- May 27, 2006
- 44,516
- 88,174
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- I'm aware of and love the Miami Dolphins
- Moderator
- #1,076
Are we rebuilding?
Certainly looks that way.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Are we rebuilding?
I'm not sure but I think it's more flexible as players can be signed during the season to top up with injuries, e.g. we signed Perkins because we had 4 or 5 ACLS and a bunch of other injuries halfway through the year.How does the salary cap work in the womens league? Do you have to pay a min of 92 % (?) any given season like the men's or not?
I think the decision is, new players coming in are better than established players. This isnt an assumption you can make in the mens.
you'd also think 18yr olds with proper development now compared to 5/10 years ago would piss all over these hacks who get drafted just to make up the numbers. not saying the 1s we let go are hacks but you'd think the girls coming through now lower in the draft would be on par with the girls just off the top of years gone by.It's an interesting point, wonder what the shelf life of women footballers is compared to men ?
Also when they hit their peak as a player could be totally different.
Not something I'd really thought about.
you'd also think 18yr olds with proper development now compared to 5/10 years ago would piss all over these hacks who get drafted just to make up the numbers. not saying the 1s we let go are hacks but you'd think the girls coming through now lower in the draft would be on par with the girls just off the top of years gone by.
Yeah Prespakis won the league b&f in her 2nd season. Patrikios from the Saints is a gun already; Hanks for us looks very good. I think it is a reasonable point because there are a lot better development teams for women's footy now that draftees will be as good/better than existing players. Probably less of a size/strength difference than the men's (e.g. they won't be necessarily giving up 10-15kgs on an opponent as a draftee).you'd also think 18yr olds with proper development now compared to 5/10 years ago would piss all over these hacks who get drafted just to make up the numbers. not saying the 1s we let go are hacks but you'd think the girls coming through now lower in the draft would be on par with the girls just off the top of years gone by.
It seems a pretty targeted and deliberate approach by the club to offload so many. A lifelong Melbourne supporter and captain like O'Dea doesn't just up and leave solely for money - she must not be feeling the love back. I understand the need for list turnover but this is a forest fire.
I hope the club know what they are doing here but i wouldnt say i have any faith based on their previous record.
O'Dea must live around the same area I do. Up until a couple of weeks ago I regularly saw her training by herself in her Melbourne kit. I don't know what to make of that, other than I doubt the trade was a result of a rift between club and player.
They traded up to Vic pick 3 because they had so many picks (more than they would use), that they could afford to trade other picks down. So, they get pick 3 (all 3 top prospects being guns), plus, they arent really any worse off in the rest of the draft.Clubs clearly don't believe in the women's footy myth of "new talent > old hacks". The best teenagers come in and have an immediate impact, which is no different to the men's game, but otherwise it's a hard slog to replace established players. Hence why Melbourne would've preferred to keep O'Dea and Newman etc, just as Carlton and Collingwood were willing to give up draft picks to get them.
O'Dea was traded for pick 8 in the Vic Metro draft, which will be used to get a solid contributor with a bit of luck. Extremely unlikely to result in a Prespakis, Patrikios or Hanks (who all went top 3 Vic Metro).
But the good news for Melbourne is that they made a very smart trade with Geelong today by giving up picks 10, 20, 27 and 39 in exchange for picks 5 (the 3rd selection in the Vic Metro draft), 35 and 54. Doesn't strike me as a long-term rebuild decision, more like a push to win next year's flag.
They are still going to have to use their 4th, 5th and 6th picks (7th too, I think) which have all been significantly downgraded purely to elevate their first pick in this year's draft from a Zanker type (likely to eventually develop into a consistent high-level performer) to a Conti type ("Norm Smith" winner in her first year).They traded up to Vic pick 3 because they had so many picks (more than they would use), that they could afford to trade other picks down. So, they get pick 3 (all 3 top prospects being guns), plus, they arent really any worse off in the rest of the draft.
So, I think its a rebuild, they just had a chance to rebuild with one of the top 3 18 year olds in Victoria. Given they get 3 picks in the first 11 Vic draft picks, its likely to be a strong rebuild to.
I agree with that. Perhaps mini rebuild is a better term. I dont think they see themselves out of contention, and the young players they bring in have the potential to have the same impact, or more, of the players they have lost. But it also sets them up for the next 5 years.They are still going to have to use their 4th, 5th and 6th picks (7th too, I think) which have all been significantly downgraded purely to elevate their first pick in this year's draft from a Zanker type (likely to eventually develop into a consistent high-level performer) to a Conti type ("Norm Smith" winner in her first year).
A rebuild evokes a club considering itself out of flag contention and choosing to move on senior players for youth. Seems to me that Melbourne still believe they are genuine premiership threats, despite having to replace players who decided to leave (with the exception of Kemp, different story altogether).