mo64

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.

Unless Hibberd is prepared to stay at the Bombers on rookie wages, we have them over a barrel. They've renegotiated contracts for the likes of Hurley on the assumption that Hibberd was leaving, and didn't try to match our contract offer to Hibberd. Why would we give them anything other than what suits us, and that is next years 2nd rounder. Take it or leave it.

I think you've nailed it. If Goodwin can instill consistency of effort and coach well on matchday, we have the talent to be a top 8 team. If we hear the same postgame excuses after a loss as we did with Roos, we'll remain around the 10-12 region. It's up to you Goodwin.

He'd come relatively cheap too. Our 2nd rounder would have got it done.

The flags are the issue because they had superior players to Kennedy at the time he was traded. He only played 13 games in 3 years at the club, so he was hardly a prodigious talent when they traded him.

You do realise that it's the List Manager who makes the decisions on the length and value of contracts offered? In all likelihood it was Chris Pelchen who made the decision to low ball Kennedy with a contract offer, not Clarkson. And a player who has played 13 games in 3 years isn't going to command massive compensation in a trade. I'm sure the Hawks never got over the blunder of not keeping Gary Ablett Snr happy at the club, despite winning 5 flags during the length of Ablett's career at Geelong.

It's been said that this year's draft is fairly even, with no real stand out no.1. If we back ourselves to make finals next year, I'd consider trading next years 1st rounder (say pick 10) for picks 23, 25 and 28. It would give us 4 picks in the top 30 with 1 being used for Hibberd. We could use another to get someone like Steele from GWS, or be part of a larger trade (excluding GC) that could flush out a player we could use.

There is also a salary cap in play. If they didn't let Kennedy and McGlynn go, it would have been someone else, who could have been equally important to their success. They let Kennedy and McGlynn go because they already had those positions covered with Mitchell, Lewis, Hodge, Shiels and Burgoyne. It was a decision based on their overall list, not the individual. Trading out Terry and Neale Daniher for Neville Fields was a blunder. As was Teasedale, Roberts and Jackson for Pitura. I doubt that Clarkson would agree that it was a blunder.

You're making a wrongful assumption that Richmond would want Grimes.

Would the Brisbane Lions have won more premierships if Nathan Buckley remained at the club? Kennedy and McGlynn were offered contracts by the Cola Swans that the Hawks couldn't match. If it wasn't these 2 players, it would have been others. It's an excercise in futility summising what would have been if player X was still at a club. And It was hardly a blunder when they still won 3 flags over that period.

Should be a breeze with pick 44, but if we're really lucky, a player touted to go no.1 overall with slip through to pick 62.

Pass. For starters, we've got nothing to offer. And our strike rate with fringe players from other clubs is poor. Just don't think he adds much to our midfield.

I don't want Hogan, Watts or Weid to be bash and crash type key forwards next year. Weid is still a fair way off being AFL ready, Watts can't play that role, and I don't want Hogan to be physically washed up by the time he's 28 like Dawes. At this stage, Pedersen is our best bet, but if someone could get into Vickery's head, he'd be a better option.

I'm not sure if the Hun understand how contracts for potential superstars works. Freo and WC would have put forward contracts that would have tied Hogan to the club for life. ie; $1.2m a year over 7-8 years. Once you factor in salary cap increases, his $1.2m as a percentage of the club's TPP reduces year by year. The deal also ties Hogan to the club during the prime of his career. By signing a 2 year extension with us, he still wouldn't have reached his prime when his contract expires. You couldn't expect the club to pay top dollar for this contract. If he re-signs with us past this contract, I'd imagine it would be on something like $1.5m per year. In the long run, I'd say it would even itself out.

I think you are overstating things. WCE and Freo would have constantly asked Hogan's management about his long term intentions. They'd be derelict not to, and I'd hope we are doing the same thing with young stars at interstate clubs. By his own admission, Hogan was 50/50. I think we should be thankful to our new coach Goodwin.

It's funny how he was 50/50 about staying when he was playing well, yet despite his form dropping off later in the season, he decided to stay. It seems that his relationship with Goodwin was a big factor in his decision.

If Malthouse was still there they'd be after Cloke and Dawes. He's done at AFL level.

Can't see why either QLD club would take Spencer. At the Lions he'd be 3rd string behind Martin and Smith, and at GC he'd be 4th string behind Nicholls, Currie and Brooksby. Thankfully the club realises that Spencer is not depth for Gawn, and are in the market for backup.

It becomes similar to the Cloke trade. Being on big coin reduces his trade value. If Port are committed to moving him, they won't be getting a 1st rounder for him.

My sentiments exactly. Those who thought that it was ok for him to go into next year uncommitted are kidding themselves. The club realised that it would have derailed our year, and a decision either way had to be made this week. Two year extension is not an issue because we've got him locked up for 3 seasons, and I assume that we haven't had to offer him a franchise player type deal.

Do you think that Hogan wants to go on a Contiki tour?

Morning news reports that Ballarat streets would be closed for the parade. Nightly news reports that the players weren't in attendance because of Mad Monday. WTF. Massive PR f'up for their Ballarat relationship.

Is this a trade whisper, or you're just making up crap for the sake of it?