Trade week and now 'trade fortnight' always seems like prolonged [censored]-teasing to me. Can we have a left field trade already, please? Urgh. So boring. 

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Is there trading on a Saturday? 

No just discussions between clubs. Monday morn paper work can be lodged if the clubs agree over the weekend is my understanding. 

11 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Is there trading on a Saturday? 

Free Agency nominations end Sunday 5pm.

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Is Balic any good or will he just be another Michie/Newton/Kennedy/Riley?

Because I'm getting really sick of these type of players.

Those guys were primarily brought in as we had a huge lack of depth in players aged 22-25, and while not world beaters were ready to play from day 1, they just weren't all that good. Balic is only 20 (I think) so has a lot more development to go, so might be ready when Jones, Lewis and Vince finish up

Could we swoop in on Matthew Kennedy? MFC has stated we're after midfield depth and GWS want a second rounder which the blues don't have. Watts goes we'll likely have three in a shallow draft. I honestly don't know much about him, would he be too much of the same inside type?

Crozier to the Dogs for pick 40.

Think we wouldn't pay more for Balic...3rd or 4th rounder.

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

I find that extraordinary.

What did he specifically say for you to form that view ?

I'm sure you'll remember, otherwise you wouldn't be so certain.

Thanks.

What he specifically said in response to the question about Balic was we both have "other priorities at the moment".  Interpret that how you like but it clearly indicates we are doing something else other than Balic. We all know Watts is in play so he may well only be talking about that but why would that hold up Balic. Whatever the Balic deal it won't be effected by the Watts deal.  So is it so extraordinary to interpret that statement  as there are other things in play as well. Or not. But maybe. But maybe not. Or perhaps. Or perhaps not. Whatever.........  

7 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Could we swoop in on Matthew Kennedy? MFC has stated we're after midfield depth and GWS want a second rounder which the blues don't have. Watts goes we'll likely have three in a shallow draft. I honestly don't know much about him, would he be too much of the same inside type?

Had the same thoughts. Carlton are trying to low ball, and GWS aren't biting. 

24 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Is there trading on a Saturday? 

You can tradecat 3am on Sunday if it's your thang....just can't put paperwork in til monday.

There are actually only two real occasions teams formally attend...At very beginning...and end...even then..not always. Everything else...phone calls...coffees ...managers ..pubs... wherever and whenever.

Its not quite the construct many think it is....very organic

2 hours ago, martin said:

He was asked about further trades but the interviewer muddled the question by asking if we'd consider trading JKH and others. Mahoney definitely said no to that, indicated our interest in Balic but no reference at all was made to further future trades in this period. Certainly did not rule out the possibility as some are suggesting.

My apologies martin. i have confused the matter. I misread PD's comments. I was referring to his trade radio interview, not the one on SEN. The trade radio interview can be found here:

http://aflnation.com.au/2017/10/12/melbourne-happy-with-hefty-price-paid-for-jake-lever/

The two relevant parts of the interview are at the 10 minute mark, when Josh says:

'we don't see ourselves being too active for the rest of the trade period....happy to go into the draft with the picks we and have.......but you don't know what is coming up'

and right at the end:

Barrett: 'outside him (Balic) there is unlikely to be much else'

Mahoney: 'That's right'

So he doesn't rule trades out but certainly does not indicate we are going to be active. 

 

2 hours ago, binman said:

You may well be right about us being involved in other trades. But you are dead set wrong about the interview.

His exact words escape me but the gist was  Balic was the only player they are looking to trade in and are not looking at other trades. I remember it because i was surprised that he would be so clear about it, rather than saying something along the lines of:

'we are open to other trades, have some picks in hand now and but nothing has presented itself yet'

 

"...but nothing has presented itself yet". You are contradicting yourself. Clearly means we're open to more trades if they arise. Anyway, the fact is we are and will be. 

What does WaToday know or is it click bait for freo supporters

7 minutes ago, binman said:

My apologies martin. i have confused the matter. I misread PD's comments. I was referring to his trade radio interview, not the one on SEN. The trade radio interview can be found here:

http://aflnation.com.au/2017/10/12/melbourne-happy-with-hefty-price-paid-for-jake-lever/

The two relevant parts of the interview are at the 10 minute mark, when Josh says:

'we don't see ourselves being too active for the rest of the trade period....happy to go into the draft with the picks we and have.......but you don't know what is coming up'

and right at the end:

Barrett: 'outside him (Balic) there is unlikely to be much else'

Mahoney: 'That's right'

So he doesn't rule trades out but certainly does not indicate we are going to be active. 

 

I only heard the SEN interview so going by that. Obviously if a favourable trade comes our way we'll be very interested. Mahoney similar comments last year prior to us landing Lewis from nowhere.

6 minutes ago, martin said:

I only heard the SEN interview so going by that. Obviously if a favourable trade comes our way we'll be very interested. Mahoney similar comments last year prior to us landing Lewis from nowhere.

Every club is open to a trade if it presents itself - the point binman is trying to make is that we are not actively looking for anything and we're happy to go to the draft from here (outside of landing Balic and trading Watts)

Lewis was the exception to the rule last year, but the chances of something cropping up again are slim.  

19 minutes ago, martin said:

"...but nothing has presented itself yet". You are contradicting yourself. Clearly means we're open to more trades if they arise. Anyway, the fact is we are and will be. 

Its a game of cards to an extent. Often things get kept close to chest.

No one gives much away...and some even less

4 hours ago, mo64 said:

Why would the Dogs want Schache when they are already top heavy up forward with Boyd, Cloke and Crameri? Even when Cloke and Crameri retire, I can't see Boyd and Schache being a good combo.

Just repeating what my mate text me this morning.

22 minutes ago, Satan said:

What does WaToday know or is it click bait for freo supporters

Click Here

48 minutes ago, rjay said:

Crozier to the Dogs for pick 40.

Think we wouldn't pay more for Balic...3rd or 4th rounder.

We will pay less as we should. 

43 minutes ago, martin said:

"...but nothing has presented itself yet". You are contradicting yourself. Clearly means we're open to more trades if they arise. Anyway, the fact is we are and will be. 

Now you are confusing things martin.

That quote is one i made up to prove my point Mahoney implied  we wouldn't be active in the trading period, ie my suggestion was that he would have said it if keen to trade to give himself an out but didn't!

 

38 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Every club is open to a trade if it presents itself - the point binman is trying to make is that we are not actively looking for anything and we're happy to go to the draft from here (outside of landing Balic and trading Watts)

Lewis was the exception to the rule last year, but the chances of something cropping up again are slim.  

Yep, that was my point WB - and in much fewer words. ta.

 

Motlop is going to Port Adelaide as a free agent.

Surely Port wouldn't want Watts and Motlop?

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Motlop is going to Port Adelaide as a free agent.

Surely Port wouldn't want Watts and Motlop?

Apparently yes they do.

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Motlop is going to Port Adelaide as a free agent.

Surely Port wouldn't want Watts and Motlop?

What are you trying to say Clint? lol

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Motlop is going to Port Adelaide as a free agent.

Surely Port wouldn't want Watts and Motlop?

Maybe they might trade us Motlop for Watts? ?

Just now, SFebey said:

What are you trying to say Clint? lol

I'm saying that Port Adelaide had better hope for a good snow season because there will be a lot of downhill skiing with those two.