old55

Sounds to me like it might not be possible to come up with a deal where at least one of the clubs will end up over the cap. Pies cap + Dogs cap + Treloars salary > 2 x salary cap Wonder if Treloar will be willing to backload to help them out ...

Chandler laid 9 tackles in his one AFL outing as a small forward - that's a seasons worth for Melksham and Fritsch combined.

$Preuss + Hannan out probably equals $Brown in. Because we couldn't trade TMac we couldn't chase other similarly priced players.

The point is you said "No way" you'd trade 18 and 19 for a single pick - but of course you would for pick 1. What about pick 3, pick 6, pick 9? We've established what you are - we're just haggling over the price. BTW, you proposed 19 + 28 for an earlier pick but you didn't say what you would be prepared to give if offered that deal. I might give somewhere around 14 or 15 for that deal - how about you?

I absolutely agree Tony that trading up would depend on a specific target being available at the pick on the night. @adonski - if I offered you 19 + 28 which earlier pick would you be prepared to give in return? I think it's highly unlikely to deliver say 11. "No chance" you'd be trading 18 + 19 for pick 1?

They might do 11 for 18 & 19

Had a spare hour - some interesting reading ...

Any interest in Oscar McDonald delisted by Melbourne - could be handy KPD depth?

I generally agree with @DeeSpencer it seems a waste of a list spot keeping Mitch Brown on. We've brought on Ben Brown, exited OMac, retained TMac and hopefully Petty is fit. Mitch Brown seems superfluous and if we're relying on him we'll already be in hard place. Unless they plan on trying to use him as ruck back-up which would be a big ask as @Hannibal Inc. has pointed out - he's a long way off being competitive. I'd prefer we rookie listed some genuine State league ruck back-up. The other factor that we don't have insight into is the player dynamics off-field - as a mature head he may be a steady, calming, advisory influence who pays his way off-field at a cheap price a la Jetts and Jones. In that light for me it's not that big of a deal and definitely not evidence of a cultural deficit at the club. Look TMac's and OMac's response to being open for trade and delisted - they both commented that the club was very supportive and professional - that's 100x more culturally important than ruthlessly cutting player number 35 on the list.

The general critique of Oscar is very superficial, a lot of good work that KPDs do is hard to see and their mistakes on the final line are conspicuous because they usually result in opposition goals. Players up the field making more egregious and repeated mistakes are cut far more slack e.g. forwards missing straightforward shots for goal.

A significant set of the Demonland community was dead against drafting him this time last year and now a similarly significant set are complaining that the contract extension is not long enough.

Hard to believe posters saying TMac should take a salary cut because he's not performing to expectations. AFL is a very tough business, injuries happen and it's a risk clubs and players share. I've heard a number of cases where players can't even walk a round of golf post-AFL because their bodies are so stuffed - they have to use a cart. Have a think about it ... If a player performs above expectations are we going to be rushing to give him an extra $200K in his current contract? I doubt it.

60+ goals a season is about 3 per match. If BB is taking 1.6 contested marks per match that means he's likely getting half his goals from contested marks - not too bad eh? On the other hand if he's taking 2.2 marks inside 50 per game then then about one of his 3 goals isn't coming from a mark. Maybe from a free or maybe on the run? In 2019 (full length games) WC Josh Kennedy's numbers were 1.3 CM and 2.9 I50 M for comparison.

Loving your good work as usual @Lucifer's Hero. But it's Phillips not Williams - you've got a glitch there :)

I know what you are saying but the Bulldogs were on record saying they wanted 2 1st rounders for Dunkley. I agree they would have preferred 2021 1st rounders but they could have taken 2020 7 and 18, then traded 7 for a 2021 1st rounder at anytime up to and including Draft night and actually used 18 for points on JUH. Let's see what happens if the AFL do have a second trade period.

FWIW, I think Weed's agility and ground play is way under-rated, he can snare a ground ball and he's strong handballer on both sides which is very rare. I haven't seen anything from Petty to suggest he is better,

All line-ups seem to have a common 18-20 with just some tinkering in the last few spots, including mine: FB: Rivers May Lever HB: Salem Petty Hibberd I: Smith I like Petty better than the alternatives because he can play genuine KPD and free May and Lever up. I'm not sold on Smith and could have Hore or Lockhart there, but if Smith can make it he's the most flexible. C: Langdon Petracca Tomlinson R: Gawn Oliver Viney I: Brayshaw Harmes Melksham I've gone back to Tomlinson on the wing, maybe Harmes, but that still wouldn't change my 22 because I think Tomlinson is ordinary but versatile. I'm rotating midfielders through the forward line so 3 on the bench. Melksham will raise eyebrows but he's clearly the next best player on our list by a long way. HF: Fritsch Weideman Spargo FF: Jackson B.Brown Pickett I'm rotating midfielders through the forward line so I only need 6 forwards. Spargo is there to provide some forward pressure with Pickett and Jackson. I think his gradient is up. Everyone knows @A F and I would play Viney as a pressure forward but it's not going to happen.

I like Petty but can you please explain how he can work with Brown more effectively than Weed?

Yes it's interesting to consider whether we were trying to trade up for the reason you (and others) have outlined above or whether it's because we have a specific target in mind that we couldn't reach from the 2nd round. All will be revealed by our draft night strategy - we won't die wondering with Mahoney at the helm.

I suspect we wanted to trade 18 and 19 for one of Essendon's 3 top 10 picks. So they could offer a top 10 and 18 for Dunkley. Thanks would have been the ideal outcome IMO. Now it's messy.

See Axis of Bob's post up the page

Right now we've got: 2nd round: 25, 28 3rd round: 50 4th round: 68, 69 How about you wait until the cake is fully baked ...

Geelong traded 30 to North for Shaun Higgins. Let that sink in!

That's crazy good if true. Even the 4th round steak knives are surely in our favour! Norf - death riding our future fourth now :)

The Dogs will want more points premium than that - they're currently 600 short of a bid for JUH at pick 1. The best bet for them would be 14 + a fringe player for the 1800 pints they need. For example 14 + Ed Richards for 28 + 33 + 43 + 50 would get them there.