old55

First week of VFL Finals coincides with the AFL week off. He could make it back for that and get game minutes. Viney is exactly who we need come AFL finals.

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.

That's true but 200 points is a big IF

IMO if we can beat Sydney we just need one of Hawthorn d Geelong OR Adelaide d North to make it on 13

For accuracy I believe we miss on 13 wins if ANY 5 of the following 6 occur: North wins all 3 Geelong wins all 3 Hawthorn wins 2 Collingwood wins 2 Port wins 2 Sydney wins 2 Because that puts them on 14 wins.

It only takes 2 of those 4 "2 win" scenarios for us to miss out on 13 wins (along win North and Geelong winning all 3). It's quite possible.

Not really: North and Geelong win all 3 2 of Port, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Sydney win 2

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

I read elsewhere on the site that Viney can only play midfield - that is ridiculous. He plays midfield because he's very, very good there but he'd also be very good as a small forward or small defender. For example I don't think Eddie or Laird would have been too happy last week if Jack had lined up on one of them. If he is permanently on management for this then there are alternatives. I know these roles have running involved with small forward defensive efforts a la ANB and small defenders coming up and back in the press, but if necessary there's a productive role there with less running than as a pure mid.

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.