Redleg

Looking like Bruce deal is about to be done. So he is a domino off the table.

If a player is to be involved it has to be done in the next 97 minutes. Unless you could delist a player who agrees to come to us.

Very good. Was he a Father and Son?

Was he carrying brown paper bags?

GC will take him first.

Speaking of huge deals, what happened to Billy Stretch to GC?

Unfortunately yes, but I didn’t want to call a thread IMO Jobe Watson will get Brownlow back. In my defence though that is how the first line of the thread started, IMO.

IMO the bans penalty, even though served, will not be lifted. As I recall it was like the Tanking penalty for not tanking, it was for bringing the game into disrepute. Given the club still can't tell the players what they were injected with, that will stand.

Yes. No.

See OP.

I get a bit tired coming in from Caulfield.

IMO, with the new material coming forward about ASADA not noting the drug as banned, until 4 months after the Bombers stopped using it, even though it was a WADA banned drug for years, the AFL will find a way to reinstate the Brownlow win of Jobe Watson. This is the loophole needed to reverse the stripping of his win. The other 2 players who won the Brownlow in a tie as runners up, IMO, will also be allowed to keep theirs.

Turning 31 in a few weeks. I would pass. We can do better.

That just seems impossible and it would suggest that Daniher was lying about going to Sydney to retain some privacy and playing with another one of his father's clubs, but rather just wanted to leave the Bombers at all costs.

Are we trading for a runner in the Cup?

Fair enough.

Adding to that could we be chasing Papley with 8, as is being mooted by trade media. Carlton were offering 9 but wanted something back. We could also seek something back. Carlton were talking Swans 2nd rounder. Carlton can't do the deal until Bombers agree on Daniher. 8 is better than 9 as part of the Bombers deal. Papley apparently is not stuck on Carlton, but rather getting back to Victoria. It could all end with us having Papley, Finlayson/Caldwell or another GWS player and 6 and say a pick in the 20's. Then again it could be another unforeseen pick swap. Lastly it could just be us with 3 and 8. Together with Langdon and Tomlinson that would be an amazing trade period for us.

NO.

Then why would we use 6 against them, which is what he suggested?

We haven't got 6, we only get it if we do a deal with GWS.

I note the Hawks have traded in 3 former number 1 draft picks in the last 3 years, all of whom have allegedly been injured and all have come extremely cheaply.

What about this from left field. Offer Swans 8 for Papley and Tom McCartin. That gets Daniher done. 5 & 8. We then do 3 to GWS and get 6 and someone like Caldwell. GWS get Green and whoever they want at 3 . We fix small forward problem with Papley, key forward problem with McCartin and add pace/skill with Caldwell plus another good player with 6. Well I can dream can't I?

It definitely won't be for 6 and 25. I could see us offering GWS 3 for 6 and a player and maybe even the Tomlinson compo pick or that pick 6 and another first round pick. In other words why would we give away 3 for a first and second when we paid a first, a second and a third for 8. IMO we just tell GWS we are nominating Green at 3 if we still have it.

We get 8 by giving away 26, 50 and next year's first and you think we should give up 3 for 6 and 25? That isn't happening.

It probably means we know that GWS are going to take the player we want with 3, if they get it. That player would therefore be worth more to us than 2 players a bit later on. Its the reverse of the Kelly deal and I hope if we do that we get it right.