Dom Tyson showed a lot less and we used pick 2 on him.

Coniglio potential could be far greater then Tyson.

I would do it in a heartbeat. I rate him very highly.

It just shows there's a wealth of talent up there at GWS, just waiting to be pillaged. Shiel, Treloar, Coniglio, Greene, Cameron etc.

2 Scenarios to play out here.

1. We don't trade Jack, and draft Brayshaw and Petracca at 2,3.

2. We do trade Trengrove, to Adelaide, bundled with pick 2 and 23 for danger. Then get we beams in with pick 3 and Watts.

Really don't want Jack to go but Point 2 I can nearly live with once the second part is not true. Not because of Watts either as I would have him gone before Trenners

As I have said many times I do not want Beams at all, I'd rather use pick 3 on Brayshaw and use Pick 2 & 23 to try and get Shiel and Greene

I think the Crows will pull the trigger on this trade.

It is unlikely they'll get Durdin at 10 - especially if the Bullies remain at 6.

So Trengove will appeal to them, they might have an SA kid at 23 in their sights.

Trengove looked the best junior to come out of SA since Buckley - Adelaide will remember Trenners junior days.

The Buckley/Trenners comparisons were there before he was drafted your right, many people thought he was as good a junior as Bucks, but surely no one is still expecting that kind of return from him anymore including Crows. Lets not forget what other SA prospects came in between those 2 who were massively hyped SA products before being drafted, there's been many, such as Gibbs for a start, he was the greatest SA product ever according to his pre draft hype. Yeah they'll remember his junior years, but they'll be offering based on his current status, which according to Richmond is only worth an upgrade on picks from 23 to 12..... Adelaide's really only 2 spots better but its still better. And I'm with you, prefer he was a crow then a bloody tiger, yuck!!

I still feel trenners has upside, but given his last 3 years how much better than his 2nd year can he get? Thankfully he still has currency & a few suitors, unlike several others we as fans would rather go first I'm guessing.

Yep, and ... what if we pass on Petracca & Brayshaw and both turn out to be stars? lol

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place or perhaps we've got the choice of 2 great outcomes. Roos may go the drafting path if suitable trades don't eventuate.

I tend to agree with the bit I've highlighted from your post, all the same. We need to improve our chances of winning games right now and Roos knows that and will probably act accordingly.

He may also know that passing on Petracca and/or Brayshaw may not hurt us in the short term. Or ever hurt us if we trade well.

An example of that is the Tyson/Salem deal - right now, we're in front and the deal "looks" great. Kelly could still emerge though and Salem still has to prove himself (I reckon Salem will prove himself - maybe not A grade but he could be a very good player)

What's this got to do with Trengove? - the extra pick may well land us a big fish and if that happens, I'd possibly have my mind changed for me. Regrettably.

Can't deal with Jack playing well for the Tigers though

I think Roos is probably quite happy/prepared for some of this year's draft class to be stars that we might pass on. It's doubtful they'll be stars next year though. We'll have to wait a few years to see. Instead, I think he'll ensure that we get ready-to-go mids that have some runs on the board at AFL level and have the potential to deliver A grade output very quickly. So in the end I think he'll take a draw between trading blokes this year and the potential draftees we could have landed. For me, it's a win-win.

RE: the Salem/Kelly deal, I think if Salem gets anywhere near B grade, we've won that trade. If he turns into an A grader, then we've won it handsomely.

I can't see Roos potentially distabilising the club with a Trenners trade that will merely return a draft pick. We want it for something bigger. I'm really hoping this trade period could be a game changer. It really could be too, if we land Shiel, Greene/Coniglio and Dangerfield.

I'm not going to like seeing Trenners running around for that mob either, but I might enjoy it more if a Shiel is tearing it up for us.

If the 'Trengove Trade' had been tossed up with 7 days to go under the previous administration I would have been distraught.

But now.... with a demonstrably strong and wise leadership ...... I feel strangely calm.

This is happening for a reason....

We will be a stronger club.... and more immediately a better team .... this time next week.

Yep i know that but like i said, i don't think it matters with him.

I hope you're right. It was discussed on Demonland earlier this year that he and Tyson were best mates. I wonder if this means anything at all. I hope so.

summed it up well there Bigred.....we actually know nothing

Yep i know that but like i said, i don't think it matters with him.

Shown just as much as Tyson did at GWS. Coniglio, Brayshaw and Lever is > Brayshaw and Petracca IMO anyway.

Looking forward to the end of this haha IN ROOS WE TRUST!

Sorry, misread your trade as #2 and #3.

Toby Greene is the player I would be going for instead.

I think Roos is probably quite happy/prepared for some of this year's draft class to be stars that we might pass on. It's doubtful they'll be stars next year though. We'll have to wait a few years to see. Instead, I think he'll ensure that we get ready-to-go mids that have some runs on the board at AFL level and have the potential to deliver A grade output very quickly. So in the end I think he'll take a draw between trading blokes this year and the potential draftees we could have landed. For me, it's a win-win.

RE: the Salem/Kelly deal, I think if Salem gets anywhere near B grade, we've won that trade. If he turns into an A grader, then we've won it handsomely.

I can't see Roos potentially distabilising the club with a Trenners trade that will merely return a draft pick. We want it for something bigger. I'm really hoping this trade period could be a game changer. It really could be too, if we land Shiel, Greene/Coniglio and Dangerfield.

I'm not going to like seeing Trenners running around for that mob either, but I might enjoy it more if a Shiel is tearing it up for us.

I've been trying to explain my thoughts on this potential trade since the news broke on Friday, and there you have it my thoughts exactly

People need to stop referring to the past and how we stuffed up picks etc. Our development of those players was terrible, not necessarily the picks. George Stone and co have the runs on the board in nthe development of players so I have full trust that whoever we pick for whatever reason will be great players for the Dees!

That all depends on whether you think it was all down to poor development. IMO, it was a combination of both, but mostly weak draft pools.

I've read most of this thread but not all so apologies if this has been said.

If I was Trengove's manager I'd tell him to jump at the Richmond offer. Unlike others I'm in the boat that says Trengove is an average footballer never likely to be and A grader. He's a marking small IMO and will struggle to find a role in a team. I've always thought this but was convinced when I sat in the Southern Stand and watched Brock out pace him to a loose ball.

Trengove's initial reaction would always have been to stayed at MFC, he's that sort of bloke, but I think it's in his best interest to leave. If he has an uninterrupted season in 2015 and fails to improve much he's shot in terms of future value. His "blue sky" will have evaporated and his future will be mediocre at best. Those hanging on to the "now he's fit" theory should keep in mind his underwhelming 2012 and 2013.

If he goes to the Tigers he'll get at least a 3 year contract on good coin - they obviously rate him. He'll leave behind toxic memories of mismanagement he endured at MFC and he'll leave behind all the expectations placed on him by us. He'll go to a club that has played finals for two years, he'll be surrounded by much better players and he'll have a longer, better contract.

I have upmost respect for Jack but reality is he's been a bitter disappointment a far as output goes. I hope wherever he ends up he succeeds. But I think it's in his interest to go and in our interest to trade him regardless of whether the trade in part of a "bigger picture".

A thoughtful and intelligent summation of the situation.

For mine, though I consider Trengove to be well above average on the 'good bloke' scale, that's not really why I don't like the thought of this trade.

Trengove's career has been tough. Drafted into one of the worst sides in history. Played under a coach who wasn't very good. Was there for 186. His second coach was worse than the first. The complete lack of leadership on the list forced him to be put into the captaincy role (youngest ever AFL captain). He wasn't very good at it. He's (potentially) carried OP/foot injuries for a year or more. Was part of the worst side since the MFC of 2008-2009.

If ever there was a player who hasn't been given the chance to just develop and play, it's him. And we're now considering releasing him for what may well be nothing more than moving from 23 to 12.

An 18-year-old with pick 12 is a risk. Just as much, if not more, than keeping Trengove. Trengove is also 23, and therefore approaching his prime and his true age for leadership. Yes, he might not improve at all on what we've already seen and that means he won't be part of our next flag. But you could say the exact same thing for whoever we take at 12.

These are the thoughts in my head at the moment and unless there is some sort of certainty as to on-trading 12 for a GWS star, or Dangerfield, or Beams maybe, then I really don't like the idea of this trade. Moving from 23 to 12 at the draft doesn't make it worthwhile

My thoughts exactly, titan.

Seems to me if Trengove was at Richmond with a similar history we'd be trying to trade him in Tyson-style. 3 for 12 + Trengove. Jimmy Bartel and Jordan Lewis seem to be coping with modern footy but it is likely that Jack is not that good or too limited by his foot. I'm sentimental about Trengove at MFC.

It is impossible to argue against the move to the Tigers being better for him.

Really don't want Jack to go but Point 2 I can nearly live with once the second part is not true. Not because of Watts either as I would have him gone before Trenners

As I have said many times I do not want Beams at all, I'd rather use pick 3 on Brayshaw and use Pick 2 & 23 to try and get Shiel and Greene

I think I'm in agreeance, mate. I have a real ethical problem with taking Beams, but I'd take Greene. For mine, I'd also prefer to seek another trade, rather than go to the trade for Brayshaw. It's hypercritical on my behalf though, because I've been a strong advocate of not caring about anything else, except whether a bloke can play football. There are some things I just couldn't support someone for.

Having sat on the idea of this trade for a couple of days, it seems increasingly outrageous. His current trade value (11 pick upgrade) weighed up against his potential on field return over the next 8-10 years makes this prospect sickening.

I'm holding onto the hope that this gets taken off the table first thing tomorrow.

For mine, though I consider Trengove to be well above average on the 'good bloke' scale, that's not really why I don't like the thought of this trade.

Trengove's career has been tough. Drafted into one of the worst sides in history. Played under a coach who wasn't very good. Was there for 186. His second coach was worse than the first. The complete lack of leadership on the list forced him to be put into the captaincy role (youngest ever AFL captain). He wasn't very good at it. He's (potentially) carried OP/foot injuries for a year or more. Was part of the worst side since the MFC of 2008-2009.

If ever there was a player who hasn't been given the chance to just develop and play, it's him. And we're now considering releasing him for what may well be nothing more than moving from 23 to 12.

An 18-year-old with pick 12 is a risk. Just as much, if not more, than keeping Trengove. Trengove is also 23, and therefore approaching his prime and his true age for leadership. Yes, he might not improve at all on what we've already seen and that means he won't be part of our next flag. But you could say the exact same thing for whoever we take at 12.

These are the thoughts in my head at the moment and unless there is some sort of certainty as to on-trading 12 for a GWS star, or Dangerfield, or Beams maybe, then I really don't like the idea of this trade. Moving from 23 to 12 at the draft doesn't make it worthwhile

It's interesting. It seems most Demonlanders could deal with the Trengove trade if we can get a star in exchange for his pick and one of our top picks. Myself included. I think this crushes the view that this Trengove stuff was put out by the club to allow supporters to get used to the idea. Surely, it would have been better to do the trade for a star and then there would have been no chance to speculate. It's in this speculation that people are worried we're simply throwing him out for 'nothing'/a young draftee. There's certainly a more beneficial reason for announcing it though and that's to show other clubs what we're prepared to do.

Ain't footy a funny game. All season I read bile spewed forth at our players like Grimes and McKenzie who have shown as much good guy and loyalty as Trengove and yet out of season there are those who are threatening to burn their memberships if Trenners is traded. And one poster suggested comparing Trenners loyalty to McKenzie's wasn't relevant because Trenners was a better player. So much for supporter loyalty. Really reading DL can do your head in sometimes.

And secondly I can't find a post that talks about what would be best for Trenners, just that we shouldn't let him go because he's got blue sky and loyal. If Trenners now says he is happy to go I wonder what all the loyalist will say.

What many are missing is the move to Richmond may be the best thing for the footballer, the one you want to "reward" for his loyalty by keeping him.

Talk about killing with kindness.

What if Lever becomes a star of the game?

What will you say then.

History will judge this trade if it eventuates, we won't know the sum of it and all we will be doing is what we are doing in this thread - baring our neurosis concerning an aspect of the game we get all too often wrong.

IF Lever is a star and we take him I will gladly admit I was not keen on the idea.

Unlike some on this forum I don't have any issues in admitting if I was wrong or not keen on a draft choice.

Pic 12 is a long way to wait and hope the pic of your choice is still there.

Obviously this is provided that this is what the club is doing in trying to obtain pic 12.

Seems to me if Trengove was at Richmond with a similar history we'd be trying to trade him in Tyson-style. 3 for 12 + Trengove. Jimmy Bartel and Jordan Lewis seem to be coping with modern footy but it is likely that Jack is not that good or too limited by his foot. I'm sentimental about Trengove at MFC.

It is impossible to argue against the move to the Tigers being better for him.

Roos may also feel the mental scar tissue is beyond repair too. If Trenners gets drafted by Richmond in 2009: by now he's played in two finals series; doesn't play in the worst team in league history; doesn't have the media spotlight on him as the game's youngest captain; doesn't have to endure a torrid and tumultuous time where the football administration has backstabbed his coach; and it's quite possible (probably likely) that he is better managed and is rested and treated for his OP/foot issue a lot earlier. With this all considered, it's really not an apt comparison, because of the baggage that being at the MFC has imposed on him (and others).

I don't rate Toby Greene or like him.

No way would I trade Trengove and pick 23 for the rights to Lever.

I don't rate Toby Greene or like him.

As far as I understand it he still has police charges against him which he has to go to court for.

Some charges were dropped but there are still some remaining which is what I heard on SEN I think.

We would want to make bloody sure he aint going to the klink before we trade for him if he is one of the players we are targeting.

Ain't footy a funny game. All season I read bile spewed forth at our players like Grimes and McKenzie who have shown as much good guy and loyalty as Trengove and yet out of season there are those who are threatening to burn their memberships if Trenners is traded. And one poster suggested comparing Trenners loyalty to McKenzie's wasn't relevant because Trenners was a better player. So much for supporter loyalty. Really reading DL can do your head in sometimes.

And secondly I can't find a post that talks about what would be best for Trenners, just that we shouldn't let him go because he's got blue sky and loyal. If Trenners now says he is happy to go I wonder what all the loyalist will say.

What many are missing is the move to Richmond may be the best thing for the footballer, the one you want to "reward" for his loyalty by keeping him.

Talk about killing with kindness.

Somebody else (may have been your biggest fan jabberwocky) made the excellent point about McKenzie earlier. His act of signing on for a second year on the rookie list when offered a senior contract at Adelaide was probably the greatest act of loyalty I've seen, but nobody would say boo if he was on the table. Jack Watts also showed great loyalty in signing in the face of tough times at the MFC and good offers elsewhere.

You're right in that the loyalty argument seems to only be selectively relevant, that's why I dismiss it.