Skuit

We're about to sign a ready-to-go ruckman with the league's greatest potential on a four year deal for sfa. With a project in Bradtke, ruck department nominally sorted for the next half a decade. Such a difficult juggle nowadays. Big tick. Fantastic MFC.

This is not a shot at you Patches, as I believe this is probably likely, but what does a club have to gain by talking down a player's trade value publicly?

You're Lee Hoi-chuen?

Electric at times.

Dance marathon

Is there not some code that can censor the word free-agent when it appears in the same sentence as Jesse Hogan and 2019? Hogan will leave as a [censored] is 2019. Hogan's status as a [censored] in 2019 is a concern. Fremantle can just wait for Hogan to become a [censored] in 2019.

Seems a bit hasty. They still managed to finish 9th last year without Gaff.

Both Hogan and Gaff proving themselves pretty slow decision-makers.

I've been thinking since last year's Watts' thread that this site may have over-corrected with too many steady, middle-of-the-road inside posters. We could probably do with a good trade-week and some fresh injections to re-balance the Demonland list.

Sorry mate - and to all those who wasted time trying to figure it out while I slept peacefully through the night. Was in response to Caligua flipping out and demanding pick 30 for Kent as he supposedly kicks 2 or 3 goals per game. I should have made that link clearer. Though I get the sense that people are quite happy with some pre-trade week diversion.

Well done. Garlett is like the 1990s Demons. Just a small illustration that Jeff has bounced back from down years before and we do have someone on the list who can actually kick an average of 2 goals a game.

Cheers Faulty. I told my boss to go [censored] himself this week and ended up with a far better contract - because he apparently dug my new fired-up emotional side (which is huge coming from a Dutchman). I must be on a roll - Skuit 2.0. Hopefully the MFC will adopt the same posture. I genuinely believe based on limited footage and no real clue that our team would be significantly better off with Rankine rather than Hogan in the long-run. As such, i would take a straight swap right now, all things being equal. I don't however expect we'll get 4 & 5 for Hogan and don't think it's a reasonable market expectation despite what we're giving up. I currently think it's probably likely to be 4 and something; maybe a player or a next year first, reasonably expected to be in the top five range. If we can however wriggle our way into the next pick above the Saints following Carlton (surely Walsh) and GC (which I think will already have 2 and 3 through natural and compo picks?) by handing GC an 'overs' deal of both our two next year firsts for example - Freo's 2ish and our 18ish (which can then be on-traded now) for May and KK, in exchange for a draft 'understanding', then I think we come out way on top. GC can take both Kings and a potentially a top-line mid with some additional horse-trading, while we get Rankine, May and KK for Hogan and pick 18ish. Again. I'm certain we've manipulated draft outcomes with GC in the past and have good trading relations.

I'll add to the chorus: this boy would fit right in at the Demons and perhaps provide the missing midfield link. Would probably swap for Hogan straight up if I had the chance - as he looks to be fairly AFL ready. But add some May and KK and some future and current pick swapsies and we're super-sweet. I'm almost certain that we've also engaged in draft tampering with GC before as well. God, Rankine and Oliver running amok in the middle would be crazy.

Meanwhile a quiz: 48 - 29 - 43 - 12 - 40 - 29 - 42 -18 What number comes next in the sequence?

This assertion is only slightly undermined by his career tally of 63 goals in 63 games. He has however improved in recent years, with a career high 1.4 goals per game this year from his five appearances.

Except, as is the concern I was expressing, we have about ten list spots to fill, and if we can't add quality at the top due to being bogged in drawn-out negotiations then we may get stuck with a bunch of compromises. Keep Hogan, but a go nowhere trade-week.

I'm excited by our list turn-over. But the greater number of available spots the greater the contingencies and potential for compromise. I'm now concerned that with Freo likely having a closer eye toward the draft than us, they could deliberately bog us down in negotiations.

Pretty straightforward Jaded. Rod Grin-ter.

Dion Prestia. Ahahaha . . . damm.

The bolded with the second clause is somewhat ambiguous, no? If we weren't to use our first-rounder in the draft this year and next, then we face trading restrictions? Is it designed to give clubs the chance to trade back in on the final year of their requirements? E.g. - we trade out this year, and then can trade back in next?

See below. Thanks. True, and I didn't mean simple - but was referring to player targets. We haven't sprung too many left-field surprises of late and we haven't thrown our name in the ring for every available player. We seem to target or rule out a player early, not disguise the fact, and then get it done with minimum fuss. Straightforward would be description.

I think it's perfectly legit when you're suddenly a top-four team.

So a few of us posted at the exact same time on the same subject. It has always seemed slippery to me, including by original definition, but does anyone know the exact rules of future first-round trading? And then the dispensations that have been given since? Could have sworn Hawthorn and Geelong have both been granted liberties in recent times. But also vaguely recall something about the rules not being super-fixed in the early years but set to become more rigid over time? Also, any official source for where we've actually put in a request?

My reaction to Hogan leaving, like many on here: damn . . . ooh wait, what can we get in return!? If it were Oliver I'd probably quit football and/or life altogether. Such is the difference. Yet, we've apparently asked the AFL for special dispensation to trade out our 2019 first-rounder. Many have speculated that we may have something extra in the works, despite no other obvious signs or leaks from a fairly straightforward club - so perhaps it's just bargaining assurance? I haven't closely followed the make-it-up-as-you-go precedents (free kick Hawthorn), but I imagine we'll be given the green by the AFL on next year's first. With respect to our list profile, and recent history of trades, we're clearly not operating in the fashion of which the rule was obviously designed to protect against - e.g. a Ross Lyon-era Saints dive for the flag but with supercharged status. Us having next year's first-round potential in the pocket prevents the MFC from getting bent over by Freo. As is now our rhetoric. Two early firsts or we walk, and back ourselves in between now and next year to snag a signature or even a flag. As such, if Hogan were to stay, and we got May and KK for next year's first and trade change, we would then have to be pretty damned chuffed. Add a surprise Gaff to that mix and a Pruess exchange and it would just about equate to our best trade haul and list quality ever. If Hogan does go however, then we should have an extra top-ten chip. I believe we're sitting pretty on this one, with special thanks to the foresight of Mahoney and co.

Sounds like some gimmicky digital-era Lynden Dunn.