Skuit

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.

As the son of Anthony and at 198cm it's like making a tower out of a tohill. When does trade week start again?

Sounds like some gimmicky digital-era Lynden Dunn.

My prediction: we're going to get reamed on what most would expect a fair Hogan deal. Then we're going to pay 'overs' with those rewards for incoming players. Then we win a premiership next year and everyone shuts the [censored] up. Simples.

The Gaff to Melbourne scuttlebut went cold at exactly the same time as the clubs met for pre-trade discussions. I suspected at the time that West Coast said they were entirely prepared to match any offers and invited out of free agency trade offers to desist. Melbourne, I imagine, would have intimated a walk from the table at the time, publicly at least, with North confident they could still call the bluff and outbid a WC offer and WC happy enough that this would maximise free agency compo. I'm still on the belief - unsupported by any evidence - that Gaff has chosen us as his desired destination, but West Coast has to date blocked that potential. But I also think it's a fluid situation - with AFL pre-trade compo advice to come into play. Conners, naturally, stands to gain a great deal more from Gaff going to North - potentially in the ball-park of $100,000 or more to his personal bank balance. But I still have faith that our club is working its arse off behind the scenes to get this done.

May to me would mean Omac getting the squeeze. May and Lever provide the one and two key defender roles, and so Frost then offers more than Omac in combination with Jetta, Hibberd, and hopefully Hunt coming on again. Salem pushed up to half forward and Jones taking the Lewis role. Balance and rebounding weapons with an all-round defensive squad of hard-nuts. Sweet.

I'll take your wet-dream AF and raise you one degree of viscosity.

All players have them but Jesse's particular flaws are unfortunate in terms of our game plan and personnel. Can't kick from distance. Lack of forward defensive pressure. Slow to move it on by foot. Limited pack-marking ability. That said, he is a highly talented forward with fantastic aerobic capacity who can also run the wings/pinch in the middle. Good-to-middling accuracy and decent on the lead. Still also developing. Will be a great get for Freo in the long-run if they build around him. But with our high pressure forward press and fast and contested 'move-it-forward' game-plan (including long bombs from the centre - tsk tsk) he is already the awkward fit. We don't need him in the middle, and on the spread of the above-mentioned good and bad traits, Tommy has him covered on several of the pro elements and Weid looks set to be better in one or two. In conjunction, our forwards (and mid-field) have all the required combined traits that Jesse brings - as evidenced by our ability to keep winning without him in the line-up. From a supporters perspective, I think this awareness is already apparent in the relative calm which followed his injury in the lead-up to our finals push and campaign. We can manage without him. From a footy department perspective, I think this mind-set will be evidenced by us not actually chasing a key forward replacement. The otherwise confusing inclusion of Preuss suggests we're looking to re-balance our spread of key forward traits - with Preuss as an intended upgrade on Pedo - who was also stuck in the middle of personal attributes and team requirements. Add the fact that this is our big chance to capitalise in trade cookies at the same time as putting the 'will-he-won't-he' disruption to rest, and we're about to come way out on top - plugging some required holes such as with the inclusion of May and not giving up too much as to needs. I personally believe that this will be the lucky forced hand which delivers us a premiership.

Well the rat is obviously Brock Mclean, who could also be considered a a Blues' dog, but the rest I have nfi about.

There was a clear move in last year's off-season for all of Gawn, Hogan and Pedo to alter their body-shapes in an effort to enhance endurance and mobility. Is this even possible for someone with the bulk of Preuss? Are we basically looking for someone who can be adapted as a Pedo upgrade and can work in tandem with Max roaming up the wings out of full-forward?

Looking forward to seeing Hunt in the team alongside Lever, Frost, Salem, Hibberd and Jetta.

History would lean in favour the the defeated qualification finalists over the winning elimination ones - but we're going to start as red-hot favourites next week vs. the Hawks.

Danger may be one of the best and most influential players in the league - but not up forward in Jetta territory. Take note AA selectors, next time you try to squeeze in extra players on the team-sheet out of position.

Exact same thing happened to me 20 years ago when my beloved Redlegs destroyed arch-nemesis Port Adelaide in the SANFL GF. Had to play a 21st gig in Port Adelaide redneck territory out in the sticks. They found out I was a Legs' supporter and refused to pay. Also threatened physical violence.

And hey @old dee, I've been a silent doubter as well, but how do you feel about Weideman now? Gave it everything.

I think James Harmes can now be spoken of in the same terms as Viney, Oliver and Brayshaw. Ironically, if he was selected with the Petracca pick rather than as a rookie he already would be. Instrumental.

Your notion that 'the elite player group ie top six, will fire in big games' - 'otherwise they would not be classed as elite' and 'basically cancel each other out' has so many logical flaws I'm not sure which one to highlight. P1: The top six players are elite (false premise) P2: a. Elite players perform in big games b. otherwise they wouldn't be elite and thus top six (a. assumption b. circular logic) P3: Any given club's elite are equal (false premise) C1: The top six players cancel each other out in big games Can you name three occasions where our top six have all fired in the same big game? Or, three recent matches when the top six players of each club have cancelled each other out in their performances? Who do you find it more important performs next Friday - Angus Brawshaw or Charlie Spargo?

Talk of the bottom six winning flags is simply a short-cut to refer to depth. If two teams somehow had an even spread of talent, it's not the performance of the bottom six that will decide games/flags - it's the performance of the top players. We may target our lesser lights in the event of a loss, but besides Petty getting horribly exposed vs. the Saints, it's not the JKHs losing us games - it's our top tier failing to fire in unison.