old55

Watts trade a perfect example where points would be better than picks. Watts chose Port and Port's earliest pick is 31 so that's what the trade has to be. Pick 31 is 606 points, if it was points instead of picks we could have negotiated with Port and then deployed the points we have to our best advantage in further trades or at the draft, but that option was not available. Same with the Lever trade - we could have offered Adelaide 2000 points which gives them and us a lot of flexibility.

Pick 1 cannot be "stolen" off 18th - they are free to bid for it and are in the box seat to do so because they will have the most points unless another club amasses more through trading. Still unless that club bids more points than the total that 18th has they can still secure pick 1. Right now 18th really has limited choice - it's use pick 1 or try to trade with other clubs with interval picks - that may not exist. It's definitely an anti-tanking measure, it gives clubs more flexible access to various picks.

It's going to be interesting to see whether Adelaide can get the Cameron and/or Gibbs trades done.

Like one poster says, you may get outbid for pick 1 but may end up with 4, 5 and 6 instead.

This is a really good idea where clubs get allocated points instead of picks, especially when combined with the later suggestion in the thread that the draft is based on a points auction. https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-afl-should-allow-teams-to-trade-points-instead-of-picks.1179684/ One of the biggest problems with the trade period is the interval nature of clubs picks. Pick 19 is too much for Jack Watts but pick 37 is not enough. Club could pay in points the exact value.

That's not how the bidding works. If he is bid for at pick 10 then the Lions have to use their next available pick on him, i.e. pick 12 and take the change in points after the 20% discount as a later draft pick - In this example 1395 (pick 10 bid) - 279 (20% discount = 1116 points required 1268 (lions next pick 12) - 1116 = 152 (Lions get pick 60 as change) So 12 for Ballenden + 60 at the draft http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Watson masterminded Hird's ascension to coach which resulted in his son being stripped of the Brownlow. The Weight.

I couldn't disagree more - imagine the outrage among Jack's many fans if all of a sudden he's announced traded.

No I don't believe there is. You, @beelzebub and others are jumping at shadows. The club has been transparent about the reasons for trading Jack Watts and those reasons have been telegraphed all year long. Jack doesn't show the expected commitment and preparation required and does not set a good example to the rest of the list. The membership deserves and commands a truthful explanation when such a popular player is moved on - and the club have delivered. I don't believe that has diminished Jack's trade value at all - clubs know what is what. But even if it has, the backlash from the membership to a "surprise" trade would have been far more damaging. I'll be very sorry to see Jack go, he's undeniably charismatic and seems to be a genuinely well-balanced person. But success in professional sports demands more than this. I hope Jack goes on to have success elsewhere (as long as it's not at MFC expense) and will always wish him well.

Frawley is a very good player and was instrumental in the Hawks winning the 2015 flag - he had a tremendous final 3 finals when he was played in his correct position as key back.

A team who had 22 and whose next pick was 77 and had 2 list spots to fill would trade 22 for 30 and 49. I agree it's far from perfect but it's the best standard we have.

30 + 49 for Watts + 66 values him at about pick 22 and is about best case scenario. Then 49 for Balic. Leaves us with 28, 30, 36 and 47 but only 3 list spots. We'd need to upgrade 2 of those picks to one earlier one.

Who is Stringer's 1st preference?

I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

Andrew Gaff - AA, WC Best and Fairest winner, 4th in Brownlow. Yeah just like Jack Watts who nearly finished 4th once in MFC B&F but just missed out.

So I should just take your word for it? Someone loose with the facts?

For someone so keen on the facts you are very loose with them. You'll find that the trade for Dangerfield represented more draft points than the trade for Lever.

Both [censored] truck teams have devalued the premiership

Free Agency - I expect us to be very active.

Don't back pedal now. You've consistently maintained that we should be and are in the market for trading Stringer in to MFC.

You fail to understand a fundamental FA fact in your spurious argument about 4 years vs Macca's very reasonable "10 year player" observation. You're the one who looks silly.

Multi-dimensional tall? Maybe we have other fish to fry this trade period and need to move on?

Yes agreed I said Lever would cost more than the 2100 points you predicted and I was wrong - I owe Dland a donation - that's why it's a good deal. Perhaps you'll also agree that your assertion that we are "up to our eyeballs" in the Stringer trade is also incorrect?

I see no mention of the Oliver or Hibberd deals.