McLean trade the best outcome for Melbourne

[Mr_Vedder]

Do you remember how badly Melbourne was in 2008? Finishing 2nd in our B&F that year is hardly an achievement.
Since then Moloney has gotten over his injuries, Sylvia has got his head together, Jones has developed, Grimes has got a full year under his belt, Davey has stepped up and McLean has gone backwards.

Talk about spin doctoring, before yesterday most Carlton fans thought McLean was a dud

Finishing 2nd while only playing 14 games is a pretty good achievement I would have thought.

You said he has been rubbish for 2 years. The only rubbish going on here are some of the posts on various threads trying to make him out to be a spud.

 

[Daytripper]

McLean's defensive skills are poor, Bailey has been trying to play him in a position to improve them. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Yet still got 2nd in the B & F last year.

Defensive skills can't have been that bad.

 

[Falchoon]

a little birdie tells me Brock thinks driving from Moonee Ponds to Cranbourne daily might be a chore.

 

[AG]

But as a club that was in serious need of a rebuild at the end of 2007 after running its list into the ground, I'd much rather be in Melbourne's position than North's or Richmond's on the eve of three years of uncompromised drafts.

Hard to split the three because each club is basing their fortunes on potential. North and Melbourne have better young defenders. Richmond have better young forwards. Midfields are fairly even. North have a tougher culture and haven't gone down the path of losing for draft picks so that might benefit them. No one really knows but it will be interesting to look back in three years time.

 

[Demonheart]

Proved he was good enough at the start, only makes you question how Melbourne has crippled him so badly.

I'd much prefer to spin this to make it shine a bad light on Carlton to be honest. I couldn't really care for Melbourne and I've no need to knock them, much to the contrary. This trade makes it hard to salvage any sort of win for Melbourne though.

Cripple him? It wasn't that long ago that you were having a laugh about McLean being MElbourne's captain.

 

[melbournemartin]

I'm not sure if Richmond really have better young forward.

Watts and Jurrah is a very handy combination going forward with some good small forwards in Maric and Wonna too.

Anyway, back on topic. I'm still sad :-(

This trade will only work out for Melbourne if pick 11 is a gun. If we get someone as good as Jack Grimes, like we did with the TJ trade, then I'll be happy.

 

[sgbn77]

I've jumped ahead massively and not read most of the posts, so apologies if i'm repeating someone.

I nearly spat my food out when I read of this trade. I can see what Melbourne are thinking with getting some decent early picks, but my concern is you've let some older blokes go (retirements), and now you've traded away a quality player. When you are in a position to compete, you're all of going to be of a similar age...there's not enough of a senior presence throughout the team.

Hawthorn had the mix right in 2008, and you'd probably say a little too young, but in 2009, with Crawford gone, and Dew and Croad having little to no influence, we were suddenly extremely inconsistent. Able to compete with Geelong twice, but then getting pantsed by a lot of teams who should have struggled.

You may pick up some quality in the draft, and good luck to you, but trading away proven players with class, for the unknown is a very-AFL phenomenon, and I don't buy into it.

 

[mjr_42]

You completely missed the point, congratulations. It wasn't to outline who won or lost out of the trades, simply to show that they all resulted in draft picks around the number you just got and that they all flopped. Your supporters are trying to proclaim that you are doing the best thing getting earlier trade picks, it is all well and good when you manage to get a Jack Grimes but history shows you more often than not get a Daniel Bell.

I'm not doubting those picks aren't stars. But I'm saying you're being disingenuous by not including the Johnstone for Grimes trade, and misrepresenting what we did with pick 12 in 2004.

Trading proven talented youth to get a chance at maybe drafting some potential talented youth is ridiculous.

I agree. But in the circumstances of a required player requesting a trade, Melbourne has to do as best it can. Do you think that pick 11 is a poor return for a player of McLean's calibre on the eve of the last uncompromised draft for three years?

Melbourne are proclaiming that losing a talented and proven youngster for a pick after 10 (which historically proves it comes up with players that are not up to McLean's grade) is a good thing for their future.

It's a good thing, given McLean has requested a trade and our club's current appetite for risk in the draft market.

Richmond didn't pick Danny Meyer FWIW.

Yes they did. Go and do some research.

Well no, you won't have a stockpile of elite youngsters, it doesn't work like that unfortunately. You'll have a bunch of unproven TAC cup kids and a lack of talent and experience at the top, not a great combination.

Read my other responses. I've never claimed they will be elite senior players, or even elite young players at senior level.

However, Morton, Grimes, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Scully and Trengove are among the pick of the crop from their respective intakes and they represent some of the best under-age footballers in the country.

After three years of rubbish performances, I'd rather have my list filled with those players than the middle-aged spuds that Richmond and, to a lesser extent, North, have.

 

[Demonheart]

Yet still got 2nd in the B & F last year.

Defensive skills can't have been that bad.

Do you really think McLean's a great player do you?

Let's go back to 2008 and have a look at what you think of McLean shall we?

1. Nick Dal Santo
2. Brock McLean
3. Aaron Sandilands
4. Adam Simpson
5. Shaun Burgoyne

And what's this list for you all ask? That's right, most overrated players

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432279

 

[melbournemartin]

Are people forgetting that McLean wanted to leave? Melbourne didn't openly seek to trade him. We're just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

 

[demondavey]

You completely missed the point, congratulations. It wasn't to outline who won or lost out of the trades, simply to show that they all resulted in draft picks around the number you just got and that they all flopped. Your supporters are trying to proclaim that you are doing the best thing getting earlier trade picks, it is all well and good when you manage to get a Jack Grimes but history shows you more often than not get a Daniel Bell.
Trading proven talented youth to get a chance at maybe drafting some potential talented youth is ridiculous.
2003, 10-20 reaped 2 decent players, the rest are mostly spuds
2004, 10-20 came out with probably 1, maybe 2 decent players. Again the rest are spuds or delisted
2005, 10-20, Higgins and Hurn, once again the rest are not much chop. Birchall is decent.
2006, 10-20, Brown brothers and Frawley are decent, couple have already been traded, a couple clearly won't make the grade.

The numbers aren't great, yet Melbourne are proclaiming that losing a talented and proven youngster for a pick after 10 (which historically proves it comes up with players that are not up to McLean's grade) is a good thing for their future.


Richmond didn't pick Danny Meyer FWIW.



This thread highlights how badly you guys are in meltdown control, your touted future captain decided to walk out of the club he donated $10k and 5 years too just so he can scroll across the street and play for someone else.
There isn't thread popping up from Carlton supporters trying to justify their trade, just like there isn't 10 page threads on their board with supporters venting their anger at losing their pick (player in Melbourne's case obviously).

Well no, you won't have a stockpile of elite youngsters, it doesn't work like that unfortunately. You'll have a bunch of unproven TAC cup kids and a lack of talent and experience at the top, not a great combination.

2003: waters, stanton, chaplin, mundy
2004: Bate and Monfries
2005: Higgins, Jones, Birchall, Varcoe, Douglas, Bower
2006: Everitt, sellar, hampson, grigg

What the hell are you on? Just stop talking dross you moron and get off the thread

 

[mjr_42]

I can read perfectly fine. The fact that you ontraded the same pick received for Thompson irrespective of the circumstances means you clearly lost out on that trade.

Why does on-trading that pick for another established footballer who has given us good service automatically mean that we lost out on the deal?

Following that logic, if we'd on-traded that pick for Chris Judd, we would have clearly lost out on that trade.

Do you think Brent Moloney is a poor player? Do think Melbourne should have selected Danny Meyer, Adam Pattison or Ryan Willits instead?

The next player selected after pick 12 to have matched or bettered Moloney's output is Nathan van Berlo from Adelaide (pick 24). After that, it's Matt Rosa from West Coast (no. 29). Then Mark LeCras (no. 37).

By that stage, every club had passed over van Berlo and Rosa at least once and Le Cras at least twice.

Your assertion is completely and utterly illogical and without basis.

 

[AG]

Are people forgetting that McLean wanted to leave? Melbourne didn't openly seek to trade him. We're just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

There is no problem saying you did well to get pick 11.
It's when people start saying 'he was shit', 'it was the right decision for the club to move forward', 'pick 11 will probably be better than him', 'with all these picks we have, we will dominate in a few years' etc.

 

[Invigoration]

Point 1: BROCK MCLEAN WANTED TO LEAVE WE DIDNT COME OUT AND SAY HEY BROCK YOUR GETTING TRADED - Try and think first. In the circumstance pick 11 is excellent for a PLAYER WAN-TING TO BE TRA-DED

Your clubs fault, stop trying to spin it to shine a good light on your club. Your top 5 picks are walking out of the club to play at the team across town. No go home factor, no money issue (your cap room) just simply didn't want to play at your club... Needless to say that is a bad sign.
Can you honestly say your top 5 picks this year won't feel the same in a few years?

Point 2: Have ourselves to blame? Not every draft choice turns out to be a star do they? Had some picks that havent gone the way we wanted but we also have a young list and atm things are going the way we want. Circumstances? Everyone rebuilds sunshine

What are you talking about? The circumstances are Brock McLean opting to walk out, fair enough if a player doesn't make the grade and you delist him, but that isn't the case here. McLean is a proven AFL player that is leaving so you guys can start from scratch and develop a new 18 year old kid, except this time you lost 6 spots in the draft.
McLean walking out of the club leaves the blame firmly on you guys.

Point 3: When and how are assured a flag? Hmmm loose thinking. Melbourne now has FOUR SELECTIONS in the top 20 before a draft whereby GC will be assigned the majority of selections!! The more picks this year the better

My amazing powers of deduction, your supporters are proclaiming that 4 picks in the top 20 will instantly translate into success.
You are acting as if McLean is over the hill, he is 23 FFS. Fair enough getting rid of olders players like Johnstone or Davey who won't be part of your next play at success for picks, but trading your 23 year olds for picks? Kind of counter intuitive isn't it?

Point 4: Scott Thompson wanted to go home - so we traded him? Do you get that?? Why bother playing hard ball and coming up with the line 'he is a required player' when he wants to leave?? It only makes things worse

I suggest you either go and troll on another board or go and play around on the collingwood board

Did Brock McLean want to go home as well?

Anyway it wasn't the point, I wasn't picking out those trades as if to say Melbourne stuffed up, simply that they all eventuated in failed draft picks. Proven players getting traded for potential and in every case the potential failed. I could go through and outline the same thing with a bunch of other clubs, I simply used the Melbourne trades as they are the most relevant for this discussion.
People simply overrate the value of draft picks and when you get one that proves they can successfully at it at the top level, you should be doing everything to assure you don't get jibbed and lose him after 5 years of development.

It is pretty clear how upset you guys are about this though and I don't blame you, I would be too.

 

[mjr_42]

Despite the fact Davey has now moved into the midfield, you still stand by Monfries is surplus to requirements... I dont think Melbourne is in any form of position to claim an established player from another team is 'surplus to requirements'.

Of course I stand by that assertion. We made that selection at the end of 2004, when we'd made the finals, winning 14 games and Aaron Davey had finished second in the Rising Star as a small forward.

A player like Angus Monfries was clearly surplus to requirements - that's why we selected young, versatile mobile talls in Matthew Bate and Lynden Dunn.

And we didn't make that pick at the end of 2007 - when incidentally, we selected Austin Wonaeamirri, who showed in his first season that he will be more than handy as (you guessed it) a small forward.

 

[Invigoration]

Cripple him? It wasn't that long ago that you were having a laugh about McLean being MElbourne's captain.

Me specifically? I doubt it, though in saying that I would have laughed if he was made your captain based purely on his off-field behaviour, nothing else though.

I rate McLean and I'm spewing Collingwood didn't go after him. You can hardly say that after what McLean had shown in his first couple of seasons that he hasn't, in some form, been crippled?
He undoubtedly isn't helped by playing in a poor side, Deledio is another pure example of that, but he has still stagnated pretty severely.
I'd just be very suprised if McLean doesn't flourish and Melbourne don't end up ruing this or whatever it was that made him leave.

 

[Invigoration]

2003: waters, stanton, chaplin, mundy
2004: Bate and Monfries
2005: Higgins, Jones, Birchall, Varcoe, Douglas, Bower
2006: Everitt, sellar, hampson, grigg

What the hell are you on? Just stop talking dross you moron and get off the thread

2003: Chaplin is average and you are kidding yourself putting Mundy in there
2004: I said 1 or 2
2005: Jones, Douglas and Bower are all average. I certainly wouldn't have any of them before McLean
2006: Everitt is about to moves clubs, Sellar is very average and nearly got delisted, Hampson is completely unproven.

 

[melbournemartin]

There is no problem saying you did well to get pick 11.
It's when people start saying 'he was shit', 'it was the right decision for the club to move forward', 'pick 11 will probably be better than him', 'with all these picks we have, we will dominate in a few years' etc.

Yeah it's just a typical defense mechanism when trying to get over something. See it all the time.

And invirogation, I mostly agree with you but cut Jones a bit of slack. He's definitely above average and has improved with every year he's played. I can't say that about McLean but he's had some bad injuries.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Why does on-trading that pick for another established footballer who has given us good service automatically mean that we lost out on the deal?

Following that logic, if we'd on-traded that pick for Chris Judd, we would have clearly lost out on that trade.

Do you think Brent Moloney is a poor player? Do think Melbourne should have selected Danny Meyer, Adam Pattison or Ryan Willits instead?

The next player selected after pick 12 to have matched or bettered Moloney's output is Nathan van Berlo from Adelaide (pick 24). After that, it's Matt Rosa from West Coast (no. 29). Then Mark LeCras (no. 37).

By that stage, every club had passed over van Berlo and Rosa at least once and Le Cras at least twice.

Your assertion is completely and utterly illogical and without basis.

Theres no way Moloney was worth pick 12 in a million years. Hes a decent player but go back and take a look at the trades, pick 12 was ontraded numerous times that year. Theres a big difference in the calibre of players that pick 12 was involved in trading for.

Moloney was hardly an established player at the time either. He was in his second year at Geelong after being drafted via the PSD in 2003. What in those 1 1/2 years he spent at Geelong caused a jump from being overlooked by everyone to pick 12? Hell if you needed an established player that desperately, Callum Chambers would've been a more affordable option and you still could've kept your high draft picks.

With regards to not taking Monfries, of course Melbourne could never take two similar players in a draft. Say like Jetta and Bennell....

 

[demondavey]

Your clubs fault, stop trying to spin it to shine a good light on your club. Your top 5 picks are walking out of the club to play at the team across town. No go home factor, no money issue (your cap room) just simply didn't want to play at your club... Needless to say that is a bad sign.
Can you honestly say your top 5 picks this year won't feel the same in a few years?


What are you talking about? The circumstances are Brock McLean opting to walk out, fair enough if a player doesn't make the grade and you delist him, but that isn't the case here. McLean is a proven AFL player that is leaving so you guys can start from scratch and develop a new 18 year old kid, except this time you lost 6 spots in the draft.
McLean walking out of the club leaves the blame firmly on you guys.



My amazing powers of deduction, your supporters are proclaiming that 4 picks in the top 20 will instantly translate into success.
You are acting as if McLean is over the hill, he is 23 FFS. Fair enough getting rid of olders players like Johnstone or Davey who won't be part of your next play at success for picks, but trading your 23 year olds for picks? Kind of counter intuitive isn't it?



Did Brock McLean want to go home as well?

Anyway it wasn't the point, I wasn't picking out those trades as if to say Melbourne stuffed up, simply that they all eventuated in failed draft picks. Proven players getting traded for potential and in every case the potential failed. I could go through and outline the same thing with a bunch of other clubs, I simply used the Melbourne trades as they are the most relevant for this discussion.
People simply overrate the value of draft picks and when you get one that proves they can successfully at it at the top level, you should be doing everything to assure you don't get jibbed and lose him after 5 years of development.

It is pretty clear how upset you guys are about this though and I don't blame you, I would be too.

First Point: Our top 5 picks?? How many people have stood up and said 'i want out'? How many? One player said it, one player! It happens everywhere. And yes i think it might have been a little financially related One player leaves because of an interest clash and its a bad sign

Second Point: How can you say that and put that crap over that melbourne ruins its players? You have nothing to base that allegation on, nothing at all mate. Your using the mclean example to try and tarnish the way melbourne deals with its players!! You are clutching at straws to fight a losing argument!

Third point: Six spots in the draft??? We have been over that the draft is a lottery!!! Jesus Christ i posted the type of player that can get picked at 11!! Not going through it again!! You get a dud at 2 you get a gun at 75!! Come on think it through!!

Fourth Point: McLean is injury prone, he is slow, he wont get faster and we have seen with Luke Ball that that type of play is slowly getting weeded out!! MATE YOUR NOT READING ANYTHING I HAVE POSTED PREVIOUSLY!! JESUS SON THINK!

Fifth Point: because they are relevant?? Well how about you go and do some homework and see who has a worse off draft history before labelling it to melbourne because its convenient for your argument

 

[mjr_42]

Theres no way Moloney was worth pick 12 in a million years. Hes a decent player but go back and take a look at the trades, pick 12 was ontraded numerous times that year. Theres a big difference in the calibre of players that pick 12 was involved in trading for.

Moloney was hardly an established player at the time either. He was in his second year at Geelong after being drafted via the PSD in 2003. What in those 1 1/2 years he spent at Geelong caused a jump from being overlooked by everyone to pick 12? Hell if you needed an established player that desperately, Callum Chambers would've been a more affordable option and you still could've kept your high draft picks.

With regards to not taking Monfries, of course Melbourne could never take two similar players in a draft. Say like Jetta and Bennell....

Okay, if you think we shouldn't have traded for Brent Moloney, who should we have drafted instead? Small forwards were surplus to requirements, and we selected mobile talls in Bate and Dunn at 13 and 15. I've already gone through and pointed out other alternatives and none of them have been clearly better than Brent Moloney.

You're kidding yourself if you're suggesting that Moloney for pick 12 hasn't turned out to be an acceptable result from that pick.

 

[Mr_Vedder]

McLean's defensive skills are poor, Bailey has been trying to play him in a position to improve them. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Bailey needs to teach Jones how to tackle while he is trying to round out players. Jones finishing 20th in tackles per game in 2009 for Melbourne is not great. McLeans "poor defensive skills" managed twice as many though.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Okay, if you think we shouldn't have traded for Brent Moloney, who should we have drafted instead?

You're kidding yourself if you're suggesting that Moloney for pick 12 hasn't turned out to be an acceptable result from that pick.

You want me to just pluck a name out of nowhere? If Melbourne went up to every club when they received that pick 12 and said "What will you give us" im sure you could've conjured up something more than Brent Moloney. Pick 12 went all over the shop that year. We gave it to the Crows for Stenglein, who in turn gave it to you for Thompson, who gave it to the Cats for Moloney, who gave it to the Tigers for Ottens. Spot the odd one out.

I still believe you could/should have taken Monfries if you kept the pick, you take the best available in the draft and if hes the next best player you take him, he'd be a best 22 player no doubt currently playing off the HFF. Hes not surplus to requirements now or back then just because you had 1 good player filling his projected role. Monfries would offer you more in the future than Moloney ever has/will.

You could've drafted Cam Wood, then could've had your ruckman now, as Paul Johnson who you traded for in that same year who was a forward at the time and you'd just traded Darren Jolly your only other ruck option (big mistake there too). Since then you've decided to transform PJ into a ruckman over the last few years due to your deficiency in that area.

 

[Invigoration]

I'm not doubting those picks aren't stars. But I'm saying you're being disingenuous by not including the Johnstone for Grimes trade, and misrepresenting what we did with pick 12 in 2004.

I wasn't going to include it for the sake of the argument and because I would assume most people know of that trade as being a success, but point taken. As I said though, I wasn't trying to outline that Melbourne have a bad trading past, more-so that picks more often than not come up flat.

I agree. But in the circumstances of a required player requesting a trade, Melbourne has to do as best it can. Do you think that pick 11 is a poor return for a player of McLean's calibre on the eve of the last uncompromised draft for three years?

No I don't, pick 11 is pretty decent considering and I sincerely hope that it turns out to be a significantly better player than the cheats get with McLean. I was more trying to highlight that in this case the circumstances seemed to have been solely caused by Melbourne and I just believe a few questions need to be raised about why that is.

Yes they did. Go and do some research.

Yeah I was stupidly thinking of Thomson, my bad

Read my other responses. I've never claimed they will be elite senior players, or even elite young players at senior level.

"what is certain is that the club will have an enviable stockpile of elite youngsters"
I know the point you are making, but it reads quite badly. Adelaide have elite youngsters (Walker, Vince, Knights etc), Collingwood have elite youngsters (Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Beams etc), Carlton have elite yougsters (Murphy, Gibbs and Kreuzer etc).
Picks 1, 2, 11 and 18(?) are not elite youngsters.
Proclaiming someone is an elite youngster simply because he played TAC and got drafted in stepping into pretty dangerous territory IMO.

In say that though, it definitely isn't a bad thing and does potentially pose a very bright future. But my own club is a sign of what happens when you have a talented young crop with very few experienced middle aged players. Collingwood managed to only keep like 1 or 2 players from the drafts from 2001-2004 (or something like that) and now we are paying the price. McLean would have been at a prime age when you guys start hitting your straps, as it stands at the moment you may well have a very gifted young core but it may well be very disproportionate to the 25-29 group.

However, Morton, Grimes, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Scully and Trengove are among the pick of the crop from their respective intakes and they represent some of the best under-age footballers in the country.

After three years of rubbish performances, I'd rather have my list filled with those players than the middle-aged spuds that Richmond and, to a lesser extent, North, have.

Absolutely, I agree wholeheartedly, but I'd still prefer to see McLean's name thrown in with that bundle. You guys did very well offloading Johnstone to get Grimes and the young list you are building is undoubtedly going to be quite formidable in time, I'm just not as confident that losing proven players from that list and having them replaced by a draft pick is such a great thing.

I digress though, in the scheme of things I essentially agree with you that pick 11 was probably the best you could have hoped for. Maybe McLean was just a glory hungry pig who was only intent on achieving success in as little time as possible so losing him was inevitable and overall a good thing...
The 10k donation just seems to say otherwise to me though.

I'd much prefer to see Melbourne become the winners of this transaction though, Carlton's glaring lack of ability to draft and develop its own talent (outside of pick 1) is what has held them back from being competitive for 8 years. Here's to hoping that stealing other clubs talent won't change that tend.

 

[demondavey]

2003: Chaplin is average and you are kidding yourself putting Mundy in there
2004: I said 1 or 2
2005: Jones, Douglas and Bower are all average. I certainly wouldn't have any of them before McLean
2006: Everitt is about to moves clubs, Sellar is very average and nearly got delisted, Hampson is completely unproven.

Chaplin is not average and i am sure if he became available 15 other clubs would say 'lets select a young prospering KPP'. David Mundy has been exceptional for Freo off half back. Do you watch footy? Bower will be playing FB or in the BP for a long long time yet mate and Douglas is a very good player who has assisted adelaide tremedously with midfield and forward rotations. Sellar is up and coming and proving that it takes longer for a big guy to come up