Skuit

I've said the same thing for a long time re. Stretch. But I was ready to withdraw that opinion and return to an open mind after his later-season performance this year vs. Freo. Played with poise and purpose and provided a missing link with clean skills on a slippery day. Curious if you caught it Ash - although I certainly wouldn't blame you if you didn't. ? It was enough to force a rethink, and I can't say the same for any of JKH's appearances this year. My knock on Stretch was positioning and movement from the packs and slow decision-making. These are areas where a player can improve.

I've said the same thing for a long time re. Stretch. But I was ready to withdraw that opinion and return to an open mind after his later-season performance this year vs. Freo. Played with poise and purpose and provided a missing link with clean skills on a slippery day. Curious if you caught it Ash - although I certainly wouldn't blame you if you didn't. ? It was enough to force a rethink, and I can't say the same for any of JKH's appearances this year. My knock on Stretch was positioning and movement from the packs and slow decision-making. These are areas where a player can improve.

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.

What? Can't we just tell Gaff he'll play in the middle for us a la Howe in the forward line for Collingwood and then accept the all the genius coaching plaudits when we push him outside for the following six years? I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing with Pruess. Yeah, sure Braydon, can we call you Braydes? - we're definitely going to play two rucks next year . . . . . . until the very first time it doesn't work out. But we share the same name and colours as Casey now and Max will probably retire or slow down sometime around 2024.

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.

The seeking more opportunities line wouldn't fly if he requested a trade home.

How much did the crystal ball fetch on ebay ding?

This one goes out to PJ.

I'm available for TAB consulting on Tuesdays and Wednesdays by appointment. Reasonable rates.

Jones, Lewis and Tmac will all poll in the top-ten with at least one in the top five. It's just how these things work.

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 didn't give a toss. Until the last quarter, and started supporting WC. The brain will do what it wanna do. But I won; hoorah!