ChaserJ

If we can get Essendon’s ‘22 3rd pick (rather than future 3rd) for Weid & say pick 54, by the time Brisbane match F/S bids pick 42 will come into late 2nd rd range. That’s probably as good a deal as you’ll get for him, but I’m also comfortable with Sam staying on.

The swap of later picks referred to is till likely us trying to get a future 2nd added to the deal. 2 firsts were always on the table and we aren’t moving Weid just to get a third rounder back from Freo.

Munkara missed a massive amount of the season with injury. In days gone by I might’ve wondered whether Essendon told him to sit out so he gets past pick 40. Lack of exposure should see him get to that range now, but there was a lot of excitement around him coming into the season.

The Vic crop with Reid, Duursma & Archer standing out as bottom agers this year, looks strong. Ashton Moir from SA looks incredibly gifted. Next year isn’t purely speculative, on performance some of those kids would be very high up the order this year if eligible.

This is very much at the heart of the problem. The AFL have stuffed the equalisation economy with all of the assistance GC received over multiple years (I’ll call it ‘pick-flation’). Theyve had so much draft pick stimulus pumped in, the value of a high pick has just diminished and created a salary cap squeeze in order to retain these highly rated players. Because they’ve taken on too much of that water, so they’re unloading and it’s the well run and well off clubs catching all of the overflow. Even when helping lift the poorer clubs up, the stronger clubs end up benefitting. It’s why equalisation measures are cooked. In order to maintain some integrity of the cap, AFL should have limited the capacity of contract smoothing for clubs taking on salary dump contracts. E.g. Geelong should take on the full 850 for a two year period, but permitted to negotiate a friendlier extension that only triggers when the original contract has been fulfilled. The measure of when a trade constitutes a ‘dump’ could be measured by the other incentives involved in the trade (I.e. an objectively one sided deal). Funny that Ned Guy is in the role that l’d see assessing this function at the AFL. No wonder dumps were waved through this year. Allowing clubs inheriting the dumped contract and smooth straight away feels like a rort.

Collingwood would come after pick 19 for Grundy if that happened.

If there’s nothing else of substance given up in that Grundy deal, 16, 27 is a better package for us to add in a bundle in a trade up the order than 13 by itself. If you’re not trading the picks and there’s a range of players that you like in that mid-teen range (Cadman alternatives like Keeler & Gruzewski are around the mark), then I can live with it. The talent drop off from 13-16 looks a lot lower than 7-8. if they are getting 27 as well, then I’m not sure why we’d bother.

At this rate, it’s looking like that. Not sure we can get the deal done. Our forward line would be set for a decade if we could get it done, but our best bet might be him going to GWS and trying to pinch him back in 2 years!

Have seen him play a few times and think he’s shown enough to justify most of the hype. He’s competitive, very good athletically, has great hands overhead and looks to get involved when the game is on the line. Dragged GWV over the line in a few tight ones this year. The AFL website’s On Demand section has all of the seasons NAB League games uploaded, would strongly recommend having a watch of the Rebels v Power game in rd 15 in particular if you want to get a feel for his game. Added bonus of seeing Bailey Humphrey tear it up early (before a head knock finished his day early).

If they want us to send a pick back, I’d want the future 2nd from North to be added to package. At that point I’d add a future 3rd (2nd at a stretch) back to them. Failing Freo lifting a finger to get us a pick further up the order, that’s a deal that would work.

Yeah, I’m of the view that if we can’t get a pick inside 5 (accounting for Ashcroft bid) you can almost throw a blanket over the next 25. If Freo can’t do a deal that gives us a chance of getting that very high pick, then take 13 & two futures. Losing overall draft value to end up selecting with pick in the 6-10 range isn’t worth it this year in my opinion.

They wanted the future pick for their gun key forward in next year’s academy crop (Jed Walter). Expecting a bid will come well inside first round (& GCs capacity to walk their academy kids in the door without matching bids will wrap up this year).

Collingwood wanted a pick inside 25 for Grundy. With Brisbane acquiring 21 & 25 today, pick 27 will likely slide up to 25 after Brisbane match bids. No need to do any extra work to give Collingwood a better pick, we’ve effectively met the asking price.

We’ve now got a raft of 3rd rd picks to send back to help them with bid matching.

If it did happen to be Essendon’s 2nd, there’s our pick for Grundy.

High quality user by foot. Likes the physical stuff and was right up there in f50 tackles last year and good at winning the ball at stoppages. He and Tracc rotating between mid/fwd would be terrific. Alternatively could play out of defence for us too.

I’d be keen to see Thomas in. Feels like another that didn’t necessarily get the right support around him this year (with personal issues). Think he’d go well at Dees and have a couple of roles he could thrive in. Was tracking really well before this year.

That ‘22 pick would want to have been upgraded to a pick comfortably inside the first 10 for us to send a 2nd back the other way.

Thanks @Whispering_Jack. Would love to see Tsatas bolting up and down the wing for us. He probably sits just behind Cadman on my list of players I’d like to see drafted by Melbourne this period (Sheezel around the mark too).

The musical performers. They’ve been able to play a full 2 hour gig in the ‘short’ breaks.

I’m still trying to get my head around the Dogs pitch to Lobb. They’ve told him that they want him to be their no.1 forward target. I don’t get it.

Isn’t part of the issue here that apart from individual base remuneration and incentives, player contracts are standardised (agreed by AFL & AFLPA)? If these clauses allow termination (rather than provide financial incentive) the whole applecart gets turned over.

Thanks for sharing @chook fowler. Can you share whether the player was from Melbourne or were they from the Dogs?

Fagan did have an opportunity to provide comment: https://twitter.com/rustyjacko/status/1572564608954826752?s=20&t=-k9Rg1BQiwXtqrdZX7nVhQ

Surely you could trade for Bowes & his ‘expensive’ 2 years and then negotiate an extension which balances out the deal over a longer period?