mauriesy

I don't know. You could say we filled urgent needs with many recent recruits (e.g. Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, VDB, Viney as hard-bodied midfielders, Weideman as a KPF, Spargo as a small pressure forward, Fritsch as a HBF/wing). How good they were was a bonus.

Well, Richmond didn't actually "trade" for Lynch, they just got him as a FA. Hardly a matter of skill.

I don't see how anyone can rate trading until 1 or 2 years down the track. Until then it's pure supposition.

I guess it's really hard to get over our long-lasting depression from a few years ago.

What makes you think they didn't? They left the Hogan trade until 3.00 on the last day!

I don't think trading players futures and livelihoods is like some poker hand that you leave concealed with a straight face. You do it in good faith to get the overall result you want. Jesse wanted to go home for strong personal reasons and we respected his needs and facilitated it. In return we got some advantageous picks that improved our side, and a good future trading reputation. I don't care whether they were "overs" or "unders", I only care that we will be a better team in 2019 and beyond, given Jesse's circumstances. It was also blindingly obvious what we needed to do to get May (i.e. a first round pick), given that other clubs were interested.

Those who think Oscar will just wander off back to Casey now that we've got May are sadly mistaken.

Nah, I think it wanted to go home.

And K2 hasn't been called Mt Godwin-Austen for years. In fact it was never, formally.

You get a good idea whether you've won in September 2019.

The word of someone who hasn't posted in year's work-colleague's brother. Sounds reliable.

It must have been in the five pages I skipped.

I go away from this thread for a few hours, and come back to the last page, which is about six pages further on from where I left off. The last page is the same as the last page I read six pages ago. Groundhog Day.

Anyone can make up "a source at the club", a "mate who spoke with the player", a "cousin of his manager" or whatever.

I didn't say I'd want to give away Hogan for nothing.

Too many people see trading like swapcards, with an excessive emphasis on relative value. I'd prefer to see the whole trade period as a holistic exercise. If we have value that we can trade (like a forward or an inside mid) in order to get better improvements to our list where we are lacking (e.g. quality KPB, quality outside, backup ruck) then I don't particularly care what picks are given for an individual. In the end, it will be immaterial if Hogan goes for less than, or something different to, two early first round picks. The main criteria is that the list is improved and we are closer to a premiership.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

I'm sure the team will try extra hard knowing that SWYL is "dissatisfied" and that more missives on the poor history of the club are coming our way on Demonland.

So how are you not going to "accept" it? Make a thousand more boring and critical posts on Demonland? Endlessly bring up our terrible recent history? Appear continually dissatisfied? Try to depress those supporters who have some optimism? And a fat lot of good that will do for the actual team.

Except the Brownlow came from the premiership team just last year.

Who needs analysis when you can have Fawning Bruce?

"if the Dockers are successful ... "

It says a lot for our depth now that we can leave a player like Fritsch out. How's that first round pick for Lever looking? With free agency compensation and priority picks, we might be giving up pick 20.

Clayton can take Angus as his partner and Melksham can take Tom.

It used not to be. But at the moment we are moving the ball more quickly than any other team in the AFL.