old55

Dangerfield specifically praised Motlop's two way running.

You think we think you're joking.

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.

So no matter what Stringer may have done or what issue he may have - if he's prepared to commit to us, you want to bring him to MFC? There's nothing that would exclude this for you?

It all depends on what the issue is with Stringer at the Dogs: He may have some irreconcilable relationship issue with Dog player(s) that he will leave behind He may have some personal issue that the Dogs believe is unfixable - they do exist If it's #1 then he could be a good pick up for someone. If it's #2 beware.

You probably thought the same about Jeffy.

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

Garland would have played seniors early in 2017 if he wasn't injured. if Lever comes though he'll be further down the depth list in 2018. We're talking about Garland or a pick in the 60s, it's not a major issue either way.

Motlop was very good in the semi final and Dangerfield really talked up his general defensive running. His best is exactly what we lack.

It doesn't kick in until 2019 so they are in the clear. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/every-afl-club-can-trade-its-future-firstround-pick-with-stricter-rules-to-take-effect-in-2019/news-story/62ac5fa26bb74712ec0a6e84e2e92888

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.

We have to de-list VDB and then re-draft him in the Rookie Draft to achieve this. Other clubs have 2 free swings at him as a De-listed FA and then ahead of us in the RD. The players that you consider this strategy for are players on the Senior List that have contracts that you should honour but that you don't really care one way or another about retaining. You guarantee you'll rookie them if no-one else picks them up. Many here were suggesting we do this with Hunt two years ago but we because we valued him we retained him on the list. If we value VDB then we should retain him.

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.

If we're chasing quality like Lever and Gaff then for me there's a short list of untradeable players: Hogan, Jones, Petracca, Viney, Gawn, Oliver, Hibberd, T.McDonald, Hunt, Garlett, Jetta There's a much longer list of players without meaningful trade value: Lewis, Trengove, Garland, Pedersen, VDB, Vince, JKH, Weid, Hulett, Bugg, Spencer, King, Kennedy, Johnstone, T.Smith, McKenna, White, Wagner, Harmes, J.Smith, Keilty, Filipovic, Maynard Players that IMO have meaningful trade value are: Salem, Watts, Brayshaw, Tyson, Stretch, Kent, Frost, (Melksham), Hannan, O.McDonald, ANB I know it would be painful for some but for example I'd do: Brayshaw for Gaff 10 and any of the others for Lever and 35

Gaff is the player I hope Stretch would become - Stretch's year didn't promote that idea though. I agree that FA in 2018 would be the ideal way to get Gaff but if there's any chance this year then we should be prepared to pay the price.

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.

Don't think that will get either of those deals done.

Do you really think Schache would cost more in picks than Lever?