Lampers

Agree. My understanding is Jones is a “me first” kind of guy at the heart of it. So he isn’t the sort of leader you need. Great service over many years, very solid player at his peak and the team’s best for a period in some of its darkest times. He could win the ball, get it moving forward, tackle, and developed his kicking from poor to passable in a similar way to Todd Viney many years before. But once he was displaced as a first choice on-baller he simply never had the tricks (read skills) to see out his time on a flank or wing. This has been painfully obvious from mid last year (when he got moved out of the first choice midfield) and all of this year. Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but it felt like for every smart “veteran” thing he did in a game, there were two or three “wow, I’d be disappointed if a first year player did that” moments. At least Lewis, who I wasn’t a massive fan of, had that ratio the other way around. The right thing to do is offer him a deal on the club’s terms as a show of loyalty. Nothing more. If Jones is unwilling to accept the 270k as rumoured and back himself in for performance bonuses - given the “overs” he took for many years compared to what he would have received had he jumped to another club where he would have been in the 5 to 15 best on the list range instead of top dog at Melbourne - then that would just reinforce his “me first” mentality. The Junior McDonald error was pushing him into “retirement” for the sake of one list position and minimal salary. Junior was cooked, Jones is cooked and will only get worse. It sounds like Melbourne are making a respectful but also sensible offer this time around that balances Jones’ past contributions but also reflects his likely future trajectory.

I thought from the little I’ve seen of Casey that Chandler stood out for pace and creativity. But he clearly wasn’t getting enough of the ball as it was in brief flashes and then unsighted for long stretches. What is harder to see watching a game in TV is the ANB style “pressure acts”. If his are high and that’s why he’s playing, I’d be happy with a guy who pressures to keep the ball locked in, and on the rare occasion they get the ball do something reasonably constructive.

I’ve got a shoulder injury at the moment from bowling. Slight tear to a tendon, inflamed bursar and maybe some carteledge damage and potentially some ligament damage too but I haven’t had an MRI to confirm the last two. Carteledge and ligaments require surgery to repair. In the direction where I need to use the torn tendon I probably have about 30% of my regular strength before quite striking pain kicks in. Maybe I could push through and have more strength if I had it strapped and jabbed up. I can absolutely believe given Oliver needed surgery on both shoulders that this could have significantly impacted his ability to get his arms free when getting tackled, handball with full power and tackle with full strength.

My understanding was he was happy to play another year if the club wanted him to, but was also comfortable to get started on his post AFL life. The club didn’t want him to go again, so he retired. Not a genuine retirement where the player has had enough, but not pushed out against his will either. Somewhere in the middle. And yes, he wasn’t “one of the boys” in the eyes of the footy department and therefore was always a mediocre game away from being dropped.

Unless the players are literally using their head to do something, their listed height isn’t that relevant.. Different sport, but I’m 185cm with short arms for my height and I got toweled up on rebounding last night by a guy who was probably 175cm tall but with good strength, judgement, aggression and better athleticism than me. I also suspect he had long arms for his height. In summary, where the top of your head finishes is pretty irrelevant and an unsophisticated measure. I’d prefer they listed height of where the fingers are with an arm straight up is far more relevant as it takes into account shoulder position and arm length and better represents something useful on the field.

Have heard similar.

Agree. The war is the premiership. The battle is the trade period. A single trade is an engagement. So long as everything is driving to winning the war the other parts don’t matter in isolation. Who knows if we have the right strategy. Time will tell.

If it facilitates the next moves, that’s all that matters. See what happens with 23 before passing judgement.

Melbourne won’t cave on 11 unless GCS would accept it. Pick 6 or 11 is irrelevant for Melbourne, it’s about facilitating May and KK deal. Hogan is still contracted for 2019 so Melbourne can sit tight and not agree to trade as that outcome is still palatable. This is precisely why this is the year to trade him if it’s going to happen.

While egos might get bruised, this should not be viewed as just Melb vs. Freo. It’s overall outcomes. I think Freo have done well. GCS have given up quite a bit. Melbourne have moved one player out and replaced with two that fill big gaps in the team. Add on the intangibles and information we aren’t privy to around Hogan and I suspect Mahoney and co. would be pretty happy. Especially if there’s also pick 23 in there that is exactly the type of pick Melbourne offloads for ready made gap filler players. Simplistically this could end up +3 players that address gaps for a 2019 flag tilt, for the cost of a player who has emotionally checked out of the club and not able to be retained and Melbourne have coped quite well in the past when absent.

It looks to me like the list management team have a firm goal which is build a list that has depth of types of players who are fit role types of roles - and there are some types of players that are missing key attributes for the broader playing style brand of contested footy. The strategy looks like: A) value relatively known quantity players that fit a need higher than haggling over draft pick positions give or take (within reason, I’m sure Taylor’s view on likely available talent is part of the picture and it’s a different in the top 10 where elite juniors are) B) if a player is surplus to depth, or there are equivalent other options (e.g. state league prospects) instead that are cheaper, extract value for those players by trading them C) if a player is not quite right because they aren’t contested enough or have other fatal flaws for the “brand” or there are personality issues, delist or trade them and give an opportunity to someone else Preuss is an A) as were Melksham and Hibberd. Tyson is a B) and you could argue they have decided Hogan is also a B. Watts and Bugg are C) and in hindsight re-signing Garlett might have been a departure from strategy and an error. And of course Melbourne’s don’t hold all the cards so a St. Kilda can upset things by offering Kent more security, and surprise opportunities may present themselves and need consideration (e.g. Lewis, move up the draft order near the start by helping a club with volume of lower draft picks for academy or father-son prospects). Obvious gaps we as fans could identify prior to trade period are a ruckman, reliable 1on1 tall defender, and outside pace and polish. Every rumoured move Melbourne are initiating appears to be driving towards those things and is giving up something that can be covered through existing players, or not much perceived value (e.g. some mid to later order draft picks or pick downgrades). I’m not saying the goal or strategy is correct, but for the most part their actions have been consistently aligned with this. So we might look at a deal and think “We got unders and gave overs” but I doubt the Demons are thinking that if it fits with their strategy.

What good would an extension be? He is under contract now and it clearly didn’t make the trade speculation go away! Even if the argument is there would be an extension would mean less chance of noise through the year, given this turn of events, I suspect there will forever be noise with Hogan until such time he does return to WA.

My recollection of Petterd was GCS were looking to sign him as a straight uncontracted player as part of their start up list so that was more potential poaching rather than trading. It also could’ve just been the media connecting any player recruiter from local Gold Coast clubs with GCS irrespective of what was really happening.

Matthew warnock (some time ago now). Close on Howe but it fell through because Howe didn’t want to go. Pick swap and upgrade in 2015 to get Oliver and Weideman. Some history, but as pointed out by another poster there has been turnover at GCS footy department so that could’ve reset any historic goodwill.

The smart clubs tend to knock off bits and pieces trades as soon as practical so they can move on to the next deal. For that reason I expect the KK trade not get mixed in with May simply to make it cleaner given the sequence of events that would need to occur for May to be a possibility (Brisbane and Freo agree on Neale, Melbourne and Freo agree on Hogan, Melbourne and GC agree on May including KK). All three of those planks have risk of falling through or taking a bit of posturing time so you wouldn’t want to rely on that happening to land KK. Melbourne and GC have some reasonable trading history and I suspect goodwill so I wouldn’t be surprised if Melbourne can get KK for unders as a stand alone early based on that.

I didn’t see Kent or VDB either. Mitch King, Bugg and Pedo I definitely saw. Hogan was on a table that appeared to be for those without partners along with Bugg and Garlett and a whole heap of blokes I didn’t recognise (maybe Casey players?).

You’re right, so that puts his free agency eligibility out to end of 2021 which is even better for Melbourne.

Absolutely, IF Hogan is adamant he doesn’t want to play at Melbourne then Melbourne’s hand is hurt. But that is the case for any player at any time.

I’ve had a quick chat to contact at the club. A little bit if guesswork to fill in blanks, but Hogan isn’t a standard cat. He’s a bit introverted, aloof and hard to get to know. Just like any workplace, there is a prevailing culture and Hogan doesn’t quite fit in. So he’s probably never going to have the pull of staying to be with his boys, because he isn’t one of the boys. The culture extends to the broader footy department and the relatively young staff that relates reasonably well to the current player group. So this means despite his obvious talent, there is more openness from the footy department to explore options than there would be than if Hogan was “one of the boys”. It just reinforces a footy club has far more dynamics at play than pure onfield footy ability. There are those on the inner, those on the outer, favourites, politics etc. These dynamics play out in week to week team selection too and can explain why some guys seem to play irrespective of form, whereas others always seem one mediocre game away from getting dropped.

Correct. Where this is confusing is Hogan was at the Demons in 2012 which means 8 years at the end of 2019. BUT he was not eligible to play senior football in 2012 because he was too young with 2013 being his first eligible year. Under current rules he is eligible for free agency after 2020 season but would need to extend his contract with Melbourne to qualify. Melbourne definitely hold the cards in this deal so long as Hogan is OK to keep playing with Melbourne and all signs point to him not having a super firm view either way (which is good for Melbourne).

It starts getting pretty convoluted if moving on a promising and developing key defender is the catalyst for securing a ruck from another club. Perhaps it’s just Preuss has told his manager he likes Melbourne as he can see the potential for success so that’s triggered discussions, but the realities or practicalities haven’t really played a part yet.

The only way this makes sense to me is if the plan is for Hogan to move to midfield or even the backline because Preuss can only play ruck or deep forward. That way Gawn and Preuss could swap ruck and forward with each other, plus there is some contingency if Gawn gets injured. I can’t understand why Preuss wouldn’t go to somewhere like the Bulldogs, St.Kilda or Adelaide where he would have a clear run at being #1 ruckman.

Adelaide’s “natural” third round selection is 36 + (19 - their finishing position after finals). So if they finish 10th it’s 36 + (19 - 10) = 45 Finish 3rd it's 36 + (19 - 3) = 52 Natural = before father/son or academy bidding, ofree agent compensation or priority’s selections.

It's the same situatuion for Collingwood as per prior posts with North and Saints. Collingwood would need to reserve the cap space for Lever, and that would prevent them getting involved in other potential player trades. Plus they risk Melbourne and Adelaide agreeing to a trade late and Lever not even being in the draft. So yes it's possible, but unlikely as it's a really risky play. If Collingwood conspire with Adelaide to get Lever across with anything other than a fair isolated trade in the AFL's eyes, which Lever needs to agree to, that's draft tampering.

Lever must agree to any trade so unless Collingwood can convince him to change his mind and accept playing for them, it can't happen. Collingwood could trump Melbourne in the draft, but Adelaide would still get nothing out of that. It think it's also considered draft tampering to do separate but connected trades, or lopsided trade in exchange for other commitments. That's what Hawthorn and the Bulldogs did with Jade Rawlings many many years ago - a lopsided trade in the Hawks' favour in exchange for them forcing Rawlings into the draft so the Bulldogs could pick him up against his will.