old55

Yes,and the club carries the cost in the next year's salary cap. I'm pretty sure it's not a decision taken lightly.

Has great size and looks very mobile with it. Ground ball game looks strong.

Correct

They possibly think that. I think 2023 3 > 2024 F1 by a small amount. Then it's 1 + 23 for 6 + 11 - that depends on the players available at 6, 11 and 23 (or where those picks end up. It probably needs to be 2 to WC and 3 to MFC but I'm partisan and want us to have first choice. I wouldn't do 6 + 11 for 3 but I would for 2.

I think a deal could be: WC: In 3, 6, 11; Out: 1, 23, F1 North: In 1, 23, WC F1; Out, 2, 3 MFC: In: 2; Out: 6, 11

North aren't going to give us 2 unless it gets them 1.

We need to get 2 to make sure we get our player.

Got my ticket

I'd trade 6 + 11 for 2 but not for 3, we'd need the pick after Reid (and Walter) to be sure we get our man. I'd consider 6 for WC F1st, I'd do 6 for the F1st + 23 in a heartbeat, but I doubt WC offer that - more likely WC F1st + 23 for 6 + MFC F1st, I'd consider that too.

"They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast" Welcome to the Hotel Oscar!

Some small variation on the theme from the ABC https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-06/afl-draft-rankings-top-30-harley-reid-jed-walter-zane-duursma/103039892

Have you finally got sick of not saying it?

I don't believe that is correct - it used to be but when Joe Daniher moved on a massive short contract which was quickly re-negotiated at a lower value and extended, the AFL put a stop to that practice.

His contract over the period is close to $800k/yr but Essendon have massively front-loaded it to use current salary cap and keep future cap free.

Look just because you seem entirely motivated by and obsessed with "Money, Money and Money" doesn't mean everyone else is, you're projecting. Lamb not signing Brown at all because he low-balled him and therefore no 2021 flag. Is that hard to work out?

And doesn't cost anything under the soft cap

Keep up the great work @Demonland - hope this message is OK

I don't think you can use that arithmetic methodology directly on this issue. Following that logic, it would be better to have O.Baker (4/10), S.Weideman (4/10), K.Turner (2/10), D.Smith (2/10) and F.Rosman (2/10) than C.Petracca (10/10). The point is that Petracca and Reid (allegedly) are in a whole higher echelon than all those other players.

I think it's unfair for you to project avarice onto Ben Brown who is one of the most ethical and giving AFL footballers going around. If he thinks he can go on to to fulfil his contract and make a contribution then I'm inclined to trust him. What exactly should Tim Lamb have done differently? We secured Brown on a very reasonable contract and at a low trade price and he was instrumental in our 2021 flag win. I'm not sure how Lamb can force Brown to retire especially when we have to pay him under the 2024 cap anyway. We've got 4 remaining list spots and we've already made 3 changes. That's reasonable. We can take Kynan Brown if we rate him sufficiently - let's see what happens before "wetting your pants".

Can help us fund the new home base?

That would certainly change my view of the risk if it pans out that way.

@Demon Dynasty - you can rest easy - if all of Watson, Sanders, Curtin and Caddy are gone by our pick at 7, along with certainties Reid and Walter, that would be a stupendous result because we'd have the choice of McKercher and Duursma. Unfortunately that's not going to happen.

Because the Tasmanian team will be building a list from scratch and they'll need 42 players, including as many talented Tasmanians as possible, so the contract offers for them, if they are any good, will be irresistible and the AFL will provide special avenues for the players to move and compensation to teams losing these players. WA and SA teams currently only have a limited number of list spots to fill and there's no special compensation involved, players have to move through standard trade or FA. There's a risk drafting Tasmanian players now, particularly for teams in our position - we will need ready-to-go replacements for our stars coming to end of their careers at the time of the Tasmanian team introduction, we won't be wanting draft pick compensation to start all over again.

That is simply incorrect. Most are saying our pick 6 will become pick 7 with a successful Walter bid. The medium term consensus top 8 has been very consistent and indicates that at least 2 of Caddy, Sanders, Curtin or Watson will be available at pick 7: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1054452/cal-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-top-draft-prospects-october-ranking Reid, Walter, Duursma, McKercher, Watson, Curtin, Sanders // Caddy https://www.afl.com.au/news/1030664/cal-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-top-draft-prospects-september-ranking Reid, Walter, Duursma, McKercher, Watson, Curtin, Sanders // Caddy https://www.afl.com.au/news/1009306/cal-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-top-draft-prospects-august-ranking Reid, Walter, McKercher, Duursma, Watson, Curtin, Sanders // Caddy https://www.afl.com.au/news/981930/cal-twomeys-2023-phantom-form-guide-top-draft-prospects-july-ranking Read, Walter, Watson, McKercher, Curtin, Duursma, Caddy // Read, Sanders

Exactly, it depends on the players we think are going to available at the picks. If we trade 6 and 11 for 2 it's because we think 2 will be a star. Making the blanket statement that 6 and 11 are always better than 2 is what is laughable.