old55

If I was West Coast and Gaff nominated MFC I'd match and request a tall in trade. Kennedy is close to retirement age and McGovern can play forward or back. I think OMac, Frost and Weed would be in play if it was me.

I'm confident Weideman will make it as an AFL player. It's someone else's (good) idea - if he doesn't make it as a forward he would make a very good key defender - he's strong in the air, clean at ground level for his size and is a beautiful kick. IMO he has to play this week in Hogan's absence. We've got to bite the bullet and give him his opportunity. In the medium term we do have a problem fitting him into the 22 with TMac and Hogan locking in the 2 tall forward spots and barring long-term injury to either (both have had foot troubles) or a move by Hogan back to Perth - he's going to be at Casey and that will not fulfill his ambitions or capability. If Hogan and TMac look good for 2019 pre-season, IMO it would be worth trying him down back over that period. We could retain T.Smith OR Pedo as willing depth in the key forward area In the long run down back we've got Lever, OMac and Frost (who has enhanced his reputation strongly) too, with Petty and Keilty as willing developing depth. We've got one of two promising talls on our list that are likely to be looking for opportunities elsewhere in the medium term - that's a good problem to have.

I'm in favour of red card but it has to remain 18 v 18 on the field. Red card is only applied if the targetted player is out of the rest of the game - then it's 21 v 21.

The difference is you can't match the offer for an unrestricted FA and force a trade. In Lynch's case it probably doesn't matter because GC will finish low and their compensation pick after their first rounder - say pick 3 will be at around trade market value. However in Gaff's case it does matter because WC's compensation pick after is likely to be late teens and well below trade market value so they might take the option to match and force a trade at market value. If the AFL want to differentiate the RFA and UFA categories further they could remove compensation for UFA. http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/free-agency

Hogan is a great player and I hope he stays. It was absolutely vital that we signed him to his current contract. But if he left at the end of this contract it wouldn't be fatal. TMac has signed long term and Weid is going to make it. We can't currently fit all three in and retain team balance. We have Tim Smith as depth and we could get away with one true tall forward - Richmond-style for a period anyway if necessary. Hogan to Freo for Andrew Brayshaw and their 1st rounder - say pick 6 would be a very reasonable deal for us. Weid is not Hogan but a deal like that means for our best 22 - Out: Hogan, In: Weid, Brayshaw, pick 6. I could live with that.

Tom Scully gets a bad rap. He would have been totally insane not to take that GWS offer and stay at the basket case that was MFC at the time. in the AFL players still don't say they are leaving until they do - look at Tom Lynch. "...lied to dying Jimma's face" - spare me! I'm totally over it - Hogan is at the club as a result.

Good on you for following the under age footy and providing an insight. What this illustrates is how meaningless talk of "2018 super draft" is. No-one really knows. It's only now that there's some real insight into the quality of the 2015 Draft - Schache, Oliver, Francis etc ...

Flag

and 2/10 for the top 10!

Should I value your judgement? Here's your post from earlier this year in the corresponding 2017 draft prospects thread (with their actual draft position in brackets added by me): How did that go for you? 3/10 in the top 10 9/20 in the top 20

Highlights package = grain of salt. But there is some tremendous judgement of the flight and one grab marking in that package - it's hard to fake.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?