Skuit

I so desperately want this player - who I've never seen and know practically nothing about - that even this existence of this thread is making me anxious, as if the NMFC recruiters might hear of this bloke on Demonland and swoop in before us.

Hey Steve. You've mentioned Petrucelle's explosiveness previously, but which three on this list would you personally take if you had a free hit - i.e. those with the potential-most upside as impact players regardless of current concerns for consistency etc.? Cheers.

I had a small concern like this also Gonzo. But we've had a drip-feed of firsts through injuries and trading futures: Petracca and Hogan were a year late (Hoges an extra year for being underage and then perhaps considering this year - one again), Brashaw maybe two; Oliver and Wieds a year early - in essence I don't think we're starved of young talent. And the notion that we were potentially done with trading after Lever and Balic hit home a bit. We're fighting against equalisation: it's a cycle where veterans move out, clear cap, and you develop new young players. Every club has to go through it. But we've stock-piled the best young list in the league to break the cycle and have a one-two-three-year tilt. And now, those players have become genuine commodities. If we're squeezed on cap, we trade them out for value and hopefully continue the cycle from there to powerhouse status without a serious rebuild (a la Geelong/Sydney etc).

Hehe. Woke up in the middle of the night for the Lever deal, went to work for ten hours, came home, only to read that people are still complaining about spending overs for a future, consistent AA defender. This site has gone full-tilt. I speculated that we would accommodate the Crow's demand for paying two firsts while not spending a cent more than our original offer of 10 & 28 - so as to allow them to save face. This is exactly what has happened. What I failed to predict was that our own supporters would be duped by the 'two-firsts' hype and believe that we're the ones losing face. Forgetting everything else: it's a first and a first and a fourth for a first, second and third, with one of those firsts (hint: ours) being a genuine ready-to-go first and a known commodity with a couple years in the system. What the hell is the problem with that? Anyways, congrats to Josh and the team for once again showing we're on top the game while maintaining our good reputation and getting [censored] done.

Yes, I was assuming we win the flag with the 'ish' as a small concession. Did you catch any of the latest season? I don't really want to spoil the ending, and it wasn't a realistic twist, but the Richmond Football ended up as the premiers.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.