KozzyCan

That would be the only reason to actually do it.

Would call it a B. Cashed in on Petracca, picked up a couple of cheap AFL ready players and made the best of a bad situation with Oliver, although it's impossible to look at that positively given we had the chance to move him on last year on much more favourable terms. The media sucking up to the Hawks is funny. They missed out on their man and did bugger all else. Genuine fail from them.

Didn't he kick 5 on Judd last year?

Nothing like that.

It's really fine for him to communicate club strategy. Even if he is just reiterating stuff we know it's good to have every level of the club singing from the same hymn book.

Reckon people are sleeping on Greeves.

I don't think Robey looks impressive enough to trade up the draft for.

Their draw wasn't that soft this year. Double ups against Adelaide, Us, Giants, Richmond, Essendon, and Brisbane. So 3 finals sides and 3 bottom 6 sides. Also lost one to Richmond and beat Adelaide and Brisbane

Petracca's is his most recent post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DP2IFhQEwwE/?img_index=1

I don't really care if he did or he didn't, really just bemused by the hypocrisy from some to give Oliver excuses and leeway while scrutinising everything Petracca does.

I mean JUH did a pretty nice one to the dogs.

Yeah this. Sometimes it's just about filling your club with good citizens who set the right example. A young kid comes through and sees all the senior players are serious driven professionals, that's how you drive culture.

Rival bidders are a bit of a myth in AFL trades. Once a player has made up their mind where they want to go you just have to deal with that club. Collingwood was clearly interested in Oliver but Oliver had no interest in them. This is all even more true when you ask a player to explore their options. You just have to take what you can get.

Because the guy who was protecting him and who is no longer at the club was in charge of those decisions.

Oh dear..

It is hilarious this thread is still going.

I would not be trading our future first.

Okay. To absolutely clarify I have no issue with us taking onfuture firsts as part of a deal especially if the rest of the deal is good too.

Who cares if they get their academy players? They were always getting them. This is still a better deal for Petracca than we would have gotten from any other club.

14 and a future first is absolutely a bad deal. 7,8 and a future first is a totally different conversation.

Huh?

Yes.

So we get two first rounders and then pick up Kalani White and Sinema late, then we pick up another first rounder next year. Much Prefer that to two picks in the twenties which will get pushed back until the 30s or 40s and keeping a depressed asset when we desperately need to rejuvinate the list.

Given this year is a shallow draft we will basically get two picks at the higher end of it and ditch our second rounders for another first in a better draft next year. Not sure how people can't see that as a win.

That's a great deal for us.