Lampers

While I agree the public comments seem unnecessary, and I felt similar about Stringer and what Beveridge was saying, don't think for a second the other 17 clubs don't know what's what with Watts. I know someone plugged into AFL circles and the gossip and stories that fly around is like an edition of footy New Idea. Everyone knows everyone else's business. They know the gaps in the innuendo that we see in the press, as do the journos who ask the questions. So when I hear officials or coaches say these sorts of things publicly, I don't think they're so naive that they get caught out by the question. I think it's most likely an attempt to manage the fans and potential backlash - and to trigger the sort of fan conversation we are seeing here while inserting enough about the club's perspective into the public arena. Footy clubs know their supporters are emotional and irrational, and have attachments to players irrespective of what that player is or isn't really doing. And it's part of the club's job to manage their supporters as supporters contribute to the revenue top line. But you know what contributes most to the revenue top line? Success. If those comments truly harmed the trade value of the player, it wouldn't happen. If the football department bowed to fan pressure instead of doing what they think will move the club closer to success, the club will go nowhere.

This actually makes a whole heap of sense.

Let's stress I have no genuine inside knowledge, this is all from reading signs and likely misinterpreting! I see a player like Watts, although the best kick and decision maker in the team, as having some flaws that Goodwin may consider fatal. Lack of physical presence or intensity being the main ones. Salem in a similar boat. Tyson is more the case of having an over supply in what he brings to the table, or adequate substitutes waiting in the wings. All of them have qualities attractive enough that other clubs will definitely be interested. I see those as the type of players that if they could secure a pick between 15-25, and if Melbourne know that's the type of asset that gets a Lever trade completed, they will pull the trigger. You have to give something up of value to make the team better. But I wouldn't see any of them being offloaded for a pick in the 20s or 30s as a stand alone event. That's because you'd be giving up a flawed but valuable commodity for a lottery pick. The only reason I could see something like that happening would be if Melbourne were in the position Adelaide were with Vince - desperately needing to get some more youth onto the list, so trade a talented but flawed late 20s aged player to do it. And Melbourne don't have an ageing list problem to solve.

My understanding is clubs cannot trade money or "salary cap space". Why getting a player back to GCS from Geelong is so important is it can act as a proxy for this. Say GCS get Lang. And to compensate for the front loading that has already happened - which is effectively a prepayment to Ablett - Geelong still pay all of Lang's $300k salary. Paying portions of a former player's salary is allowed. This means GCS basically get financial compensation by not paying Lang, and salary cap relief by not having that salary count against their cap so they can prepay or front load some other players in 2018. Then Geelong could recoup some of that money by paying Ablett less than he is really worth - because Ablett is the one who effectively already taken money early for services he was meant to provide in 2018. It's convoluted but is the only way to effectively move financial compensation around as part of a trade.

If I was Melbourne's list manager Tyson is someone I'd look at as a possibility to trade - but only to facilitate getting someone else in. Agree that you wouldn't move him on for a 3rd rounder with the only scenario you'd do that being for salary cap relief. He is a quality player with some very good skills, but he is slow of foot and his disposal can be very inconsistent. So the question I'd ask is how much is lost by trading Tyson out and having Maynard in his place? Or ANB moving into Tyson's midfield slot? think that's a downgrade, but if that downgrade was the difference that enabled a Lever or Gaff/Isaac Smith type to come to the club I think the team would be stronger overall. If Melbourne are serious, and I'm sure they are, there is a high probability there will be casualties of popular players like Tyson and Watts making way.

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.

Both wore 29 for a time but that's where the similarities end for me. Light coloured hair? I remember Obst being tougher than his frame suggested he should be, not quick, with a high propensity to favour handballs over kicks for his time and a good decision maker who brought teammates into the play. Good solid player, Tyson is about the closest I can think of in the current team although there's no great match. Hunt is significantly quicker, way better in the air and way worse with decisions and foot skills.

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!

There's a reason he isn't getting games for Richmond, and if memory serves he got dropped a couple of times in 2016 too before Prestia and Caddy were on the scene.. I think he's a one position, slow paced inside midfielder. We already are struggling to hide some slowish players on the field with Vince, Lewis, Tyson and to a lesser extent Jones. I don't think Oliver is slow, but he's playing an inside role that would be what Miles could play. With Maynard coming on and potentially JKH, I just don't think there would be room for Miles.

I think they are on par for foot speed. Hannan far better in the air, Kent some more strength but doesn't really use it. Both are unreliable set shots for goal (Hannan St.Kilda goals aside) but Hannan seems better on the snap than Kent. I suspect the harder to spot difference where Hannan has it over Kent is adherence to instructions/attitude.

Lewis hasn't been perfect and had some howlers (as all players do), but in general I think he was willing to pull the trigger on quick 25-35 metre kicks to move forward and hit the target on the vast majority of them.

Given the army of coaches in a modern AFL club that doesn't surprise me that the head coach focuses on the top players only. It sounds a sensible use of their time. In the corporate world a team with 40 odd people wouldn't get regular significant interaction with the head honcho.

I don't agree with this. Footy is more and more like the corporate world these days and world-best organisations will only have around 80-90% engagement of staff, or "buy in". That gap can often be down to what people have happening in their personal life, mental state, personality clash with their colleagues etc. and therefore not something you can realistically resolve. Then try and see if you can achieve thise levels in an AFL level atmosphere with mostly young alpha males with huge egos. In the corporate world there are plenty of followers and passive people who are more easily kept happy, I'd suspect a much smaller ratio of those on AFL lists. On the flip side, lack of strategic clarity and inconsistent messages from coaches absolutely can erode buy in so it's not something you can give up on and say "Oh well, we can't get 100% buy in so why bother trying?". I think McCartney is being realistic.

You don't low ball a player you want to retain. I suspect Howe tipped the balance where what his ability could do for the team being less than the maintenance (and salary cap) required to manage him. Yep Kennedy has been a failure, but exiting Howe given his likely attitude and impact on culture could've been seen as a win alone by the club. If he has matured at Collingwood, good for him, but it may not have ever happened at Melbourne. On to the real topic, I hope today they employ Maynard to his strengths as an inside mid. Irritates me no end when a player blitzes at one role at VFL level, and then is asked to play a foreign role at AFL level and struggles. From what little I've seen and read on Maynard, I'm not confident he yet has the tools to contribute in another role.

I didn't see today's game, but the TV game against Box Hill I watched closely. Sample of one. To me Maynard was great in close due to his size and aggression. He's very strongly built, not quite Petracca size but not far off, and while not Viney aggressive certainly no shrinking violet. His kicking however was terrible. Dribblers and shanks more often than good ones. So I don't mean Harmes or ANB style OK off the boot but a poor decision or spin nicely but miss the target, I mean ones that I'd be disappointed if I did that kick. So unless he had an off day for his kicking, which he well may have, I think he's got the physical and attitudal attributes but potentially not the foot skills to make it. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps with Goodwin's handball happy game plan a few with poorer foot skills can secure a spot but I would've thought when Jones, Viney and Tyson were all out that would've been the time it made sense, less so when they are all back in from next week.

And perhaps not the right sport. The theory originated in baseball of course, which is a game of copious and more meaningful statistics coupled with a massive number of players in major and minor leagues, plus a culture of player movements and trading. That meant that a player without the "flashy" obvious statistics like home runs or stolen bases but provides more consistent and reliable value in the more mundane aspects of the game could be identified with a relative degree of confidence based on analytics of huge historic datasets. Baseball also is a far slower moving game, with very specific roles for types of players. Aussie rules doesn't allow for for the substituting of players for specific scenarios, the hiding of player deficiencies through use of a designated hitter rule (think of it like having a nominated kicker you can use just to kick at goals when your team has a set shot at goal, and that's all they need to be good at). Because the conditions of AFL level games are so different to baseball the value players are much harder to identify, and then if you do they can be harder to acquire. The best they could do was say "Gee, I reckon Shannon Byrnes could do well." and work far more on gut feel. I agreed with the strategy, but was skeptical it was achievable in AFL. Essendon effectively did it last year and they've only kept a few players they uncovered, and role players at that. Also, Melbourne's recruiting department was garbage.

A few of my observations from watching on TV. JKH very impressive, but he's got a few ahead of him in the first 22 playing that role. He needs an AFL level second string to his bow because he won't push out Oliver, Viney, Jones etc. Maynard is great physically and for clearances, but unless that was a particularly bad day his disposal is way below AFL standard and will need rectification. He makes vandenBerg's disposal look classy. White and Trengove both excellent skills and decision making at this level (although I thought Trengove was injured he was so quiet in the third quarter) but I don't know they have the physical traits for AFL. Or at least not for Goodwin's game plan. Weideman wasn't so much the 6 goals that were great, but his straight kicking and aggression in the air that impressed and is clearly AFL level for mine. Spencer very fumbly, is out of form. Hulett, I just don't see what he could be at AFL level unfortunately. Kennedy as usual very effective, but not dissimilar to JKH in he won't push out the genuine midfielders for Melbourne, so what's his other position at AFL level? Kent was solid as a midfielder. Unlike JKH and Kennedy, he definitely has the traits as he's proved before to play AFL level Other than midfield. Definitely above the shoulders for him. Johnstone doesn't get much of the ball, but his work off the ball looks good. Kielty I think could be stuck in between sizes and positions for AFL. Seems to have solid judgement though. King obviously still getting back into the swing of things. I wouldn't be surprised to see trade time interest in JKH and White in particular if another team can put them in genuine midfield and half back flank spots respectively. Kent as well if he is on the outer. I also agree with others the Fritsch will get an AFL chance. Has class and poise and with a bit of physical development could be a Tory Dickson style player.

I think Trengove would be a very sensible target. He adds a capable defender who can spell the ruckman. If the team had a player like him on the ground this year it's likely at least one of the Geelong and Richmond games would've been a win.

I'm not sure an interview with Martin would've moved him up the order. Martin is not bright, as he as shown multiple times, and Trengove had it over both he and Scully for leadership, and Scully over the other two for sheer dedication/determination (potentially to the point of being unlikeable and selfish). If you've decided on football ability already, and their personal traits would've been well known irrespective of an interview, I'm less concerned about additional due diligence at the top end of the draft. Where you want the due diligence is the mid picks where an individual's personality is a much better indicator of how much they will extract from their lesser apparent base talents. I think Predergast and the recruiting team of the time's main misses were on judging how well junior traits translate to AFL level - they went for too many players who had junior level strengths that become run of the mill at AFL, and they also had limitations that were exposed at AFL level. Although development must've been poor, the fact that none of those early picks flourished elsewhere can't be down to a missed few years of quality development. I think they were players that were more likely never going to be stars, and maybe with better early development could've been solid role players. The one player who really kicked on, aside from Scully who as a #1 should've anyway, is Stef Martin who was only a project player. He was mismanaged for his personality type. Martin needed positive reinforcement and was sensitive to criticism, and he got berated and publicly embarrassed by Neeld for his faults.

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.

I find it hard to ignore that the three "signature" wins in the last three seasons have all come without Hogan. 2015 in Geelong, Hawthorn last year and now Adelaide. What does this mean? He has proved he can be effective forward, floating into the backline, leading up the wings and also centre clearances and genuine onball. Hogan is clearly an outstanding player and a potential game winner, but what is his best value to the team? A genuine utility, which he has done in some games this year, who plays wherever he is needed based on game situation? Permanent back man to shore up the part of the ground where when under pressure marking targets and a cool head for disposal can be lacking? My feel is default position should be the backline but not as a one on one defender, with his role tactical based on how the game is unfolding as he is the most versatile single player Goodwin has at his disposal. When things are going poorly, having him stranded deep forward seems a waste.

I actually thought JKH looked substantially pacier in the JLT games and I suspect foot speed has been a focus as I'd agree with your assessment based on history. He's not Kent quick, but I don't think he is slow anymore, and he's always had some evasiveness similar to Jetta who is also not quick. This year has already seen several "surprising" omissions or non-selections if you look at stats sheet or reputation alone. I think this is a great sign as it means if you're not doing the critical things asked if you, you're not safe no matter the number of disposals, goals or past record. That's really healthy and I can only imagine JKH has done lots right in the eyes of the coaches, and Kent hasn't.

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.