Collingwood trade Lumumba and mid second round pick to North Melbourne for pick 15

Dees trade Picks 3, early second Rd'er & Mitch Clark to Collingwood for now Collingwoods pick 15

Adelaide trade Dangerfield and pick 10 to Melbourne

Melbourne then send Picks 2 and 15 back to Adelaide

Collingwood trade early 2nd Rd'er from Dees & Beams to Brisbane for Aish

Collingwood ontrade Aish to Adelaide

North Melbourne: Lose - Pick 15 > gain mid 2nd Rd'er & Lumumbaa

Adelaide: Lose - pick 10 & Dangerfiled > gain picks 2, 15 & Aish.

Brisbane: Lose - Aish > gain early 2nd Rd'er & Beams

Collingwood: Lose - Pick mid 2nd Rd'er, Beams & Lumumbaa >gain Picks 3 & Clark

Melbourne: Lose - Picks 2, 3, early 2nd Rd'er & Clark > gain Picks 10, 15 & Dangerfield.

I think this is fair for all and also allows for the Dees to then ontrade picks 10 or 15 in other trades

Aish, whilst being a good prospect, doesn't hold more value than Beams. Brisbane would be giving up Aish + another asset for Beams, not vice-versa

Collingwood trade Lumumba and mid second round pick to North Melbourne for pick 15

Dees trade Picks 3, early second Rd'er & Mitch Clark to Collingwood for now Collingwoods pick 15

Adelaide trade Dangerfield and pick 10 to Melbourne

Melbourne then send Picks 2 and 15 back to Adelaide

Collingwood trade early 2nd Rd'er from Dees & Beams to Brisbane for Aish

Collingwood ontrade Aish to Adelaide

North Melbourne: Lose - Pick 15 > gain mid 2nd Rd'er & Lumumbaa

Adelaide: Lose - pick 10 & Dangerfiled > gain picks 2, 15 & Aish.

Brisbane: Lose - Aish > gain early 2nd Rd'er & Beams

Collingwood: Lose - Pick mid 2nd Rd'er, Beams & Lumumbaa >gain Picks 3 & Clark

Melbourne: Lose - Picks 2, 3, early 2nd Rd'er & Clark > gain Picks 10, 15 & Dangerfield.

I think this is fair for all and also allows for the Dees to then ontrade picks 10 or 15 in other trades

Adelaide and Melbourne both have pick 15...

Its all good in theory... Ahhh the trade period... Anything could happen but feck all usually does!

Collingwood trade Lumumba and mid second round pick to North Melbourne for pick 15

Dees trade Picks 3, early second Rd'er & Mitch Clark to Collingwood for now Collingwoods pick 15

Adelaide trade Dangerfield and pick 10 to Melbourne

Melbourne then send Picks 2 and 15 back to Adelaide

Collingwood trade early 2nd Rd'er from Dees & Beams to Brisbane for Aish

Collingwood ontrade Aish to Adelaide

North Melbourne: Lose - Pick 15 > gain mid 2nd Rd'er & Lumumbaa

Adelaide: Lose - pick 10 & Dangerfiled > gain picks 2, 15 & Aish.

Brisbane: Lose - Aish > gain early 2nd Rd'er & Beams

Collingwood: Lose - Pick mid 2nd Rd'er, Beams & Lumumbaa >gain Picks 3 & Clark

Melbourne: Lose - Picks 2, 3, early 2nd Rd'er & Clark > gain Picks 10, 15 & Dangerfield.

I think this is fair for all and also allows for the Dees to then ontrade picks 10 or 15 in other trades

As pointed out in the above post by 'TL' you've got both us & Adelaide getting pick 15 in the final wash-up. In the above scenario I believe the Crows would get pick 15 (I think)

I'd take it anyway as I believe the only way we'll definitely get Dangerfield is give up picks 2 & 3 (with no strings attached)

In effect, we'd then lose pick 20 & Clark for pick 10. Again, in my eyes a good deal because I didn't think Clark would play again ...

Instead of pick 20, we get pick 10 - that's a win (in theory) although ... pick 20 in 2009 was Fyfe

Shoenmakers is a dumb footballer. Panics under pressure and makes poor choices. I know plenty of Hawk fans who roll their eyes every time he gets the ball.

I'm with you here Moon, if you get frustrated by the Grimes and McDonald clangers, you don't want Shoenmakers in the backline. As a forward maybe he has something to offer but it's a no from me.

Saints give up: pick 1,

get back: Jaksch & pick 4,

Demons give up: pick 3

get back: Shiel, pick 20ish (or frost)

Giants give up: Shiel, pick 4, Jaksch, pick 20ish

get back: pick 1, pick 3

The giants are essentially giving up pick 4 and 20ish for free, because 1 & 3 would be used to find direct replacements for Shiel and Jaksch. Hard to see the giants doing that... Great deal for the Dees though.

That's a slightly worse deal than the one we did for Tyson. Still not a terrible result.

I'm loving the rumours folks. Keep 'em coming.

I love the silly season.

Tbh it drives me nuts.

So some proposals have us using picks 2 & 3 for Dangerfield; some for Shiel + Brayshaw.

Which is better?

So some proposals have us using picks 2 & 3 for Dangerfield; some for Shiel + Brayshaw.

Which is better?

Personally I would prefer to double dip, we need many quality players not just one

Zac Clarke from Freo is up for grabs, he would be a handy first ruck. 24 yrs old and a Vic lad.

So some proposals have us using picks 2 & 3 for Dangerfield; some for Shiel + Brayshaw.

Which is better?

Shiel and Brayshaw. Dangerfield is a star, but Shiel and Brayshaw have more football ahead of them and imo would represent the better value deal. If we were to deal a high pick for Shiel, we'd possibly get something else back too. Potentially three players as opposed to one.

Worth noting that Shiels stats compare very favourably to Dangerfield's at the same stage in their career.

Zac Clarke from Freo is up for grabs, he would be a handy first ruck. 24 yrs old and a Vic lad.

Would be a great get for our second rounder (if we can trade it).

Latest rounds I've heard amongst the office today.

Dees trade Pick 3 & Mitch Clark to Collingwood

Collingwood trade Beams to Brisbane

Brisbane trade Pick 25 (approx) to Melbourne & Aish to Adelaide

Adelaide tarde Dangerfield to Melbourne

Melbourne then send Pick 2 back to Adelaide and ontrade 25 to Collingwood

Collingwood send Lumumba back to Melbourne

Adelaide: Loose Dangerfiled, gain pick 2 & Aish.

Brisbane: Loose Aish & Pick 25, gain Beams

Collingwood: Loose Beams & Lumumbaa, gain Picks 3, 25 & Clark

Melbourne: Loose Picks 2, 3 & Clark, gain Dangerfield & Lumumba.

Reasonably fair, although a lot depends on Dangerfield not breaking down. We also Then still have our 2nd & 3rd round picks for Stretch & a trade for Frost.

sorry, don't like it, At ALL.

.

Adelaide and Melbourne both have pick 15...

He plays the first part of the season with us, second part in Adelaide or simply alternates.

Currently in Istanbul. Have spied a couple of huge, hairy, moustachioed Ottoman Turks in the Hammam who I reckon would go alright in our backline. They would do a mean " don't argue ".

I think shiel would be better.

So some proposals have us using picks 2 & 3 for Dangerfield; some for Shiel + Brayshaw.

Which is better?

Shiel and pick 3 by a mile.

6-8 years of A+ grade footy from Dangerfield vs 10-12 years of A grade footy (potential for A+) from Shiel and 10-12 years of footy from pick 3.

At this stage for me getting danger is a bonus and it isn't the end of the world right now of we don't.

Trade pick 2 to a team that wants McCartin (sorry saints, not) that could be to the Dogs for a player and their first rounder. Then float pick 3 around, see what it gets- if nothing take best available in draft.

Could net us 3 good players, then next year we have more pulling power to get a big name FA- maybe pressure Adelaide again to dislodge Tex or Sloan, or who knows what happens at Pies- maybe make a play for Pendles- he will be avail I think.

A play for Pendles - delusional

Haven't given this too much thought, but if Lumumba goes to North, would we be able to get a look at Shaun Atley? I see Lumumba being a very similar player, who might hold Atley back?? They'll offer Muller but I think Atley will be much better.

I understand why Roos is after a rebounding defender, we've really only got defensive players, at best Grimes is a defensive/rebounder rather than attacking rebounding (if that makes sense?).

Would Clark to Coll, Lumumba to Nth and Atley to us do? or would picks come into it?

I expect based on not too much that the Dangerfield idea was a long shot and when that door closes, a deal involving Shiel and Frost will be our main focus

Why are GWS trading Shiel? Surely at some stage they have to focus on player retention?

If they want petracca so badly wouldn't they be doing a deal like that to saints for first pick? Can't do two trades like that.

Why are GWS trading Shiel? Surely at some stage they have to focus on player retention?

If they want petracca so badly wouldn't they be doing a deal like that to saints for first pick? Can't do two trades like that.

They need to spread the age of their list, then they'll retain.

They need to spread the age of their list, then they'll retain.

They'd be mad to trade Shiel unless he wants to come home. He is now what they hope the pick they'd get for him will become.

Still I'd love to get Sheil and still have top 3 pick in the draft.

I'm not convinced we wont get Petracca.

Why are GWS trading Shiel? Surely at some stage they have to focus on player retention?

If they want petracca so badly wouldn't they be doing a deal like that to saints for first pick? Can't do two trades like that.

Has previously indicated he would like to come home to Melbourne. Rumours still abound, and he is yet to commit to a contract extension.

Current contract up at the end of next season. At this stage theres no word on Cameron or Treloar being close to extending either. Treloars probably been the most vocal about staying on at GWS.