Skuit

So, according to the article: Lever and 18 for 10 (2017) and 18ish (2018). Equals pick 10 (disregarding any supposed and speculative superdraft adjustments - arguably countered by cashing our currency now). Or, Lever and 18 for 10 and Watts (28ish - 2017) and 18ish (2018). Equals 10 and 28ish (with the above considerations). My guess: the Crows are looking to save face and want those 'two first-rounders' in at least name, even if equates to an overall poorer deal (scenario A). We will in turn accommodate their fragile grand-final choking egos to the utmost extent to which we were originally offering (the equivalent of 10 and 28 - scenario B) but look to turn this goodwill in our favour - perhaps by seeking a later pick from the Crows in addition. Yet, we will have put our own internal price on Watts - be it 20 from Geelong or 30 from Sydney, and will be happy enough to come out on top of the overall ledger - so it may seem we get a bargain or pay slight overs.

Pretty sure you don't stay married for 12 years unless you're a reasonably decent liar.

Not too bad an effort on his speculative rankings, and an accurate assessment of Balic from the brief footage I've seen. An outside link-man for our run n' gun game-plan. Not super-quick, but as mentioned before (and it's pie-in-the-sky) I'm hoping he's the one who will have the nous to know exactly where to be for an Oliver receive.

I'm guessing that your new film is an update of the Manchurian Candidate through an MFC lens with Matt Damon playing Jack Watts in the role of 'Queen of Diamonds'. Close?

But I recall several club systems have mechanisms built in to account for injury such as eliminating each player's five-worst performing rounds from the tally. Any idea on this?

Can someone confirm if missing 5 games is detrimental in Adelaide's system of voting?

First I've seen of him. Nice mover with good awareness and composure. Pass and present - think it might work with our game-style. Especially perhaps if he can find some sync with Oliver on the outside - he doesn't strike as super-fast but has a couple steps of acceleration and can find the space. But what position would we have him slated for? Super-pleased if he comes for a sub-50 pick. And what's with all the basketballers?

I can't express enough love for the current MFC admin. Mahoney straight and up front with the media. We didn't low-ball the Crows with our initial offer, but were very fair in line with our recent trading history. No histrionics, while providing reasonable recent trading precedents and showing up the Crows for being hypocrites re. Gibbs. PR battle won without breaking a sweat, with great short and long-term benefits. I don't see it, but I really hope we don't break from here.

With Jetta as the veni, vidi, vici plaque dated to 2018 and scrawled in mosquito blood.

I'm still hanging on to the flimsiest of threads from what I saw live in a single preseason game in 2016 (pushing defenders around in a dominant CHF role) before his feet gave in, where I was of the belief that he would not just have a break-out year but had the potential to move close to the elite category. Such a stretch, and probably wildly naive, but he hasn't been right since. If he can get the body working, and put in a solid summer, I still have hope that we could have a surprise-packet and absolute steal on our hands. The footy dept. have seen fit to back him in for another shot, so hopefully they see that something in him as well. Good luck Vanders.

This is the most done deal on gut-feel in recent MFC history*. Well, maybe Hibberd as well. We're gonna pay what feels like slight overs in wage and trade, and then we're all going to forget about after Round One, 2018, just like Hibberd this year. *So why do I insistently keep checking this thread for any hint of an indicative rumour?

If you'd put your foot down over Fitzpatrick and/or Toumpas you could have celebrated a premiership by now.

We've demonstrated that we're a fair club when it comes to trading. We have some chips in our favour if we're the chosen destination, but there are of course some other factors in play. I think somewhere between a first and a third (or a commensurate player) is fair for Jake - muddied slightly by the suggestion of a disparity in 2017/18 draft quality and current/projected placings - but that's exactly what I expect the end result will be. I think a 1st and 2nd (2017) is about right, and that the Crows should be pretty happy with that. If it falls somewhere close to that either side I'll be happy also.

Judd's Granny is an anagram of Grand Nu Sydj'. Grand New Sigil? A flag could be considered a type of sigil, right? Bam! The Riddler has been Scooby-Doo'd and we're still three weeks shy of Trade Week.

Hey wait. How come you get to say [censored] and we can't?

A lot of what Clarry does is almost imperceptible in the thick of the action. Can't blame mortals for failing to recognise his brilliance.

Too true.

We'll call it a truce LH as I have no facts to offer either - but I do believe the evidence you provided actually points to what I'm saying.

I'm not really that type of person, but I can't fathom why someone in their early 20s would really care if they earned $800g per year over $700g? Seems much of a muchness to me, and I would certainly be looking at other factors (which would immediately exclude Essendon and North) . Yeah, yeah, footy-players have a short career and have to capitalise while they can . . . sounds mostly nonsense to me in this day and age and with those figures. You'd have to be pretty stupid to be a multi-millionaire before 25 and not invest wisely enough to grant yourself your own post-footy career. Anywho . . .

The last extension the brothers signed at the same time for the same length. Seems more than a coincidence. And Tomald's reasoning for the short extension shouldn't be taken at face-value - anyone with even minimal insight could discern the direction in which our club was finally heading. Just to be clear - the suggestion wasn't a knock on Oscar. He was drafted and can earn a contract extension in his own right. But with UFA looming, Tomald can make it pretty clear he wants to play with his brother into the future. We're not going to match an offer if he signals his intent to depart. Hence, if we're looking to jettison a tall defender to make room for Lever, Then there may be some extra-normal considerations that are coming into play - or at least Omac could get the express nod over Frost in what might otherwise be a coin-toss.

I'm not so much concerned that Omac wasn't drafted on his own merits but that it may cause some ructions if he was jettisoned in favour of Frost when they're both performing at about the same level. Didn't the Macs sign together at the same time for the same length or am I completely imaging that? Also, I consider Omac as Tmac/Lever-light, whereas Frost has other weapons. So although I prefer Frost over Omac generally, in the sense of bringing in Lever and keeping Frost ahead of Omac, t's more a matter of personnel balance and having a ultra-dynamic back-line.

Anyone get the sense that the Macdonald brothers have formed a bargaining bloc? And if so, can anyone recall anything similar ever happening in the past? Don't want to add to the can-of-worms, but if we got Lever I would prefer Frost over Omac. Sam adds a different dimension to the mix, and I think would form quite a formidable attacking ensemble with Hunt - while Frost, Nev and Hibberd reliably hold down the fort. But genuinely think that may not be a possibility if we want to keep Tomald on side.

A milkshake and slice of pie with an extra scoop of humility for me, please.

Becoming pretty handy at the quick snap from the pack.

Puns may be lowest form of humour but they can still outwit demonstoney-faced pedantry.