Wiseblood

If we draft him and he gets through the pre-season unscathed, then I'd say Cody Weightman would be a fair chance at landing a spot in our side for Round 1.

Does anyone think we'll hold on to one of Stretch or JKH, or will we move on from both and look to add a delisted free agent (eg. Jack Newnes) instead?

What stood out was, in one article, they give the Blues a 'B' for their trade period, and then on the same page there is an article slamming them for only recruiting an 'ageing' Betts and a second ruckman.

Just to follow up - these are the grades ESPN has given to each team. Interesting to see how different they are to the Herald Sun: Adelaide: E Brisbane: B+ Carlton: E Collingwood: B+ Essendon: C+ Fremantle: C Geelong: B+ Gold Coast: B+ GWS: C Hawks: A+ Melbourne: B+ North: A Port: C Richmond: C+ Saints: B+ Swans: C+ West Coast: A+ Dogs: A+

Just goes to show that rating it now doesn't really mean a whole lot, however it does give a fair indication of how we're all feeling heading into a massive pre-season.

Yeah, couldn't believe that. They missed out on their two main targets, got Betts and a back up ruckman, but get a B for that. Classic. I thought the Adelaide one was strange as well. Gave up a truck load of players without getting a whole lot in return but still get a B-. Weird.

If Martin played for GWS then Silvagni would have handed over as many picks as he could to land him.

Here are the grades the Herald Sun gave every club for their trade period. Interested to read what people think - we all know how biased they can be: Adelaide: B- Brisbane: B Carlton: B Collingwood: B- Essendon: B+ Fremantle: C Geelong: A Gold Coast: B+ GWS: B Hawthorn: B+ Melbourne: C+ North: C Port: C+ Richmond: C Saints: A+ Sydney: C West Coast: A Dogs: B+

So, as the dust settles, I thought it would be worth looking at what we received and what we gave up in the trade period. I think I've got this right, but I'll edit it if I didn't (and please feel free to let me know where I stuffed it up!) In: Tomlinson, Langdon, Pick 8, Future Second Rounder (Hawks), Future Fourth Rounder (Freo) Out: Frost, Pick 22, Pick 26, Pick 42, Pick 50, Pick 61, Pick 79, Future First Rounder,, Future Second Rounder, Future Fourth Rounder Using a scale of A+ right through to an F, how would you rate the trade period as a whole? For me, it's a B, although that could rise or fall depending on how we go about using our first two picks. If we can break one of them up and get something really good back for it, then it could push toward an A. If we were to relent and do the trade with GWS for Pick 6 and a future first rounder then it might drop to a B-. But I doubt we do that. But we finish the trade period with two picks inside the top 10 and we've added a good player in Tomlinson and a very good player in Langdon. We did give up quite a few picks, however we still hold a second rounder, a third rounder and two fourth rounders for next year to go with the two top ten picks this year. I know proof will be in the pudding when it comes to how we really did, but I'm interested to see how people are feeling right now.

And fans of every other club will rejoice at that!

Plus there is probably money left over from the deal we offered Jamie Elliott.

If we can fit him under the salary cap then I'd love to have him at the club. He will probably price himself out of our reach though.

Right, cheer for that Doc. I was off the mark on that one. Apologies also to @FireInTheBelly.

If the rumour of us knocking back the GWS offer of Pick 6 and a future first is true, then I'd say that's a fair indication of us playing hard ball for the pick.

Just because he plays forward doesn't mean he CAN play forward. We weren't exactly flush with tall forwards for large parts of the season. Clarkson has also said (or maybe it was Graeme Wright, can't remember which) that McEvoy will play a bit down back next season, so Nelo has something of a point.

If GWS do the trade it will be 100% to take Tom Green. They won't do it and then select someone else.

Of course, but we may not be. We may have already seen what they have to offer and decided it's better for us to just take those first two picks to the draft.

If we have knocked back that offer from the Giants, then I think that's a sensible move from the club. It's not a great offer really and we have time on our side - we either get a better deal or take two ripping picks to the draft. That's a win/win in my book.

Absolutely not. I'm still not sold on what they say we might get for 3, which is Pick 6 and a future first rounder which may end up being a future second rounder after academy selections.

You can be hard at the contest without copping suspensions or fines. Apart from a few players, I think we have a list that is more than happy to go hard at it when it's their turn. I don't think it's a point of concern for us at all.

Papley would be great, but haven't we already ruled him out as he is asking for, or is on, too much coin?

I'd say three will end up with GWS for six and, at the very least, a second round pick which would then allow us to select the minimum of three players at this year's draft

Bold move from the club, as others have said earlier. The 2020 draft has academy and F/S selections everywhere, so I think the club saw an opportunity to do something this year that we wouldn't be able to next year. I can't fault them on that and, as Mahoney said, it gives us flexibility to either get more picks or to use one to trade for an A grade player. I know some put lots of credence in the points system, but I don't. I think for what we need to do and what we might want to do it's a good trade for us.

More than half the year? He played 17 games in the seniors. You need to check your math skills.

First rounder at the minimum. Big fellas like him don't grow on trees, and GC wouldn't let him go cheaply.