46 and 50 combine for 604 points which is just short of pick 31.

I wonder if we could trade them for pick 32 and then promote both Harmes and Vanders, use just the 3 live picks in the ND and use a PSD or delisted free agent pick up if we decide to move another player on.

At this stage I wouldn't think so as I think we will move any of Hunt, Terlich and Matt Jones either out or back to the rookie list, but it has to be under consideration.

Out: Howe, Toumpas, 64

In: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg

Out: 2016 Rd1, 6, 25

In: 3, 7, 50

It's nice work. But I'm not overly impressed.

We gave up players for different players, that's part of trade week. Then we made the bold call to swap next years first rounder out and use associated picks to then upgrade that to pick 3.

Overall I'd rather the 3 players we get than the 2 we did have. So that's nice.

Personally I'd rather have grafted a little longer on the early deals and tried to get better than picks 46 and 50. If those picks were lower I'd feel more confident about getting talent to increase our depth. Especially as we will have needs to make with some of those selections or rookie picks - mainly outside run, key forward, ruck.

It's a B+ week that sets up for a bumper draft.

Fair call and the best part is we won't know for years if it actually works out or not. Yay we have upped our draft this year and could set it back next year. The players that come out of it we won't know for 2-3, possibly longer, if they are going to push us deep into finals. The players that we traded in will they be any better than the guys we shipped out, will we be envious of them at there new clubs?

But I think we all have more faith in the drafting of the right players and then the development to bring those players on.

Today should be a lesson for those who wanted to do the trades early and for those who continually wanted to play hard ball.

MFC and GWS clearly had a plan from the beginning of trade period to use the system to benefit both parties. They were prepared to do this because of a trust between the parties. This trust was also evident in the initial GCS trade.

Playing hard ball only puts people off side. MFC with Mahoney and Roos have built a reputation of being sensible to deal with and trustworthy. We have clearly worked on outcomes that are "win win" which is the key to all successful negotiations.

Well done MFC. Let's hope the posters who shot off at the mouth learn from this. I'm so sick of blokes coming out slagging decisions and then saying "I'm happy to eat humble pie" and then being stupid enough to make exactly the same mistake two minutes later.

On another note, I wonder if Prodee is still "underwhelmed".

Beautifully worded. It's been a great afternoon and really enjoyed all the information from posters. Though I do know how it happened I still can't believe that we have ended up with the three players we targeted and turned 6 into 3 and 7.

I'm confident there's more to this than what we think.

I wouldn't be surprise now that we do trade for Prestia. 3 + a player or later pick.

Our relationship with GWS and GC goes all the way back to the Viney thing. I don't know if the MFC foresaw the benefit of that bearing fruit now all the way back then, but we are now clearly a preferred trading party to these clubs who have an incentive to trade away early picks and surplus players.

Plenty to criticise the MFC for over the years, but the management of this relationship looks like it has been first rate from the outside.

I think they are also happy to trade with us rather than a club that is vying for a flag next year. Ithink they are wrong in that though

ND7 is essntially ND6 with ND6 in GCs hands - they will have to use that for points I assume.

I'm confident there's more to this than what we think.

I wouldn't be surprise now that we do trade for Prestia. 3 + a player or later pick.

Give GC their pick back?

I don't think so...

Give GC their pick back?

I don't think so...

Did we grab 3 as insurance in case we missed pick 7. The difference between the players available between 7-10 isn't that big. All I know is GC would only negotiate for nothing less than pick 3.

ND7 is essntially ND6 with ND6 in GCs hands - they will have to use that for points I assume.

Nope. Hence why they haven't downgraded it. They don't have a first round rated academy kid. Not sure they have one at all.

Half of Queensland isn't as fertile a ground as the NSW Riverina, who'd have thought!

I still can't believe that we have ended up with the three players we targeted and turned 6 into 3 and 7.

yeah but we also gave up our first round pick next year

few folks seem to be overlooking this

yeah but we also gave up our first round pick next year

few folks seem to be overlooking this

Haven't we basically turned our first round pick next year into pick 7 this year?

yeah but we also gave up our first round pick next year

few folks seem to be overlooking this

True but we may be able to trade back into the first round again next year as well. Who knows with the wizard Mahoney in charge.

Did we grab 3 as insurance in case we missed pick 7. The difference between the players available between 7-10 isn't that big. All I know is GC would only negotiate for nothing less than pick 3.

This was clearly a long planned negotiation with GC and GWS. Howe nearly derailed it by choosing Collingwood (instead of Gold Coast) who were already tangled up in it with Treloar - thankfully we negotiated our way through that.

I daresay there won't be any more surprises that involve GWS or GC. The carefully planned tricks have been implemented already.

Haven't we basically turned our first round pick next year into pick 7 this year?

yep, along with upgrading 6 to 3 this year

Nope. Hence why they haven't downgraded it. They don't have a first round rated academy kid. Not sure they have one at all.

Half of Queensland isn't as fertile a ground as the NSW Riverina, who'd have thought!

Perhaps they have a highly rated academy kid next year? Either that or they don't want MFC having a first rounder next year - for obvious reasons (Prestia).

Perhaps they have a highly rated academy kid next year? Either that or they don't want MFC having a first rounder next year - for obvious reasons (Prestia).

Yes I've heard they have a couple of guns next year.

Absolutely LOVE this new points system for Academy kids.

Years gone by, so many people were (rightly) torn a new one, for suggesting *crap player + *crap player, + *crap draft pick, for a great pick, or player.

It was true then, but not true now. Many crap picks, mean decent points, tradeable for great pick, or potentially player.

I think the AFL have accidentally stumbled on a real winner here, and for once, maybe the first time in my life, the Dees seem to be ahead of the game.

Wow, this feels good, and somewhat strange.

Interesting on 3AW on Sports tonight they are speaking of us having picks 3 & 10. Obviously oblivious of subsequent trades!

Josh Mahony on SEN now. Just said we won't do any more deals tomorrow

Josh Mahony on SEN now. Just said we won't do any more deals tomorrow

Lies

Interesting on 3AW on Sports tonight they are speaking of us having picks 3 & 10. Obviously oblivious of subsequent trades!

Standard when Dwayno's on the case.

Josh Mahony on SEN now. Just said we won't do any more deals tomorrow

he says a lot of things

he says a lot of things

He is delightfully untrustworthy.

I think he's probably telling the truth this time though. Suspect they've had a killer few days.

Haven't we basically turned our first round pick next year into pick 7 this year?

Correct. And we've upgraded pick 6 to pick 3, but lost our 2nd round pick.

Losing next years 1st rounder for pick 7 could bite us on the bum if Prestia wants to return home, and even if he doesn't, the talent pool is supposedly a lot stronger.

Pick 43 and pick 7 for pick 6?