Is this now just a Jake Lever waiting room for anyone else 

On 4/4/2017 at 8:53 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

It was said at the time of the 2014 AFL National Draft that Melbourne was heavily into getting Lever who would have been rated even more highly but was coming back from an ACL injury. The word was that the club offered up Jack Trengove for a trade with Richmond just so that we could get in a position draft Lever (as it turned out the Tigers' pick would have been insufficient).

It would be nice to get him to the club but can we do it?

 

I hope but....... going- ons don't look good at the minute between us and the crows. there is a stand off.

Just now, Dees'97 said:

Is this now just a Jake Lever waiting room for anyone else 

Yep

Just now, nosoupforme said:

I hope but....... going- ons don't look good at the minute between us and the crows. there is a stand off.

Of course there is, it's called negotiating. Trade week hasn't even started.

Just nominate someone will you.

I would like to put my phone and iPad on the charger at some stage.

Let's hope this is resolved by the end of next week. Not happy with Collingwood throwing a spanner in, they were never truly into him, just forcing Melbournes hand...

23 hours ago, beelzebub said:

some very odd decisions about playing on.  Both sides really. The advantage rule ( muffed, fluffed and stuffed ) !!

All in all  some bizarre decisions ( or non decisions ).  Had a whole season to get used to it though.

A couple of times our lad Jake was  somewhat non-plussed  about the vagaries of what was happening. Just when he thought they wouldnt blow a whistle for zigging...they would...when they had for zagging  and had a Toiges infringe he wasnt given a zac. A couple of times you could read his lips !! What the F ??? 

The whole 'holding ' thing is very ambiguous 

Richmond was heavily favoured on Saturday. The pregame instructions given to Richmond were not the same, in my opinion, as to what were given to Adelaide and this would more than explain their confusion. The Umpire's Rep and current GWS bloke Wayne Campbell, did i see him in celebrating Tigers victory before game finished?

23 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Richmond was heavily favoured on Saturday. The pregame instructions given to Richmond were not the same, in my opinion, as to what were given to Adelaide and this would more than explain their confusion. The Umpire's Rep and current GWS bloke Wayne Campbell, did i see him in celebrating Tigers victory before game finished?

The same Wayne Campbell that captained Richmond 2001 to 2004?

Out of interest, how do you know what instructions were given to the teams...

IMO, if we get Lever we should convert Hunt to play a defensive wingman role. Blistering pace, average ball use which can always be worked on, reads the ball well but not the greatest one-on-one defender.

Play our backline (in no particular order): Jetta, Hibberd, Frost, OMac, Lever, and rotate Vince and Lewis through the backline and the midfield.

Of course this would mean TMac would be playing up forward, which seems more likely to happen

Barrett and Wallace on Trade Radio - Collingwood was interested in Lever, and still are, but have been told no, it's Melbourne

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Barrett and Wallace on Trade Radio - Collingwood was interested in Lever, and still are, but have been told no, it's Melbourne

If that's the case, it's nice for a change that other teams get the no, especially the Pies.

9 minutes ago, Demon77 said:

If that's the case, it's nice for a change that other teams get the no, especially the Pies.

I agree 

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Barrett and Wallace on Trade Radio - Collingwood was interested in Lever, and still are, but have been told no, it's Melbourne

Yep I thought that'd be the case, think Pies just playing games. They wouldn't have much cap space anyway would they?

42 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Barrett and Wallace on Trade Radio - Collingwood was interested in Lever, and still are, but have been told no, it's Melbourne

I have some faith in this info.  The HUN tried to drum up some controversy with an article about the Pies scuppering our deal, but it was only based on the idea that they could offer more.  Means nothing if Lever doesn't want to go there, and the above information is consistent with what's been said for a while now.

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I have some faith in this info.  The HUN tried to drum up some controversy with an article about the Pies scuppering our deal, but it was only based on the idea that they could offer more.  Means nothing if Lever doesn't want to go there, and the above information is consistent with what's been said for a while now.

You are probably right but it is a smart play by Collingwood as it re-enforces the 2 first round pick argument.

Draft period is like chess but think three dimensional chess .... you have to look at several angles and ask what is Collingwood's end game.

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by Diamond_Jim

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Barrett and Wallace on Trade Radio - Collingwood was interested in Lever, and still are, but have been told no, it's Melbourne

LOL suck [censored] Collingwood

That will burn fat Eddie

Watts and 27 to the swans for 14 

10&14 for lever and 35 

Hang on to our 2018 pick and get lever 

10 minutes ago, Abe said:

Watts and 27 to the swans for 14 

10&14 for lever and 35 

Hang on to our 2018 pick and get lever 

So essentially we pass on picks 10, 14, 27 and Watts for Lever and Pick 35.  Seems a little steep if you ask me.

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

So essentially we pass on picks 10, 14, 27 and Watts for Lever and Pick 35.  Seems a little steep if you ask me.

It depends on where you value the 2018 pick. I personally would prefer to trade 10/2018 pick and then do the same trade to get back into this years first round with watts 

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

So essentially we pass on picks 10, 14, 27 and Watts for Lever and Pick 35.  Seems a little steep if you ask me.

No. Take out the pick 14. We give up 10, 27 and Watts for Lever and 35. 

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

No. Take out the pick 14. We give up 10, 27 and Watts for Lever and 35. 

Still too much imo, 10 and 27 should be plenty 

8 minutes ago, Abe said:

It depends on where you value the 2018 pick. I personally would prefer to trade 10/2018 pick and then do the same trade to get back into this years first round with watts 

Two first rounders is too steep, and I'll be a little disappointed if we cough that up.

I still think our first round pick plus a possible pick swap in the later rounds will end up being the deal.  

7 minutes ago, mo64 said:

No. Take out the pick 14. We give up 10, 27 and Watts for Lever and 35. 

I'd take out the Pick 14 as well, although what I'd like to do is trade Watts to the Swans for their second rounder (even though it's later than the Powers) and then stick that with our first round pick to make the deal for Lever.  We keep next years picks and still hold one in the second round this year.

Others will be right to argue Pick 31 is too low for Watts, and they may be right, but I don't see the Swans giving up their first round pick (even though I'd like them to).

33 minutes ago, Abe said:

Watts and 27 to the swans for 14 

10&14 for lever and 35 

Hang on to our 2018 pick and get lever 

Sounds pretty fair all round to me.

Lever's a gun.

If the Swans feel hard done by then they get back pick 34 (35).

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by Deespicable

Its pretty easy. pick 10 and 27, take it or leave it. 

if we don't get Lever, so be it. We pocket the draft picks and enjoy Jason Taylor nail another top 10 pick!

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Of course there is, it's called negotiating. Trade week hasn't even started.

It started when you heard that he was coming to the Dees. The Crows knowing of course initiated some talk with Melbourne weeks ago.Now they are at a stand off.

Do you think that they will wait for the starting line????????? Der.........