Wiseblood

Speak English. And while you might not want it to happen, we are going to give up those 2 first rounders for Lever and Pick 18. It's as simple as that.

Who are the 'cows'? We're still getting a further pick back inside the top 20 with the deal that Jon Ralph and the AFL site mentioned, so to me it isn't all that bad.

Take it for what it's worth, but Jon Ralph is reporting in the HUN this morning that the Lever deal could be done by Friday afternoon. It would see us give up this years and next years first round picks for Lever and the pick Adelaide get for Charlie Cameron (which will most likely be #18.) If we can get that deal over the line then I think we've done very, very well. We will nab Lever and, if Watts still goes for a second round pick, we will have three of them to play with in the draft. That's not too shabby if you ask me.

I think you'll find, big mouth, that you need to read it again: "There is hope the deal can be ticked off in the next two or three days, with the Demons sending two first-round picks to the Crows (pick No.10 this year and next year's first-round selection) The mooted deal would see Adelaide send a late first-round or early second-round pick back to the Demons." I await your apology.

Says who? Lots of suggestions of what we will do at the minute. If we do the trade suggested on the AFL site, we keep our second rounder, get a second rounder back from Adelaide (or late first) AND we keep the pick we get for Watts. It's not hard to work out.

Not only that, but if we trade Watts for Pick 29 then we go to this draft with Lever and three picks in the second round that we can potentially trade for another player or package together to get back into the first round. Not bad, really.

Trading anyone is always a risk. Listen to Goodwin at the B&F - it's time to take some risks and stop playing it safe. This is just the beginning. And let's be honest mate, using some failures at the draft as some sort of reason for wanting to keep Watts around is flimsy and shallow at best.

Hold on everyone, we've got another one here who likes to trawl back through the last decade to dig up 'dud' draft picks as some sort of proof that we shouldn't get picks to go to the draft with. Forget all the ones who have been excellent for the club, we only focus on the bad ones.

Who says we would go to the draft with it? Every chance it could be part of something else. And I hate these draft retrospectives. Every chance we can draft a good player at that pick. Just because others haven't doesn't mean we won't.

The deal mooted on the AFL site would be fine by me - our first rounder this year and next for Lever and a late first round, very early second round pick. I think that's pretty fair to be honest.

Stephen Wells just said on Trade Radio that the Cats are unlikely to be able to do a deal for Jack Watts to come to Geelong. So why in the world did they bother with a tour and showing some interest in him? Or are the Cats being tight with what they have? Either way, sounds more and more like Jack will head to Port Adelaide.

This is not a rumour, but I didn't want to start a thread on it. Would there be any interest in Tom Campbell from the Dogs as a back up ruckman? Has shown a little bit at AFL level and knows how to kick a goal as well. I'm basing this suggestion on nothing more than the fact he is looking at his options and the fact we may need a little more back up for Max going forward.

That's not a 'backhander' around our handling of the situation as a whole - Connor is just having a sook on behalf of his players that we are still asking for something good in return for a player we have put up for trade. He actually praised how we handled the situation internally and the discussions we've had with Jack since the season ended. Not sure about you, but that is far, far more important to me.

You're not expecting me to trawl through that news looking for the quote are you, binman? I wish I had the time, but I don't.

And I'm one of that 'vast majority', rpfc. I'd rather have him than not, but it aggrieves me that he is now being placed on some sort of pedestal when the facts are obviously different. But I take your point all the same.

Where has he done this? I want specific proof where he said 'Melbourne have treated Jack poorly' or something of that ilk. All I've seen him say is that we've handled the situation very well and that he couldn't fault us.

Did I see someone refer to Watts as potentially being one of the all time greats? That's probably the most unhinged comment I've seen in this thread. He's shown himself to be nothing of the sort.

This is absolute trash, Bobby. This is the sort of childish, uninformed post that is permeating this thread. It's disgraceful and based on nothing. I think I'm done with this thread.

Question for you Bobby - are you always prone to over the top statements, such as the last one? A year wasted before it's begun because we are trading one player? I hope you can see how silly you sound.

I wonder why that was conveniently left out... ?

Of course you could be, but I'm not one of them. The question wasn't a curly one, nor did he answer it poorly. We're just looking for something to complain about.

In your opinion. This situation has always been in Jack's hands. Jones didn't throw him under a bus, nor did he pot him. I love how we're looking at anyone to have a go at so you guys can make yourselves feel better about the situation. Many of you continue to miss the point entirely - if Jack had done what was asked of him, then we wouldn't be in this situation. Simple.

I know you're JW's biggest fan jumbo, but there is no need to be butt hurt about it all.

Try getting some actual facts. You know what's going on behind closed doors? No? Didn't think so, son.

You talk absolute drivel sometimes, 'bub. The above is based on nothing. Jones didn't push any agenda - he was asked one question about Watts and answered it honestly. Jones didn't bring it up, the media did. Stop making up conspiracy theories.