old55

It's easy to under-estimate the influence of player managers and their view of your club's reputation as a trader. When there's competition for a player like Lever, which there was, the fact that the player managers can say with confidence that MFC will get the job done goes a long way when the player is nominating a destination and getting that nomination is 90% of the task. Next year there's some attractive FAs. Players and managers know MFC can get the job done, even if there are matching offers.

You've made hundreds of similar long, rambling conspiracy theory posts in this thread about "trojan horses" and "X ...Y". If you've got something specific to say then just say it.

But we missed out on Stringer?

Fascinating pretzel logic there - so according to you the Crows holding out in the Cameron trade indicates they wouldn't have held out in the Lever trade? Hmmm OK. Here's what I think happened. Brisbane made an offer for Cameron, the Crows held out until they got a better offer. We made an offer to the Crows for Lever, they said they wanted a different offer which we then delivered, otherwise they would have held out just like they did in the Cameron trade.

Lever trade - IMO fair market value - but you said the Crows would eventually buckle Cameron trade - the Crows held firm and didn't buckle Fully consistent with my position and reality while you're tilting at windmills

The Crows didn't buckle. Another one to support my position. Keep them coming.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/welcome-to-collingwood-sam-murray.1180485/

Or maybe 2 clubs were prepared to pay market value for the key player they targeted - that's the simpler explanation.

Very keen for you to quote where I mentioned Carlton in any post related to this topic? Look the trades are done and I'm very happy with them. You and @DeeSpencer can continue to sook and gnash your teeth about them. Let's see if PJ and TV agree with you and sack Mahoney ...

I've come to accept that clear thinking and analysis is not your strong point. The commonality in the deals is not that Adelaide is involved in both, it's that YOU think that both MFC and Adelaide paid overs. If Adelaide paid less then it would support your argument. The fact that picks 73 and 77 had to be involved in this deal shows what petty campaigners Reid and SoS are.

big ceiling with Dec - looking forward to seeing him next year

I'm with your brother. I like Frost's closing speed in the zone but that's about it. Looking forward to the Joel Smith experiment continuing and hope he can cement a spot. If VDB can get his body right he can be a weapon in the forward line.

You don't know that. How's it going with the Gibbs and Cameron trades? Adelaide could have forced him into the draft on principle and North, Collingwood or St.Kilda could have selected him. They are crazy enough. Better to get the deal done for less than a 1st + 2nd and live up to our promise to Lever.

Not actually infinite. Every club could delist every player so 18 x 40 = 720 picks

Possible minor pick variations vs 7 years younger

Mooted Gibbs deal very similar to our Lever deal.

You've misunderstood that the part in bold italics was not factual. MFC FD decided to trade Watts - as is their right. Watts came out in public and said he loved MFC and wanted to stay. Where is your "explore his options with other clubs" then? Dead in the water - that's where. Nek minnit Watts is traded to Port Adelaide for pick 31 - try explaining how that happened. The only reason the Dogs haven't come out in public about Stringer's problems is because they are far more serious than Watts "poor preparation". More recently the Dogs have been claiming that he could stay at the Dogs - as if!!!

Richmond were the clear winners of 2016 trade week with Nankervis, Prestia and Caddy all playing significant roles in the flag and Ty Vickery doing SFA at Hawthorn. But who would have picked that this time last year?

OK you're absolutely correct thanks! So I should have posted: Off: 7? = Watts, Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy, Garland?On: 3? = Lever, Balic, J.Smith?, 29, 31, 36, 47

Some clubs like Adelaide seem paralysed by the need to "win Trade Week" rather than improve their list.

Maybe. Off: 6? = Watts, Lumumba, Trengove, Hulett, Kennedy, Garland? On: 3? = Lever, Balic, J.Smith?, 29, 31, 36 Edit: This is incorrect - please see below post from LH

He gets [censored] done!

It seems many Melbourne supporters while wanting a different outcome are unwilling to pay the price of change. Lever in, Watts out is a major cultural change at the club - Lever is what Watts is not - fanatical preparation and attack on the contest. And all the talk is quibbling about some slightly better draft value we might have received. I'm 100% behind this change.

We have 36, 47 and 66, Freo have 41, 42, 57 and 60. Maybe 36 for Balic and 42 or 47 for Balic and 60.

Yes but points would remove the need for those convolutions