grazman

I think Tomas was recruited to play the small lockdown defender role (particularly so given Jetta's concussion history). I see the two of them battling for the one spot. Good pick up IMO.

Not really, Pick 1 has a fair idea, but they're not usually told until the day before (obviously the AFL, and the club's themselves don't want too much given away). Lots of conversations are had about whether a club will take a player at a pick 'if available' but it doesn't always pan out that way... much to many supporters angst when armed with the benefit of hindsight.

The ghosts of 58... the sins of the Grandfather and all that...Would be ironic if he ended up playing at the Dees in a premiership.

Former Melbourne wingman and former coach of the Murray Bushrangers U18s, was at Freo for a while with Chris Connolly in a similar role before coming back to Melbourne. Lovely bloke to chat footy with.

I think perhaps sometimes we hang too much on statements like this. It raises a few issues. Firstly drafting decisions should not be made by the coach- the club invests a lot of resources getting this right, the coach will be involved, but rarely (as history has shown) are they necessarily the best judges of junior talent. Secondly as the club has publicly announced its now Goodwin's list- Roos is going to take a back seat. Finally the statement isn't an all or nothing proposition. If Roos was ever in the position (and he never was) of having a very early pick and an elite KPP like a Jesse Hogan or Nick Riewoldt or Jarryd Roughead were available we cannot assume he would have overlooked them. I think his comments more reflect the price paid for guys like Lucas Cook or Fergus Watts or any number of KPP that were reasonable junior KPP, but not dominant. Now the question is what bracket the club see Weideman as a KPP?

I think a lot of people were focused on getting enough from the trade to get pick 8 and Bugg from GWS... whether or not that was actually a realistic possibility.

Yes... in furious agreement. My response was tongue in cheek. We obviously can't tell them that we won't bid on either of their academy picks because that would be improper. If they trade pick 8 to us - like most deals it will be done on face value and not on the basis of trusting in the other parties good intentions after the deal is signed, sealed and delivered. I think we will probably bid on Kennedy as one of the best mids in the draft.

Well there's information and there's disinformation and then there's the sound of people filling in dead air time speculating when no one gives them anything.

I can see the Pies being the sticking point. They wouldn't want to give up Kennedy and pick 26. They'd be offering up 28 instead. Roger that. Unlikely if we want pick 8 that we will bid on anyone except Mills with our earlier pick 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'

You'd have to do the maths... GWS want Kennedy and Hopper, so they will probably need 7 or 8 for them.... in which case its academic exercise which one of the two we have.

6 & 8 sound like a steep price for pick 3, you'd think there'd be a later pick included to even it out if that were to happen. Also wouldn't be shocked if 3 wasn't used on Parish, but on someone like Weideman

Gets the ball and then butcher's it.

Not in the last two years, you have to get on the park to compete. There is a dispute between young Freeman and his injury management at Collingwood. The Saints are obviously satisfied his hammy will be OK, so we'll see.

Freeman won't be coming to us, which maybe fortunate given that there are question marks over his 'competitor' value.

With Prestia's manager intimating that Dion may return to Victoria at the end of the 2016 and with the Pies and the Cats already(well likely in the pies case) without first round picks for next year it narrows down the competition a little for us. Unless something eventuates this year I think we'll be keeping our powder dry by not trading any future picks so we can offer two first round picks (2016 & 2017).

Correct, and its probably how we should look at it. Rarely do clubs have the luxury of putting their nominal 'best 22' on the park, nor is this etched in stone. Form and Injury mean that depth is required and obviously the FD have decided that it needs more competitors to put pressure on those in the 22 to hold their spots. The club has expressed interest in both Bugg and Kennedy, but hasn't rushed to give up the farm to get them. I'd consider that both the price we pay and the contracts offered to them would be a fair indication of the club's expectations of where they sit in the playing order. I'd consider them in the mix for the 22 along with Harmes, Stretch, ANB, White, etc. Are they better options than those that have been delisted and those that they will replace? I guess the club thinks so.

I think In the Saints case they're a little constrained by circumstances though. Because they hold pick 5 Essendon naturally see this as fair compensation, but from the Saints perspective they have a plan about how to build their list and I think their first priority is to go to the draft with pick 5 and their second priority is to get Carlisle, its what they're prepared to give up to get him. Having traded out McEvoy and then Stanley they probably haven't got too many others to trade out to get the sort of picks they need to get him. ... maybe they should offer their first pick for next year and try and get another 2nd/3rd round pick to do the deal, or maybe not. I think the player in question isn't worth dying in a ditch for.

Not sure why he'd be so angry. Trading is a two way street. Howe flagged his intentions last year when he asked about the Pies after the Giants offer. GC were offering something we want, Collingwood less so, Just because he want's to go to the Pies doesn't mean we have to trade him to the Pies, he can take a chance in the PSD.

GC have already traded 22 to Freo in the Bennell deal.

They won't get Aish. Unless Matthews is telling Porkie Pies.

Actually this is what Redleg proposed.

Gigs fizzing or just a prediction?

Can't - whether he gets paid or not, the contract is included in the Swans TPP for the duration. The AFL had a sit down with Sydney before signing so they understood the 'risks'. If the AFL back away from this then it sets a very ugly precedent.

I wouldn't - for three basic reasons. 1. He has played the club for chumps (if his manager has represented him poorly then that's Jeremy's problem). He's tested the market first (code for 'show me the money') and in all likelihood will again the next time he's OoC. He'll walk as a F/A. Is he truly invested in the club? I doubt it based on his actions. 2. Based on output his next contract shouldn't be markedly different to his last. Despite playing every game he's been a poor contributor in a side that only won seven games. 3. He's tradable - someone will take him and the club will get something useful in return. I think Howe is gone. I just can't see that the club would re-sign him. He apparently doesn't want to go interstate - which is a problem if that's where the club can get the best deal for him. (Not sure the Pies can give back what he's worth). His options look limited as well - particularly if Carlton convince Carlisle to go to the PSD.

LOL -The same response I get from my colleagues when I start talking footy to them. The crux of the argument is when you look at Roos' trading history players like Jolly, Richards, Shaw and McGlynn at the time were never perceived to be as good as they turned out to be. Mumford and JPK maybe were, but weren't considered big fish. Only Davis was (but there were issues and he basically walked out on the Pies) Of the others not a lot was given up and not a lot lost by their trading. Roos is in an unusual situation at Melbourne where we need to turn over and trade out significantly more than he ever had to at the Swans. For those waiting to land the big fish... like most fishing stories it will probably be the case of the one that got away "just as I was about to reel him in...". These deals are much harder to complete and can end badly (See Swans trading history post Roos for evidence)