titan_uranus

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.

We’re about $1.5M per year in the black after Grundy, Harmes, Jordon, Hibberd and Dunstan. Surely we can find whatever cash we need.

No it doesn’t. It means, at most, we have no locked in trade. If we’re exploring other forwards but nothing locked in, and then we hear Hawkins might want a phone call, it’s not surprising that we called. If the other options don’t come off, it’s worth having tried. Imagine if he was interested, we didn’t ask, and then the big fish we are seeking fell through. Plus no doubt someone on here in 2024 will say “did we even pick up the phone and ask Hawkins?”.

The theory behind this is (as Kane Cornes is gleefully enjoying on trade radio) that Adelaide will sell him the number 1 defender spot. If that interests Petty at all, then we’ve failed him with all the forward-back flip flopping. I’m hopeful he’s happy with the prospect of being a forward and/or a swing man, so that the sell from Adelaide isn’t persuasive.

I sure as [censored] hope not. I bang on about this every year - make your own history in your own number. I wish we’d do away with the whole “lower numbers are more desirable” thing.

Vikings, 49ers, Eagles

A future 3rd feels ok. Not amazing, not awful. We are seriously light on in the midfield with him, Jordon and Dunstan gone. They can’t all be replaced by draftees so we are going to have to find someone.

The Age reporting we’ve rejected Sydney’s first offer, although doesn’t say what the offer was.

I’m with DeeSpencer, players in the AFL don’t make enough money to warrant being traded within contract. What we need to see more of is clubs holding players to their contracts and backing themselves in to keep them, or at least achieve success while they’re still on the list.

I suspect I’m in the minority here but I don’t like May’s comments. I’d rather hear him acknowledge that we’re not as good as them. That we need to find another level, or go to work on our weaknesses, etc. Yes he’d had a few and it was the B&F and I’m all for positivity and motivation, but if we were better than them we’d have won the flag. We didn’t, so we weren’t.

Did you watch this season? One of our major issues is that our midfield is neither better nor deeper than Brisbane’s…nor Collingwood’s, Carlton’s, GWS’, or Port’s.

Ravens, Eagles, Packers

You’ve got to let this go. The pick we got for Frawley was 15-odd better than what Hawthorn got for Buddy. It’s what happens when one club is at the bottom of the ladder and the other is near the top. Plus no matter how much you rate Jordon he was fringe this year (12 games in the 22, 6 more as sub), he will be on a moderate contract because we weren’t rushing to throw him one, and midfielders are of higher supply than key defenders. How you can so clearly say McKay is “worse” than Jordon despite them playing vastly different positions for vastly different clubs is beyond me, too. Pick 39 is pretty reasonable for a midfielder we clearly weren’t all in for.

Pick 39 is IMO fair. Good luck to JJ.