Wiseblood

Plenty of talent, but as I've said in other threads, his body is a huge red flag for me. If we got him as a DFA then I could stomach it, but anything more is no go for me.

No doubt mate, I was more just putting an opinion forward on what our trade period may be like. The heading was just a good segue to that.

I never thought we would be major players, but plenty can happen from here. I'm still not ruling out seeing us get a DFA as well as Hibberd and the return of Melksham, but outside of that I'd expect us to do very little else.

We get that. As Stuie said, twice, it's an example of how a three way trade could work.

I like the fact that you're trying to think outside the square, but we get shafted in that deal from the moment we send Pick #3 to GWS for Pick #15 and #17. That's not a good deal at all and only serves to help make GWS even stronger than before. We won't get both HH and Riewoldt for those picks either, as Richmond would at least seek much more than that for him as he is their premier forward.

Good, as I don't want him anyway. Not part of our best 25 going forward.

Totally agree mate. Not only that, his ability to do some freakish stuff means that it will encourage teams to pay overs for him, and the Cats walk away looking like winners while another club gets frustrated with his inconsistent performances.

I'd take it in a heartbeat, although I feel that Neale is the only player on their list that they wouldn't part with for Hogan. Everyone else, including Fyfe, would be up for grabs IMO.

I might be in the minority, but Motlop does absolutely nothing for me. He is a downhill skier who only turns up once every few weeks, and he seems to consistently go missing in the big games or waste his opportunities when he does show up. I'm not interested in Vardy due to his injury history. I can see us getting him and he lasts a month of the pre-season before he does a calf injury that seems to last for 8 months. If we got a first rounder as part of a Hogan trade then I'd like to see us do something a little better than that.

It could also be down to the fact that Freo don't have much else on their list that would interest us at a level that it would make the deal work. I still believe that Hogan will stay, but if he was to leave, I think we would end up getting a deal similar to the one Geelong got for Dangerfield. Outside of Fyfe none of their players would necessarily crack our best 25.

That kind of rules him out really. I'm still perplexed as to why people think he is anything more than a decent foot soldier. It's like saying we would give up Pick 5 and ANB for an A grade player. It just doesn't work.

For me it would be: Hogan re-signs long term We get Hibberd for our second round pick Add an experienced player, who can contribute on and off the field, as a DFA or as part of another deal. Offload players who aren't going to make us better going forward - Dawes, Terlich and Grimes head that list. I don't think we'll do much more than that this year.

What is the deal with Weller? People throw him up as if he is a key piece of a deal, but he's done nothing to suggest he is worth that a the minute. Minimum in any deal would be Fyfe and a low first rounder (inside Top 5) for me.

If either happens then it's not really a big problem. If a kid were to overtake him then that's terrific, but they can also be learning the trade at Casey with Dal providing good leadership. Can't hurt for a year.

The problem is that leaders in the late 20s bracket don't just fall in to your lap for a pittance. We will need to give up something decent to bring a player like that in to the club - Hartlett is one example. He has had an average two years but is a vice captain and has clear leadership qualities - the problem is that Port will want, at a minimum, a late first round pick for him. We simply don't have that sort of currency, which is why we are discussing these older types as filling a few gaps as our kids grow into their roles.

Poor Nicky Dal. They should erect a statue of him outside Arden Street.

I was actually enjoying this discussion with you Saty, until that last line. Why can't you keep it to the discussion at hand without a snide remark like that? Doc wasn't getting personal or making fun of your views - he just had a differing opinion. Why you need to get stuck into the 'board' as a whole is beyond me - you say you want robust debate, and then you resort to that sort of stuff. It's silly. Drop that sort of childish reaction and the good debate we've had over the last few pages would happen more often.

Spot on Doc, and it's easy to forget this.

You've gone off on a weird tangent here, Saty. It's kind of like you are grasping at a few straws to support your arguments, but they don't really make much sense. Plus you are exaggerating the opinions of others - some still want a 10-12 team Vic league? Hardly. That's not what we are arguing at all. All we want is a league that is as equal as possible. Of course it's never going to be that way, but giving clubs up north academies so they can cherry pick talent and get them through a loophole is not the way to do it and it's something that is avoidable. They get a leg up - even if it's 2 players in 6 years, as you say, that's still 2 more than everyone else. Where is our academy? Why don't we get one? While they want those clubs up north to succeed, I think it's fair to say that they don't need academies to do it. Sydney already have a bigger salary cap and attract talent easily, while GWS have more high draft picks than you can poke a stick at that they can either use to draft more top end talent or trade away for big name stars. Why do they need an academy? They don't. It's that simple. Yes, we have to live with the fact that these clubs are here to stay and that we need to continue to get better to match them in any way we can. It still doesn't justify why they deserve a free shot at talent that we don't get.

This. We might get access to solid or average academy products that the Swans or GWS don't want, but if a gun comes through the ranks they simply won't pass on them. It's that simple.

They're not posting that at all, just that it gives the clubs an unfair advantage, which in some ways it does. Academies would be overrated if we all had them - as it stands we don't, and therefore it does give them access to players that we are shut out from. That's, in many ways, a bit of an unfair advantage. The only leveler is that we can bid on them, but that doesn't even worry a club like GWS who, for example, have 5 picks inside the top 33 this year, so not only would they get their academy player, but they can also draft/trade to bolster their already talented list with even more talent. Doesn't seem like a level playing field to me. Anyway, for some reason you think the academies are overrated, most don't think that's the case, but let's leave it at that.

What's your point? Lloyd Perris would have almost been the pick of the bunch if not for injuries. You can't predict that. Jack and Naismith are both still on the list and are solid contributors, while we know how well Mills and Heeney are both going. Not all players will get there, but they get a free hit at many kids from an early age and it has worked out very, very well for them so far.

Never suggested they didn't - but they got a free hit on 2 talented kids when they were still 12 and 13 years old. Again, that gave them plenty of time. They didn't pluck them from obscurity at the draft as project players, they were ready to go from day 1 when they were eligible. I don't [censored] and moan about they concessions they were given, as what can we do about it now? Not much. We just need to continue to draft well, trade well and develop our players in the best possible environment. If we can continue to do that then we'll play finals football and give ourselves every chance of some real success.

I'm not being harsh, it's just fact. We get them at 18 - I'm not saying the TAC Cup don't develop them or anything like that, but Sydney get them early and develop them the way they want, while also giving them exposure and training with the senior side. That's a big difference. Plus we're fighting with 17 other clubs over the TAC Cup draftees, while as you say, Sydney get a free hit at 600 kids, some of which turned out to be guys like Mills and Heeney.

Yes, and they took them because they are allowed to have academies. It also meant that they are being trained, developed and molded in the way they want them to be from an early age. That's a very handy advantage to have on the other clubs. What about the Vic clubs? We get them when they're 18 and we have to develop them from there. We can still do it, but we're coming from a long, long way back in that regard. Mills and Heeney assimilate better to the senior side as they have been around that environment for years.