the priority pick and keep the draft order according to the ladder. Nice work though, Old!

I'm afraid this is the final straw in the tanking debate. Vlad will have to change his stance after this matchup, possibly the most comical in football history, is being publicly flaunted in the media: http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/ca...9350546846.html

Bell's contracted for 2010 too I believe. I'd keep Jamar. That's not to say if the right deal came along I wouldn't trade him, but he's our #1 ruckman. Johnson and Meesen won't cut it at any point in the future, so we're left with Spencer and Martin if we traded Jamar. For the ruck situation next year, I'd like Jamar as the number 1 and Martin in the side as a flexible backup ruckman/key position player. It leaves us with a decent player in Martin in the 22 without wasting a spot on a second ruckman. That leaves Spencer as the developing ruckman, Meesen as the desperate 4th option, and I'd certainly be looking to draft a rookie ruckman.

It absolutely staggers me that there will be at least five Melbourne supporters who, if Melbourne wins the flag within the next few years, will be too busy lamenting our list management of 2008-09 to enjoy the premiership.