titan_uranus

Fair enough. Initially it sounded worse than it actually is I guess. Although I reckon some players will feel aggrieved by not being part of a club environment or getting the chance to play and try to secure a new contract.

Colts, Titans, Falcons

I was one who didn’t know this. Can players be delisted with anything more than one year left on their contract? I’m interested as to how/why the AFLPA at some point allowed this.

Bucs, Colts, Giants

Tough week? They’re all tough!

Eagles, Chiefs, Ravens Surely this week I break my duck...surely...

I'm not sure where I sit on our offer. On paper it reads like massive overs. But the mail on Reid is such that he appears as likely as any draftee to be a 200-game player. If we think 6 and 11 aren't going to produce that sort of quality, then I'm not necessarily against trading them. What I am sure about, though, is that there's no reason for West Coast to agree until closer to draft night. Hold out, make us sweat, make North up their offer, let clubs bid against each other, get a firmer read on the likelihood of Curtain being available at 6. No need at all to do that deal now and if they are interested, they'll talk to us closer to the night.

Jaguars, Raiders, Bills

F3 with them paying some is a good deal IMO. Only upside to this.

In all seriousness, what does it signify?

I agree. For this reason alone, I think Billings could be a good pick up (on the assumption, as appears to be the case, that we don't spend much draft capital and get St Kilda chipping in some of his salary).

Not against this provided we don’t pay anything meaningful by way of picks and assuming St Kilda carry some of his salary.

Yeah, that interview was no good. Really poor that he was able to say that stuff (not prepared by manager/the club, or just not aware of how bad that sounds). I’ll put it in the basket of “player not good at media says something dumb” but can understand why some others might be pessimistic about his future intentions.

I have been of the view for a while that our depth is poor, particularly in our midfield. So in that regard, I agree with you and others. However, I don't believe losing the depth players of Jordon, Harmes and Dunstan sets us back, precisely because of my view of our depth this year - they weren't good enough. Your post was well-written but the above is something I don't necessarily agree with - none of them were really doing what you're suggesting here, in terms of adhering to structure, filling gaps and keeping the team ticking. Dunstan wasn't getting games to begin with, whilst for all the good things Harmes gave us, there were parts of his game that were not great. I'm therefore not convinced that replacing them with kids sets us back as far as you've suggested. I'm also not convinced that we are going to draft three mids to replace them with no other changes. There's still 1.5 days left of the trade period, plus a DFA window, plus an SSP window.

I like the idea. I like getting one of our road games done in Round 1, and I like getting some good prime time exposure. The article suggests that we’d play again in the second week, which sounds odd - won’t be a “split round” if we play twice in it.

That’s not correct though, is it? We can’t delist them and just pay them, not without their consent. If they want a list spot, that’s the end of the debate.

As always, it’s neither one or the other. It’s both. You don’t need the best top 6 in the league, but if your top 6 aren’t quality you will struggle. That seems fairly obvious. IMO, you also need a competitive bottom 6. The stars can’t do everything and having a week bottom 6 can break down scoring chains, zones, pressure, etc. Our issue IMO is that our bottom 6 isn’t good enough - in other words, we have poor depth.

If you’re happy with mediocre forwards, sure.

Yes, there is plenty of doubt.

I agree. The only pick which made a difference was the McKay compensation pick which is a new “live” pick, so to speak. It truly pushed everyone back a spot. The academy picks don’t do that.

The only player going to a “large club in contention” I’d want is Schultz. Who even are the others? Taylor Adams? Ratugolea?

It only makes sense if GWS need the cap space in 2024. Given they have said publicly they will keep him, they would have to have a new player they are targeting and for whom they need cap space. They do not seem anywhere near as desperate as GC was last year and I highly doubt they have a target lined up who will be so promising that they are prepared to trade out pick 7.

A future 2nd is in the 20s, if Sydney struggle next year, or the 30s if they do well. I’m comfortable with it given we clearly didn’t consider him part of our future. And so ends one of the more interesting player trades we’ve engaged in. I reckon Grundy will do really well at Sydney, and I actually hope he does.

Jon Ralph “reporting” that we intend to offer a pick in the 30s for McAdam. Given we just traded out 35, he goes on to suggest we will be on-trading the pick we get for Grundy. https://www.codesports.com.au/afl/trade-news-three-teams-involved-in-pick-swap-as-demons-hold-firm-on-harrison-petty-after-big-offer-from-crows/news-story/d59da9f9e77d17692f800fb937a9f084

I have learnt from previous years to trust the club on these pick swaps, but this one is hard to get around, it feels like it is costing us heaps just to move 3 spots up. But I will wait and see what it all looks like at the end.