mo64

Exactly. I doubt that many will be traumatised with whatever happens with Garland.

No thanks. I'd take Bird as a delisted free agent, nothing more, and know nothing about Robinson.

I'm responding to the assertion that it's a hoax to get the media speculating.

Yeah right. As if every media buffoon is trawling social media trying to get the scoop on Garland's decision. Dangerfield's decision has been a news event for over 18 months. Nobody gives a rats about Garland.

If a player chooses to leave a club as a free agent, any 3rd party deals with the new club should be included in their salary cap. I'd like an independent integrity unit monitoring the AFL Integrity Unit.

Dom Tyson was hardly a "Big Fish". The only deals that I could possibly imagine getting done are: O'Meara - Potentially a flight risk. Gold Coast may believe that he won't get back to his best due to his knee, and cash in early. Given that they are losing 2 guns in Bennell and Dixon, they wouldnt want to lose another one, so talk of trading Prestia is ridiculous. T. Mitchell - Swans need high draft pick for Mills, and have salary cap squeeze. Mitchell could be considered excess baggage, but would think that Carlton would be his preferred destination.

I think Tom Mitchell is more of a chance than Kennedy and Hanneberry. Was subbed on more than 1 occasion by Longmire this year.

Mike Pyke?

Personally, I think Dawes only has 1 year left. His body is shot, which is a problem for a player who relies on workrate to make an impact.

I agree. If we lost Watts, Howe and Toumpas for Melksham and some middling draft picks, we've had a poor trade period. They all have their weaknesses, but there is still something to work with. If we don't get a high profile recruit, would it be worthwhile paying out Terlich and M. Jones?

Watched him at VFL level, and he's a very average footballer. The Dogs have Boyd, Morris and Murphy playing in the backline, so there was every opportunity for him to cement a place in the team in the near future. The fact that he hadn't been re-signed prior to the current issue, says a bit about how he's rated, or how he rates himself.

Clubs shop around players every year, so nothing wrong with out of contract players testing the waters, and seeking a big payday. And how many players have joined us recently for the same reason. Do you really think that they "wanted to play for us", or was the almighty dollar the attraction?

Exactly. It's no secret that we've been chasing topline mids over the past 2 years, so hardly a bold statement by Ox. But unless a player manager states that we are player X's destination of choice, I won't get my hopes up.

It's hard to know what impact injuries do to the confidence of a 2nd year player. Like Clint, I rate him and think he will make it as a regular in the side next year.

If Howe was part of a big trade, I'd understand letting him go. But if a trade involves a 2nd round pick, why would we be keen to trade him, especially now that he's unlikely to ask for big bucks? We are crying out for forwards to help Hogan. Dawes is physically shot, and isn't that good. Pedersen is an average footballer. And when Hogan kicked his biggest bag against St. Kilda, Howe was playing up forward. If left as a permanent forward, I'd back Howe to kick 30-40 goals. He kicked 28 in 2013 when we were a basket case.

He's already contracted for 2016.

My mentality is that you don't prepare this year for the retirements of players who still have 4-5 years left. Chris' whole age profile analysis is just garbage IMO. The Bailey/Schwab era was all about long term success, and look were that got us. All we need to be focused on is getting better each year. And our football department seems to have the same philosophy. They've brought in ready made players like Vince and Lumumba who go against the 4/5 year plan, whilst also trying to pick the best player available in the draft. That player may not address the needs in 4/5 years time that Chris is talking about.

And how many players from 5 years ago are still on our list? In 2009, our projected midfield comprised of Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Morton, Blease and Tapscott.

I thought that Roos said the opposite. And an improved performance that netted him 18th in the B&F is not saying much. The only solace I take is that the media won't make such a big deal if Watts is playing at Casey. If he stands up, he could be the forward to assist Hogan. I somehow doubt it though.

In the age of free agency and player movements, you're kidding yourself if you're trying to plan for 4-5 years time. In terms of our own backline, I can see T.Mac, Frost and O. Mac covering key back posts in the future. We need to improve the class of our medium sized/small backs, and that can come from within, as the Eagles have done. I disagree that Garland is a cool head, and would be happy to move him on. I also think that we could do better than Jetta, but happy to have him playing next year. A full year of Salem will help, and I'd be rotating the likes of Vince and Kent off half back.

The Eagles pretty much lost their whole backline through retirements and injury within a space of 12 months, and went from outside the eight to flag favourites. Without a quality midfield you won't go anywhere.

Read that as, the club was happy for Watts' manager to look at other offers, but none were forthcoming.

I think you've got Melksham mixed up with Dangerfield.

It that for his toenail?

Not necessarily. If the Crows match Geelong's offer as expected, there could be a long drawn out trade negotiation, and the Crows would have to factor in Danger's salary until the trade is done. Can't see how they could sign Hartlett until the Danger trade is completed.