old55

Adelaide want Gibbs and Carlton played hard ball last year demanding 2 x 1st rounders. Something like this could play out, noting that unfortunately Carlton do not have a 2017 2nd: Adelaide: Out: 17 + Lever; In: 10 + Gibbs Carlton: Out: Gibbs + 2018 2nd; In: 17 + MFC 2018 1st MFC: Out: 10 + 2018 1st; In: Lever + Carlton 2018 2nd

We'll see. He's in the same category as Hogan - would you take that for him?

That's really Lever for pick 10 and 2 pick swaps that basically cancel each other out. It's going to take more than that.

Do you mean like Collingwood with Treloar and Hawthorn with O'Meara? I don't envy those deals.

Dodoro was fair with us in Melksham and Hibberd deals. And in the Carlisle deal with the Saints too, it was the Saints going too hard there.

I know. You've gone from 10 + 27 to 10 + 27 - 40. You'd win if that happened, but I feel confident that won't happen.

Trengove is UFA. No-one needs to trade to get him.

Yep, I feel confident that it would take more than 10 + 27 for Lever + 40 (assuming Kent = Balic). The closest we might get to your 10 + 27 is 10 + 2018 1st for Lever + 35. Depending on how our 2018 1st is valued (12, 13?) they're about equal in points, but I think Adelaide would prefer the latter.

I like your points measurement and am very happy to go with that. http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf I make 10 + 27 = 1395 + 703 = 2098. It only needs to be more than that and I win But it will get complicated if future picks and players get involved - we may need an impartial judge. Let's hope we have to decide - because we have Lever!

Hold the phone!

Yes, I bet you a donation to Demonland that it will take more than that to get it done.

if 10 + 27 = 14 + 16 and 14 + 16 = Lever then 10 + 27 = Lever

Yes but if 10 and 27 get us 14 and 16 which we pass on for Lever, then 10 and 27 should get Lever - there's a logic failure there. FWIW I think it will (and should) take more than 10 and 27 for Lever.

Agree with that!

It's not really my argument, it's my observation of FD action and deduction about FD thinking.

I don't think we want all 3 in the back-line together - when Frost became available for selection earlier in the year Oscar went out. Then TMac went into the ruck/fwd and Oscar and Frost were together back. Now Pedo has hit form, TMac has gone back and Frost is out. I don't see a balanced set up with all 3 in. Axis of Bob posted a comparison of developing tall backs earlier in the year which showed that Oscar is well advanced - many posters can only see what's right in front of their nose and have little ability to project potential development. I agree that TMac, OMac, Frost is a reasonable set-up and that's why I don't see KPB as a priority, but clearly the FD do and if so then with limited list size and resources we don't want to be over-invested in this area and so Frost is tradeable. It will be fascinating to see how the back-line structures if we get Lever - with TMac, OMac, Lever and Hibberd all fit back there?

I don't think KPB is a our biggest need but evidence points to the FD think it is and are very keen on Lever. If that's true then there's many people in this thread struggling to stitch the logic together. If the FD think that we need a KPB that means they think the current set aren't quite good enough. Therefore some are tradeable. Oscar is in the team, Frost is out. Frost is tradeable. I like Frost - his size and speed is rare and they are great attributes for zone defence, but the logic is there.

I don't know if you're joking

There's probably a Clayton Oliver thread on the Saints board too ...

If we land Lever then Frost becomes a very valuable trade option. I can't see Lever, OMac, Frost and Hibberd all in the same backline and we have TMac forward who could go back in case of injury. With Weid and Keilty coming through we developing tall options. 2017 1st + ANB would be a great result.

Near Kew or far Kew?

No MFC player thread on the first 3 pages of BF Trade & Draft: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forums/drafts-trading-free-agency.61/

According to the Goodwin mantra this group is creating its own history. On that basis though we've lost to North once so we have history for the first time and need to rectify it by winning this week. I think that first encounter will sting the team, it's a pity Bernard is not playing, he has some skin in it with Cunnington.

Lucky for May that Casboult can't kick.

Agree