old55

I note in the club email about the night there's a link to other's video presentations but just a link to a transcript of Goodwin's.

They traded a future 1st and 2nd AFAIK.

Have no idea about the players but I like their types for our needs.

Right as usual Goodoil, they've got the Dogs 2021 2nd for Treloar so 2021 1st rounder is still in play

Collingwood trade 2021 2nd round so they can't trade their 1st round now - bit of a surprise.

Phantom drafts already down the drain ...

I think it depends on where they believe McInnes will be bid and if they want him. If they believe he'll be bid before 14 then this could be a good deal for them - they'll lose 18 instead of 14 and will have an extra pick up their sleeve in 28. If they believe he'll be bid after 19 it could also appeal because they can pay for him with 28 - if we hold 14 and 16 and "agree" not to bid and they hold 18 and 19 then the only risks that exist are GWS at 15 and Richmond at 17. We might telegraph that we're keen to bid on him at 18 to lubricate a deal.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/525574/update-locked-and-loaded-what-your-club-s-2021-list-will-look-like Collingwood have to take 6 ND selections. Gold Coast can only take one.

They might do 14 for 19 + 28 and gamble that McInnes doesn't come before 19 and that 28 will cover him.

Collingwood are in an interesting position, the have 14. 16, 65, 66, 68 They don't currently have 2020 points to pay for McInnes if a bid comes after their pick 16.

https://www.swandistrictsfc.com.au/news/18503/get-to-know-your-new-recruits-–-a-qa-with-sam-fisher

It might be because Lockhart has been on the Rookie list for the maximum 3 years?

It totally defies logic to suggest that the 2021 draft pool is known to be better than 2020 draft pool. If 2020 players are under-exposed because of Covid then that goes double for 2021 candidates. There may be eligible players undrafted in 2020 because of lack of exposure but there are ample opportunities to list any bolters during the 2021 season ahead of the 2021 draft. Yes, when we get to the 2021 draft there will be more certainty about the candidates than there is in 2020, but it could easily be that it's certain it's a worse draft than 2020.

Sounds to me like it might not be possible to come up with a deal where at least one of the clubs will end up over the cap. Pies cap + Dogs cap + Treloars salary > 2 x salary cap Wonder if Treloar will be willing to backload to help them out ...

Chandler laid 9 tackles in his one AFL outing as a small forward - that's a seasons worth for Melksham and Fritsch combined.

$Preuss + Hannan out probably equals $Brown in. Because we couldn't trade TMac we couldn't chase other similarly priced players.

The point is you said "No way" you'd trade 18 and 19 for a single pick - but of course you would for pick 1. What about pick 3, pick 6, pick 9? We've established what you are - we're just haggling over the price. BTW, you proposed 19 + 28 for an earlier pick but you didn't say what you would be prepared to give if offered that deal. I might give somewhere around 14 or 15 for that deal - how about you?

I absolutely agree Tony that trading up would depend on a specific target being available at the pick on the night. @adonski - if I offered you 19 + 28 which earlier pick would you be prepared to give in return? I think it's highly unlikely to deliver say 11. "No chance" you'd be trading 18 + 19 for pick 1?

They might do 11 for 18 & 19

Had a spare hour - some interesting reading ...

Any interest in Oscar McDonald delisted by Melbourne - could be handy KPD depth?

I generally agree with @DeeSpencer it seems a waste of a list spot keeping Mitch Brown on. We've brought on Ben Brown, exited OMac, retained TMac and hopefully Petty is fit. Mitch Brown seems superfluous and if we're relying on him we'll already be in hard place. Unless they plan on trying to use him as ruck back-up which would be a big ask as @Hannibal Inc. has pointed out - he's a long way off being competitive. I'd prefer we rookie listed some genuine State league ruck back-up. The other factor that we don't have insight into is the player dynamics off-field - as a mature head he may be a steady, calming, advisory influence who pays his way off-field at a cheap price a la Jetts and Jones. In that light for me it's not that big of a deal and definitely not evidence of a cultural deficit at the club. Look TMac's and OMac's response to being open for trade and delisted - they both commented that the club was very supportive and professional - that's 100x more culturally important than ruthlessly cutting player number 35 on the list.

The general critique of Oscar is very superficial, a lot of good work that KPDs do is hard to see and their mistakes on the final line are conspicuous because they usually result in opposition goals. Players up the field making more egregious and repeated mistakes are cut far more slack e.g. forwards missing straightforward shots for goal.

A significant set of the Demonland community was dead against drafting him this time last year and now a similarly significant set are complaining that the contract extension is not long enough.

Hard to believe posters saying TMac should take a salary cut because he's not performing to expectations. AFL is a very tough business, injuries happen and it's a risk clubs and players share. I've heard a number of cases where players can't even walk a round of golf post-AFL because their bodies are so stuffed - they have to use a cart. Have a think about it ... If a player performs above expectations are we going to be rushing to give him an extra $200K in his current contract? I doubt it.