mo64

There are so many things wrong with your logic. For starters, if a quality player who addresses a need becomes available, you make a play for him, regardless of where you are on the ladder. And $700k is not exorbitant. Secondly, you want to use that 1st round pick on a classy outside mid. Do the names Morton and Toumpas spring to mind? How they translate from junior to AFL ranks for outside mids, is the hardest to assess. Take a proven commodity in May. If you think that Lewis is almost done, he has another 2 years on a contract which wouldn't be much less than $700k. And finally, your offer of $250k for Jack Leslie isn't much over the minimum wage.

It's the most inane list I've ever seen, and if anybody draws any conclusions from it, they need to give it away. Captain Obvious can tell that Freo will win more games with Sandilands in, and the same applies to Jarrad Waite, but 50% of the players on that list weren't playing because they weren't selected.

And what's your issue with that? That's the only way to get a trade done. We've got too many players with good reputations, that let us down too often. The Jack Watts of this year is like the Jack Watts of old. Does the odd cameo, and that's it. But I doubt the GC would be interested in him.

I was just pointing out that our list management were silly enough to trade in Melksham for a top 25 draft pick and sign him for 4 years, and also re-signed Garland with a 3 year extension. Both were poor decisions, and that's not in hindsight.

I think he can also play as an outside mid, which is what we're lacking. Even with a full list, he's definitely makes best 22 in our side.

The facts are that very few Laird/Yeo types come on the trade market, whereas Kelly is. Each year there are very few quality players that move clubs, which adds a premium on those that do. To get Kelly, you initially have to entice him away from GWS, and then outbid all the other Vic clubs. That's what drives his price up. Plus his old man played for North, which could pull at his heartstrings.

Two years ago, we gave a bog ordinary player in Melksham a 4 yr deal on between $400-450k, and you don't think that Kelly is now worth more than $600k? And don't get me started on the 3 year deal given to Garland. Kelly is worth a minimum $800k once you factor in the impending salary cap increases with the new CBA.

Fair enough.

If you can't grasp that there is a difference between not rating a player a "gun" and not rating them at all, then that's your problem.

Averaging almost 24 possessions a game. You must be thinking of Nathan's step brother Liam.

Not really. Only mentioned briefly that his older brothers Garry and Allen had played at South Fremantle before him. As for Zac Jones, if he was a Melbourne player, we'd be delighted with his improvement from year to year. At the right price I'd take him, because he's sure as hell an upgrade on Melksham.

Is he a champion bocce player?

That's only if Lever nominates Carlton as his preferred destination. Plus the Blues seem to be well stocked with young key backs, such as Marchbank and Plowman. They need quality mids more than anything.

Steve, It's fair to say that clubs have started sowing the seeds for potential trade acquisitions. Lever does address a need, regardless of how the season pans out, and now is time to get into his ear. Convincing the player is 99% of the battle, because history will tell you that 99% of of uncontracted players will end up at their preferred destination. Suggesting trade scenarios is a pointless excercise at this time because we don't know what currency either party will have by the end of the season. Having said that, I'd trade like for like: Lever => Lumumba and Garland

"Elite" should only apply to sustained greatness over several seasons. Having a great 12 months doesn't make you elite. The Bont has the potential to become elite.

I think it's a case of most elite key forwards come from inside the top 10, elite mids less so and elite ruckmen never. The term elite can be overused, and was discussed on radio this morning. Hutchy tried to say that Bont was elite, but Liam Pickering rightfully shot him down, by saying he's potentially elite. Pickering then went on to naming the players he thought were currently elite, and I think he was spot on: Dangerfield, Selwood, Fyfe, Ablett, Franklin, Pendlebury, Rance, S. Mitchell, N. Reiwoldt

If McCartin can get his body right, I think he's got greater agility than the likes of Tom Boyd and Patton. I didn't see the Geel/Freo game last week, but some were saying that Tom Hawkins looks like he's trimmed down, and covered a lot more ground than in the past.

Stringer made AA in his 3rd year playing a similar role, so that's a big call. If Petracca kicks over 50 goals as Stringer did in his 3rd year, then we'll finish top 4.

Petracca has all the tools to be an elite player, but the great unknown is what role he'll play in the future. He could become a Gary Ablett, who started as an average half forward and developed into an elite midfielder. Or he could become a Jake Stringer, who despite winning an AA berth at a young age, I'm unconvinced that he'll ever reach elite level. IMO, there's greater certainty of Oliver reaching elite levels than Petracca, even though Petracca has more natural ability.

Some people are getting way ahead of themselves with their assessment of what Petracca has done to date. He's hardly been an instant star like Judd and Selwood. At this stage, he's provided some cameos without ever being a top 3 player in any game. McCartin has shown a fair bit, but injuries have cruelled him. He's still a developing key forward who needs to get his body right, so any comparison with Petracca to date is pointless. On pure talent, Petracca has a higher ceiling, but only time will tell as to who has the greater impact at AFL level. If you want to crystal ball, I'd see McCartin as a future Josh Kennedy (WCE) and Petracca as a future Jake Stringer. If we didn't get Weideman, I would say it's a 50/50 call as to who I'd prefer long term.

So we're going to offer Hibberd as a trade for Lewis?

Well I've heard Rob Kerr on SEN say before trade week that they thought our 2nd rounder this year would get it done. BTW, I think the idea of whether a club leaks or not is a load of bollocks. It has little or no impact on the trade whatsoever. All the talk was of Hawthorn wanting Mitchell and O'Meara. And they'll get their wish because the seeds were sown months in advance, which is why the leaks occur. Some players may have a change of heart, like Lin Jong. On the other hand, you get the chinese whispers which the likes of GNF like to publish. They usually amount to nothing because the message is lost in translation. It starts off as, Melbourne and 7 other clubs have asked Paul Connors about whether Dangerfield would be interested in coming to them. It ends up as, Melbourne have put up a trade for Dangerfield and he's a real chance of coming to the club.

Maybe because that's the outcome they were after, not necessarily ours. They may have leaked it to the media to suit themselves. Giving up our 2nd rounder this year has never made sense. The developments today makes me hopeful that we'll have a pick under 30 this year.

I thought we didn't leak?

Giving away our 2nd rounder this year when we don't have a 1st round pick is NOT suitable to us.