Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[Marlin01]

Sold to the man in the blue and red windcheater.

 

[Chris_6678]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...t-coast-veterans/story-fnhocuug-1226679508053

What was said? as i can read that article.

 

[Falco]

Sold to the man in the blue and red windcheater.

Do you think Melbourne would be in the market for a small forward like Hams?

 

[Marlin01]

God knows. I don't think Hams holds much currency and I think we'd take whatever we could get.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Lol. Hams would not be worth anything. If a team wanted him, theyd pick him up in the rookie draft or at pick 100 in the national draft

 

[Spooky17]

God knows. I don't think Hams holds much currency and I think we'd take whatever we could get.

I think a high-five would be sufficient

 

[JackOutback]

Hams wouldn't be worth more than a Dorsogna ham...would be more costly to get rid of him than to just let him sit on the list, coming in if there is a massive injury crisis, but otherwise riding out his contract.

 

[twce13]

Hams wouldn't be worth more than a Dorsogna ham...would be more costly to get rid of him than to just let him sit on the list, coming in if there is a massive injury crisis, but otherwise riding out his contract.

We need list turnover, leaving spuds on the list is not doing it right.

Forget trading him, just delist. Deeper draft this year, use it.

 

[JackOutback]

We need list turnover, leaving spuds on the list is not doing it right.

Forget trading him, just delist. Deeper draft this year, use it.

I guess it all depends on how many out-of-contract players there are to delist. If there is enough, then no point paying out a contract for someone who can sit on the list for one more year and be cut then. If that's not the case, then absolutely, pay him out and cut him.

 

[Goldfish]

I guess it all depends on how many out-of-contract players there are to delist. If there is enough, then no point paying out a contract for someone who can sit on the list for one more year and be cut then. If that's not the case, then absolutely, pay him out and cut him.

We also need to be mindful we need draft and/or upgrade 3 players a year, so 3 spots need to free up at the end of the 2014 and 2015 seasons...

It is for this reason players such as Selwood and Embley etc may be given another year, there's no point delisting 6 players this year only to be forced to make 3 changes you don't want to make the year after (ie. delist a promising player or senior player before they are done).

I'm fine with this, provided they are used for depth only, and not given game time purely because they are senior players and have runs on the board from 3+ seasons ago.

 

[Matera LeNui]

Whoops I mentioned it on the other thread but seems more appropriate here. Mitch Brown for Jack Steven

 

[Chris_6678]

Whoops I mentioned it on the other thread but seems more appropriate here. Mitch Brown for Jack Steven

Would do that in a heartbeat...but there is no way they will let him go.

 

[Matera LeNui]

Would do that in a heartbeat...but there is no way they will let him go.

Probably even money though. Hes got a lot more potential. I like how he breaks away from congestion, hard at the ball. Reminds me of someone we shall not mention....

 

[Marlin01]

We also need to be mindful we need draft and/or upgrade 3 players a year, so 3 spots need to free up at the end of the 2014 and 2015 seasons...

It is for this reason players such as Selwood and Embley etc may be given another year, there's no point delisting 6 players this year only to be forced to make 3 changes you don't want to make the year after (ie. delist a promising player or senior player before they are done).

I'm fine with this, provided they are used for depth only, and not given game time purely because they are senior players and have runs on the board from 3+ seasons ago.

I can never understand this logic. Keeping a player on the list with the intention of delisting them next year, so we don't find ourselves in the terrible predicament of having such a talent-laden squad we can't find 3 players to move on. Sounds like a good problem to have, to me.

 

[erbenz]

St. Kilda's problems are mids (Same as us), and KPP's (Not like us). They won't be trading Jack Steven or David Armitage. If Brown is to go to St. Kilda we should look at getting their second rounder (An early 20's pick), plus throw in something as steak knives so we can get Tom Ledger.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

I think Brown is worth more than Tom Ledger.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't be trading Mitch Brown unless we got a crazy offer.

 

[erbenz]

I think Brown is worth more than Tom Ledger.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't be trading Mitch Brown unless we got a crazy offer.

He is, but I'm trying to get the second rounder first and foremost. The steak knives are simply to get rid of deadwood on our list and bolster our midfield depth.

 

[Marlin01]

If we trade Brown to the Saints we then have Mackenzie and Schofield as our KPDs for the next 3 years.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

He is, but I'm trying to get the second rounder first and foremost. The steak knives are simply to get rid of deadwood on our list and bolster our midfield depth.

Sorry,

I went back and re-read your post. I misunderstood it the first time. I see what you're getting at now.

 

[The Dodger]

I think a high-five would be sufficient

Make that a five down low as no one should raise their arms in the vicinity of Hams.

 

[erbenz]

If we trade Brown to the Saints we then have Mackenzie and Schofield as our KPDs for the next 3 years.

I understand that but it is imperative we find a better KPD option than Brown anyway. I don't know who that is, but I'd imagine our recruitment guys are doing that work at the moment.

He got towelled up by a mediocre third-tall in Mayne yesterday. Mayne's a good, solid player but he's workmanlike and Brown should've curtailed him easily.

We really need to be looking at Pears, Silvagni (Who was misused on Darling yesterday), Chipper Frawley, Colin Garland or even one of the GWS boys.

The Melbourne defenders would offer value for money as they've been under the pump for most of the year yet performed admirably. Garland's disposal is really solid too.

 

[Matera LeNui]

If Glass plays for 2 more years we can probably afford to get rid of Brown. In saying that Glass/Mackenzie/Brown have played this year together and has worked reasonably well. What about more of Brown pinch hitting in the forward line, we originally wanted him as a forward.

 

[squashface]

If Glass plays for 2 more years we can probably afford to get rid of Brown. In saying that Glass/Mackenzie/Brown have played this year together and has worked reasonably well. What about more of Brown pinch hitting in the forward line, we originally wanted him as a forward.

Please no. Not again.

 

[Goldfish]

I can never understand this logic. Keeping a player on the list with the intention of delisting them next year, so we don't find ourselves in the terrible predicament of having such a talent-laden squad we can't find 3 players to move on. Sounds like a good problem to have, to me.

Ok, so we delist 6 players, and therefore take 6 in the draft, the last one being pick 100+

These players are now on 2 year contracts.

Without knowing the detailed ins and outs of the contracted status of our group, how do you propose we find 3 players who are out of contract to delist at the end of next year? You can't get rid of the kids, they are contracted for 2 years. Also, you would be hard pressed to find a kid at pick 100+ in any draft that would give the squad as much depth as someone who has been training with us, has a few preseasons behind them and is a known quantity.

Yes, you can pay out contracts, but then you need to be mindful of salary cap issues as all payments fall within the year they are made, ie. pay out Kerr this year for 2014 and it falls into the 2013 cap (I don't want to pay out Kerr, that is just the example that came to mind).

 

[Marlin01]

Well the obvious 3 would be Butler, Kerr and Glass/Cox