mo64

I'm thinking 29, 46 and 50 will go for Bugg and a pick back in the early 20's.

So much for improving our draft position.

That makes no sense. His manager states that it's Essendon or us, and you say that it's a scrap of info? It was pretty categoric if you ask me, and proved to be correct.

Just like GC offered more for Howe. How did that turn out for us? Once an uncontracted player commits to a club as his destination, 99% of the time that's where he'll end up. Which is why we held the upperhand on the Melksham deal.

His manager came out and said that Melksham would either stay at Essendon or go to Melbourne. That was a couple of weeks before the trade went through. But carry on if you must.

Are you watching the baseball playoffs? What team does Aish play for?

Agree. The contract that we offered Melksham blew any other potential suitor (if any) out of the ballpark. We could have sat on this trade until the Howe deal was finalised.

You're probably right, but that was unbeknownst to Melbourne and GC.

Reminds me of Stephen Reynoldson of Geelong/Bears. Physically looked like he could be anything, but rarely delivered.

There's a difference between a player having more currency than what the club believes he's worth to them, and not being best 22. Same thing applied to Frawley last year. The club clearly saw an opportunity with GC to get something big, and Howe was the only player with currency. Collingwood scuppered that potential deal, and we've been left with a trade that's fair, but doesn't necessarily improve our list.

Really good point. It's not so much that we've been totally screwed on the trades, it's just that the trades haven't returned anything definitive, like a certain top 5-10 player on our list. Everything that's come in has the word "potential" as a caveat.

Give me a spell. Over his career, Howe has never been close to getting dropped. Under Roos, he's been shuffled from one end of the ground to the other. Roos' mantra has been all about defence, and Howe has been played there to bolster it. Now Roos talks about becoming more attack minded, and we've lost a player that can make an impact up forward. And what are you basing Melksham's instant success on? Lumumba had a far more impressive CV, and he hardly set the world on fire.

Freo aren't interested in trading players, so pick 22 is the only thing that could be close to getting a trade done. I'd rather keep Watts than pick 22.

If Toumpas had dominated at VFL level, but struggled at AFL level, I'd be uncomfortable with letting him go. But from what I saw of him at VFL level, he didn't have the physical or football attributes to become a good AFL player. Kennedy on the other hand, dominates at VFL, and shown a bit at AFL level without getting consistent game time. When you watch the Toumpas' highlights on the Port website, the common factor is that Toumpas has time and space. Rarely do you see him do anything outstanding in a contested situation. Once again, at least Kennedy shows something talent in contested situations.

Nah, stock standard comments from a departing player who is trying to win over the supporters of his new club.

Well 50 is more than 29, is it not?

Better still, give them pick 32 that we got from Collingwood, and exclude Toumpas from the Howe deal.

That's the point. Kennedy + pick 32 is pretty fair for Howe. Unless pick 50 brings us something better than Bugg, why the need to involve Port?

Mahoney said last week that the Bugg deal would be done last. I'd imagine a swap of late picks.

Draft picks or points don't actually kick, mark or handball. Out of all our trades, Kennedy excites me the most.

If I was a Collingwood supporter I'd be p#ssed off as well. They didn't screw us over at all. Port appear to have got Toumpas cheaply. If he's a list clogger, then they've probably broken even from the deal.

Anyone who's been bagging Howe's ability can hardly be critical of the deal. I preferred to keep Howe, but if he was part of a deal that acquired a player rated in our top 10, I'd be ok to trade. This trade doesn't qualify, so I'm p#ssed off with the trade. We only have ourselves to blame because we basically drove him out by low-balling with our contract offer. If we give up 29 for Bugg, that takes the cake.

Basically Toumpas is steak knives to the deal. Howe for Kennedy and 29 is fair. Toumpas for pick 50.

Your opinion, trade radio speculation or fact? 29 and 49 for Toumpas is laughable.

Absolutely. At that price, I'd love to have Walker playing as a FF/2nd ruck, and Hogan as CHF. Think he could be a legitimate goalkicker as opposed to Dawes and Pedersen.