The Taciturn Demon

At Hardwick's mum's house? I heard the same. It's in the same basement where Hardwick has a massive corkboard covered in pins linked by red wool, connecting pictures of ABC journalists, George Soros, grey aliens and autism-is-caused-by-flouride cover ups.

I'm going to be laughing about this for a long while.

With Heath out, I wonder if they'll think about bringing in Dethridge.

Very much the case with Petracca last year.

Humphrey: "Well, I was really keen to join the club. I really like what Steven King has proposed. And the midfield of Pickett and Langford and Windsor sounds exciting." Richardson: "Was? Hang on. Why are we talking in the past tense here, Bailey?" Humphrey: "Well, it's just that throughout this meeting, someone's been shuffling around under the desk. At first I thought it was... I dunno... an electrician doing some work, but they're wearing a Melbourne scarf and seem to be recording the conversation on their phone. Guys... it's really weird. I'm out."

Brilliant.

Me too. If that's what it requires, do it. I suspect getting a "very good" player at 6 and 7 will be extremely difficult. Getting one at 23 would be something else.

I could have sworn you were right and that he did mention either a wariness about returning to the top part of this draft or even more specifically wanting a player rather than draft picks in the Petracca trade. But I can't find it. In the update prior to trade week and in the early interview with Cal Twomey, he doesn't really go one way or the other on this draft and just says the "turn our head" line.

One of my all time faves as a player.

He does. If this is a 2016 kind of draft, though, he'll need to work a couple of miracles.

I agree on the blinking. If Melbourne shows any little glimmer that they're uneasy about Petracca nominating GC but staying at the Demons in 2026 it'll never happen. If public statements mean anything, Lamb should reiterate the line from the other day along the lines of Petracca staying being the logical state of affairs unless something extraordinary happens.

Seems like nobody is interested in him. Is this a case of us being keen last year, watching him closely in 2025 and deciding his VFL form just wasn't up to scratch? I'm not convinced we'd look at our list and tell ourselves - "Nah, we're right for KPPs now."

More than enough for a player they are absolutely adamant they want to retain? I'd be a little bit surprised. Fairly important point.

I might be incredibly naive, but I understand getting him off the financial and cultural books and accepting that we won't get much in return. I also understand paying a huge proportion of his remaining contract to make his acquisition more attractive to another club. I don't understand doing both.

What are those assets?

Melk was a bad choice.

Keen on the Demons or keen on a 2025 return to Victoria?

Hello.

Definitely.

This is it. If "head turner" turns out to be some ultimately double digit picks in a poor draft, we're either kidding ourselves or banking on a Jason Taylor miracle.

I totally agree. But not just a solid average footballer.

Me neither... ...unless Taylor is extremely confident that at, say, 6 and 7, which will become 9 and 11 or 10 and 12, he's able to get two players he genuinely loves... ...or... ...we can turn whatever picks we get into at least one well-above-average mature player.

Exactly. Fremantle are very good at laughing in faces and demanding the world without provocation.

Me too. "We simply won't trade him" followed next year by "There may not be a spot for him on our list" is incredibly cruel. There's a lot of howling about peripheral stuff during trade week. Here's a bloke being treated like garbage and the 'industry' just shrugs.

I'm not sure why I'm doing this, because I find Kane Cornes about as insightful and thoughtful as a parrot trained to make fart noises, but even if this were a good comparison (age and position make it anything but), Richmond got 6 AND 23 in a draft widely considered to be exceptional beforehand (and already proving so after the fact). Six and 17 being "more than fair" is a ludicrous statement on its own, but MORE ludicrous if you're using Rioli in '24 as the yardstick.