Mach5

Mate, we know you’re a sycophant, but do you actually have anything to add? I actually sat down with a media manager from another club last weekend who brought up Pert, eye-rolling and laughing about the SEN debacle. And I’m sure they’re not the only one. I’d give Pert credit where it is due, but I’m still waiting...

Not at all, but he’s a key player as CEO, if that’s not obvious.

🎣...

He’s f&$@ing around with my footy club and squandering our years of dominance set up before his time, that’s what he’s doing. I do take that personally.

Nothing article based on the logic that if WC haven’t traded pick 1 by today’s cut off then they are unlikely to at all, despite a trade before draft day being utterly nonsensical for WC.

The stupidest justification for selecting a player, yet it just keeps popping up...

Pert already scrimps in this department, with the equivalent of work experience kids handed the reins and then Pert stepping in to lend his vast experience & expertise any time a curly situation arises, i.e. arrogantly overrates his own ability and prefers underlings who are yes-people, leading to the debacle we had on SEN recently.

The hour of how-not-to-attempt-damage-control on SEN was typical of Pert’s arrogance. Make no mistake - media managers at other clubs were/are laughing at us. Bizarre decision & put us on a hiding to nothing. Gawn at least now has the sense to not outright deny any cultural issues.

I was told 2 months ago we were heavily into Duursma, Watson & Caddy. I took it with a grain of salt. Maybe some truth there? I just don’t see it myself.

That article is substandard. ”...more than unlikely...” Ugh. All based on the fact that WC haven’t accepted a deal to date, which would defy logic if they had. Just terrible sports journalism.

Yeah, but so could Duursma, or McKercher or Reid. That’s the point - we’re trying to get our hands on the best player in the draft, or 1 of.

I always wonder if the chips are beginning to fall a certain way, or if we’re being fed a narrative by the footy media leading us to these conclusions... But I can now foresee a WC/North/Melb trade whereby WC are able to be convinced they can acquire their targets (always easier to be seduced by names rather than points/pick numbers) in Curtin (6), Collard (15/18) and change (our F1, etc.) Obviously we’d need to acquire 2 or 3, and North pick 1. I’d be relatively happy to receive pick 2 (Duursma), pick 15 & change for 6, 11 & F1. Probably happiest to leave the F1 out of it, but it doesn’t worry me too much.

Why would we select Wilson when we just got rid of Harmes?

Like Nick Daicos only better - we’ll be getting a steal!

I’m also not convinced we’d make such a commitment to a draftee and his management team.

That component is meaningless. They wouldn’t have accepted by now even if the offer was 3x top 10 picks.

Makes sense. Caruso at GWS appears to be a shrewd operator in the Lamb/Taylor vein. On the Gettable podcast it was proposed to him that GWS would be keen on a few of these, pretty sure it included Leake & Windsor, maybe Caddy. The interviewers pointed out that some of the names elicited a visible response from Caruso, without any specifics.

I know that’s a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but it’d be seriously long play with a lot of risk involved. If we really think Curtin is likely to draw WC’s interest to return home post-draft, shouldn’t we be strongly considering selecting him for our own benefit regardless (which I don’t think we do)? And the inherent risk is that his exposed form on our list would only deter WC from such a trade... and us stuck with him.

But it’s not so simple, as there’s more certainty (to a degree) over the names assigned to those picks. Depending on how WC see the picks falling, it would be Reid for Leake/Curtin/Sanders, O’Sullivan/Caddy/Wilson, and F1 (teams will be predicting/actively willing our impending demise & subsequent fall up the order). And WC need weight of numbers more than they need pure talent consolidated into 1 player. Recent history shows what can happen with such a player anchored to the bottom of the ladder in JHF (granted there is a gulf between North & WC financially/historically, but WC appear to have their fate sealed in terms of ladder range by virtue of their list composition). I think our hope of getting pick 1 is linked to WC’s appetite for more than one of these players. But North may yet trump us as RL has pointed out, if they are considering being better off with one of the players left at pick 2, then taking some late R1 free hits with it.

You obviously remember differently to me. Hately was just big, nothing else. The hope was probably that he’d turn into a Cripps type, but I have not been surprised in the slightest how his career has gone so far. He always felt like another Tomlinson at best.

Yes, it’s a shame because I believe WC would be much more willing to trade pick 1 (Reid) if they had certainty of what would be available to choose from at pick 6 (provided the chips fall the way they want them to). WC will possibly hold their hand due to the uncertainty, then later rue that decision when the player(s) they wanted are for the taking.

Shoulder surgery obviously limited Butters’ exposure. Interesting to read at the end another 2 cautionary tales of picking for size and potential over football ability (Hately and Collier-Dawkins).

If it’s not already obvious, the difference being that one has a mature AFL body while the other would be a kid not ready for it and who would gain no benefit from being thrown to the wolves. You’re comparing apples with oranges.

Seems a bit of a reach at 10.

I am. I’m very wary of any player that can’t have an impact unless placed in a primary midfielder role. This is exactly why I’d choose Leake over Sanders - Leake has demonstrated an ability to have a critical impact wherever he has been positioned on the field. Just pure footy ability.