Lampers

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.

I think it’s fair to say all of Spargo (on the ground), Fritsch and Hannan (in the air) show courage that belies their slight or small statures. i think it’s clear Melbourne have valued courage as an attitude over flash in their selections once Roos and Taylor arrived. It’s not all about physical size. Ironically one or two less “courageous” but skilled types like Isaac Smith or Brad Hill could be accommodated and be quite useful about now.

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.

Absolutely, they will have that space today. As do St. kilda by the sounds of it. But both clubs will be trying to secure targets that WANT to play for them with that space during trade period. If they can't secure those players and still have the space at the end of the trade period, you're right that they are a threat to get Lever. Plus we have no idea their attitude to bringing in a player on massive dollars who doesn't want to be there. That could cause big ripples in the existing North and St.Kilda playing group, especially if Lever gets there and mopes about the place. Culture and team harmony must be considerations too.

The other factor in Melbourne's favour is the longer the Lever situation drags out, the less likely any other clubs will keep $750k-$1m space in their cap "just in case". If other clubs keep the space and wait, there is a massive chance they will miss other trade opportunities and still end up not getting Lever if Melbourne and Adelaide agree to an 11th hour trade. It won't hurt Melbourne though because they know exactly the space they need to reserve in the cap, plus they "ring fence" 10 and 27 as unavailable for other trades and can keep working on those other trades with that in mind. It could get to a point where Melbourne are the ONLY club who literally can accomodate his contract demands, and could select him with the last pick in the draft. Melbourne could be really brutal if they wanted to and engineer things so Adelaide get nothing. There is a small risk of another club hastily renegotiating existing contracts to open up cap space but that would require agreement of multiple players and therefore very unlikely to happen. If Melbourne are smart, and I hope they are, they will have a figure they could pay Lever if he goes into the draft. Say $1m each year for two years, but if a trade can be brokered Lever signs at $750k * 4 years instead This makes it even less likely other clubs would draft him should it come to it.

The document covers PSD too. My understanding is in the past a player like Lever where their contract expired but they weren't delisted would only be able to nominate for PSD. Think Nick Stevens, Jamie Shanahan. But the rules changed quite some time ago to allow the player to choose which draft they want to be in. Luke Ball did this almost a decade ago. It would be to Lever's advantage to be in the National Draft as competing clubs are trading off possibility of the best u/18 prospects vs. Lever when selecting. If he nominates for PSD, the clubs are only tossing up between players already overlooked with around 100 selections and Lever. Lever is far less likely to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in PSD than he is to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in the ND. I still reckon a trade for 10 and 27 will happen, maybe with some face saving "meh" pick swaps too.

Look at this link. If a player nominates terms it is for two seasons, not one. The player is tied to the club who drafts him for two years unless there are other circumstances that Lever doesn't qualify for (e.g. Drafted for the first time at 24+ years of age).

I'd doubt there's anyone of significance involved with either club from those times. Ancient history which won't be righted in this deal. They also screwed us on Nathan Bassett. It's all just brinksmanship to appease the supporters. The last thing shattered Crows supporters want to see is their team not fighting in trade week after they didn't fight on Grand Final day. The Crows sending Lever into the draft not only means they get no compensation, it also sends a message to their players "We don't give a stuff about what you want as a person, we own you and will do as we please". Scaring your remaining players into staying is not a sensible thing to do. Giving up value for nothing is not a sensible thing to do. The Crows appear to be a sensible club by and large.

Yep, the stay in Victoria was really firm from his manager, the stay at Dees was more what the manager would say when playing a straight bat, it didn't have the same conviction. That's not to panic anyone, I read it as family means a heap to Petracca so his manager couldn't foresee a time Petracca would choose to move away from the family - EVER. Which means Adelaide would never be possible. That's all. A Manager would not say a player would NEVER EVER consider changing clubs, that's kind of destroying part of their negotiating power.

From the trade radio launch Paul Connors, who manages Watts and Salem, was asked if Adelaide had asked after either of those players. He said no, and that Salem would be at Melbourne, but was a little more vague on Watts. He volunteered that while the Crows didn't ask about either of them, they did ask about another player which was quickly rejected. When later pressed, he basically said that player was Petracca (who he also manages) and that Petracca would never leave the city Melbourne, and then added he thought he'd play his career at the Demons. So this definitely confirms without doubt Lever to Melbourne is a massive possibility, and Adelaide (well within their rights) are starting at a very high price in return.

Sounds like negotiation 101. Each side starts from a position favourable to what they believe is ultimately fair, and then start the dance. Getting a deal over the line can often be more about each side feeling they have had a win during the negotiation, not what outside parties think is fair. If this info is true, I would expect the ultimate outcome to be Lever and Adelaide's 2017 2nd round (35 or so) or 2018 2nd round pick for perhaps Melbourne's 2018 1st round and 2017 2nd round (25?). Lots of this will depend on how both Adelaide and Melbourne rate the depth of this year's and next year's drafts as later 2nd round picks are often where the talent drops off. Plus how each team thinks Melbourne and Adelaide will perform in 2018 and therefore where future picks are likely to land. These factors would dictate if the clubs prefer 2017 or 2018 picks. I believe Melbourne have already shown their trade and draft philosophy. 1st round is for potential elites but they will still use them in a trade for genuine quality, 2nd round picks are better spent on known solid quantities that fill a need as illustrated by the Melksham, Hibberd and Vince deals, and then back yourself to find and develop a gem or two with the later picks so it almost don't matter if that's pick 42, 54 or 60 as you'll likely still get one of the players you wanted. So I do not expect Melbourne to take 2nd rounders into the draft unless they can't find a trade for a known quantity that fills a need, like an Isaac Smith type. So if they have to burn a 2nd round to get Lever along with a first round I think they will do it as Lever is such a "need" guy. But if so they will look to trade a player out (maybe Kent if lucky because another team like his pace, or I have a gut feel Watts may have his papers stamped by Goodwin and he would definitely get a 2nd round) to get another 2nd round in, and then use that 2nd round to trade for a known quantity need. It's a bit complicated!

Completely agree. Different sport in basketball, but at 185cm and 40 years old I'm not phased by an equally unagile player at 190cm. I've done ok defending former Demon Daniel Clarke who is 205cm because he wasn't athletic. An agile, 180cm player who has a vertical leap however... Athelticism is far more important than paper height when you're in the same ball park, and when Joe Daniher or Rory Lobb are marking at full stretch while jumping it wouldn't matter how tall the defender is.

I think Lever is great, but May is more what the team lacks. The team already has capable readers of play and intercept markers, albeit not as rounded as Lever. Tom Mac, Hibberd, even O Mac, Wagner and Hunt at a stretch. There are options for what Lever is exceptional at. The exposure that May would help address is the go to option to purely defend a big forward.

Palmer was definitely to free up salary cap space for GWS as that's what they valued. Silvagni would know Palmer is a stop gap, but it allowed Carlton to pay "unders" for other players with draft picks as the salary cap space it created for GWS evens it up. Lamb... I can't explain that one.

I'm not an expert and hopefully someone out there knows, but quite possibly it would be part of the WADA rules that a player isn't paid if banned. It doesn't really make sense that you are banned, but still paid anyway. If you can still be paid during a WADA imposed ban, WADA please ban me from work!

It would be different in that respect. Wouldn't think the player payment angle would be of much concern to the club if we recruit him and he gets banned. Would just free up some dollars to bank for future years or direct to pre-payments for other players.

Considering recruiting a player who has had two knee recos - higher risk he might break down and miss a year. Considering recruiting a player with a potential ban hanging over him - higher risk he might cop a ban and miss a year. Risk reward balance in both cases, just a little more unusual than what the recruiting team would normally consider, but the risk outcome of being unavailable is the same. And hopefully a trade value discount to go with the risk part in Melbourne's favour.

Port would be over a barrel in a trade needing to create the cap space. That means they shouldn't get true value re: draft picks. The value to them is the cap space. They cannot say "No thanks", they must trade if they want Dixon. However, Adelaide would be far more attractive to Hartlett as he wouldn't need to move, plus Adelaide should be fine on cap space to accomodate assuming they lose Dangerfield. Where Melbourne would have the advantage is to offer Hartlett a better deal than Adelaide can or want to. More years, more cash. In effect, I don't think this will come down to giving Port a great deal on draft picks, it will more be about convincing Hartlett he wants to be at Melbourne, and then the rest will happen even if it looks like Port get ripped at face value. Melboune's second round could well be enough given the scenario. Hartlett's brother's career was destroyed by soft tissue leg injuries, and if memory serves Hamish also had some issues a few years back. There is a reason Port have decided he is the one to go as they would have multiple options to clear cap space, medical due diligence would be key.

Wouldn't the club treat it like recruiting a player with a history of serious injury? Higher than normal chance they will miss for a period of time. I would also think a pretty good bargaining chip to argue down his trade value. I also wouldn't be surprised if the AFL allow clubs with former Essendon players who do get suspended to promote a rookie in their place. Similar to LTI list. To not have allowances like that would make it even harder for those Essendon players to move, and if the AFL believe the players have been duped they'd be doing everything in their power to make things easy for the players involved (but not Essendon).