Watts the matter

The last part of this post is what still makes me angry about this trade. 2 first rounders and a big contract for a slowish, half back flanker with dodgy skills?

I don't think Salem is back because there isn't other options, it's more that he didn't cut it in the midfield. But agree Cutler would be a good get.

Also the length of contract is not relevant (other than perhaps for figuring how much it is per season in relation to the salary cap). Here is an old article in relation to it. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-s-secret-formula-for-free-agency-compensation-20180221-p4z16j.html

He is definitely not quick!

Melksham came to play half back and was terrible at it. I think the club will quickly realise he is not the answer on the wing. Hoepfully he will be able to find a posot.

I am pretty sure it was 17 of the 44 (between the two teams playing) but it still will be incredibly compromised.

What is the little you know based on? Watching the televised games? Reading bigfooty profiles?

What were Richmond offering Ellis? I think I read this is part of the 'mystery formula' and I actually think this part is very relevant. He was a restricted free agent and they chose not to match the offer. Motlop's deal I assume would also be slightly higher than Ellis' when you take into account the annual salary increases with the changing salary cap.

I assume they were trying to turn it into Zach Jones. Funny they are complaining, they have done better than anyone with free agency with Vickery and Lynch.

I don't know their voting system, but I'm tipping it would be hard to while only playing 16 games.

So far it's looked like one of the poorer top 5 drafts I can remember. Like his brother, kicking is a major issue.

Robbo made mention on 360 a few weeks ago that the most popular articles are about trades. So they are know it's what people want to read.

All I can remember from this draft is the phantom drafts had us taking Heppell and Lynch. The thing is, if you picked McDonald with pick 12 and cook with 53 nothing would be said. To end up with McDonald and Howe with the picks we had was actually a pretty good result.

No, the idea behind getting the pick would be so they wouldn't have to use it on Green. They would use a bunch of 2nd and 3rd rounders for the Green bid.

Those picks will fall out to at least 13 and 19 with Green sure to be drafted earlier. That trade really relies on Caldwell becoming a good player. If he is as good as we want him to be, I doubt GWS would be willing to include him as they are essentially trading him and some to get an Ash, Serong, Kemp, Young etc.

So 4 players who apply minimal pressure and hoping for a rookie listed small forward to step up. We are in big trouble if that is our forward line.

Both of those trades have turned out to be a fair price. I think the bigger issue, more so with Melksham, was that the cub didn't treat the lingering ASADA investigation seriously and were blind sided by the result. We also just gave Howe away for less than we paid for Melksham during the same trade period. I don't remember too much about people being unhappy with Hibberd, if they were I think it would have stemmed from giving up the pick for someone who was just suspended for a season.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-30/future-bright-as-suns-get-access-to-pendlebury-clone Just in case the 4 picks weren't enough. Looking forward to hearing what JB has to say on this issue, obviously the clubs have all been told to stay quiet for the 'good of the game'.

So who are your talls in the forward line? Tom McDonald, Sam Weideman and Adam Tomlinson> Our forward pressure is already bad but that would be horrific.

I'm happy with the other two, they fill a need. The poster I responded to was talking about Tomlinson realising other players. Who is he going to realise? He is just a nothing player and while he might be a slight upgrade on some of our depth, he isn't going to help us become a better team.

That'd be fine if we have more star power, we don't.

Well you have lost me now, why would you just ignore the fact that they have had more than enough talent but have chosen to trade some of it away. Sure they need to do well, but its not like they don't have any young talent coming through. They had 4 top 10 picks just 3 years ago and had 3 top 6 picks last year. They are not lacking young talent coming through. The fact the AFL has included the part where it "retains the right to remove future picks and / or academy access based on the club’s performance" shows they really do have no idea. They might need assistance but they don't need all these draft picks, they need the right people in the right positions at the club. They are rumoured to be picking up Ellis, Crouch and Greenwood in this upcoming trade period. They will quickly overtake us if they retain the players from the last 4 drafts.

Yes, but if you use the thought process how could you justify Gold Coast getting what they've got? Do they have someone other than themselves to blame? It's great to try and take the high ground but there is no logic involved in this instance.

What relevance does that have to the specific quote I mentioned? I would love nothing more than to be wrong on Lever, but we messed up.

This is a joke, pick 1 was too much but to throw in 3 more high picks right after they let Lyons go and traded their pick to Brisbane is pathetic from the AFL. A list manager would be a much better solution.