Nasher

In what way does Trengove being on the LTI mean the club has no breathing room?

Normally I'd agree Rog, but 40 seems early to have our last pick, and taking GWS' pick 53 or whatever in the Frost deal seems pointless if we're not going to use it.

Jetta has already signed a contract, so I think it is too late to keep him on the rookie list. JT going on the LTI list is a given, but doesn't help us at the draft, just means we might be able to play a player we take in the rookie draft.

Why is that clear? He is going to be delisted, or we're going to pass with pick 40 in the draft. I know which is more likely, and I really doubt Roos gave Tapscott another few days on the list before throwing him on the heap with the others because he rates him higher.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or berate you for your poor taste.

Given that we haven't been told that Tapscott has been delisted - and he surely wil be - I'd say that they just haven't been through all the players yet.

Thread trimmed. While I don't think the initial comment that sparked that little side discussion was intended to be racist, it certainly came across that way and I fully understand why others have taken offence. By the way, a couple of Demonland's older, more prolific posters may want to stop and consider why Matt Rendell fell on his sword, beyond "because he had to". Don't bother doing it in this thread though.

The Great Evil Consensus had Buddy comfortably in the top 5. The greater shock to the GEC was that Hawthorn took Roughead before Buddy or Tambling. Absolute masterstroke in the end, it would seem. Richmond couldn't believe their luck in Tambling landing on their lap - snigger.

Good luck to the standalone sides getting televised.

Howe stunk as a forward this year but has been better in the past,and Garlett only helps if he's out of his 2014 headspace. Dawes may be aided by fitness and/or Hogan taking another tall... We could and should improve but it's a lot of ifs and buts - I'm not saying we will be as crud as we were last year in the forward 50, I'm just prepared for the fact that at times we might be. If Hogan was a 50-100 game veteran I'd be more confident. And none of that would influence my decision on McCartin vs Petracca

It means you'd rather have pick 7 than pick 6, right?

The problem is that we have a 0 game player as the piece de resistance. I like Hogan and reckon he'll be a star too, but I think we need to come to terms with the fact that he'll probably struggle at times and when he does, our forward line probably will be the F troop like it was this year.

I reckon the estimate of savings from delisted players is way overestimated above. Nicholson, Clisby et al on 200k each? Yeah, nah.

So, over 13 billion? Sweet!

Fair enough. Don't rate him as a footballer either - the DH thing is just an incidental thing for me.

What makes you say that? We clearly got our picks wrong, what proportion of that though is due to recruiter incompetence (as opposed to poor player development or just plain rotten luck). I'm assuming you know something about the way the MFC operated that we don't.

No doubt the mean man in the nightclub just started throwing fists around at poor, innocent Mitch, and Mitch had no choice but to deck him in self defence. I know there is two sides to every story, and I accepted that sometimes people get jumped, but the vast majority of fights I've seen while out have involved two or more very willing participants.

It reinforces my view that the relative value between the picks is not greatly different, but the strongest point it makes is how stupid it is to calculate the value of draft picks based on which players were taken with that pick in the past. Going off that logic you'd prefer any pick in the 40s or 50s over pick 35 (but not any other pick in the 30s) given how many busts there have been at 35.

I'm not sure what else we were supposed to pay anyway, given: - There is a high chance St Kilda would've dealt for Membrey if this trade didn't happen, and they'd have taken Frost in the PSD. - Late picks are worthless to GWS, so 23 was the only pick of any use to them - GWS returned their two earliest picks (other than one the one directly after it, which is spoken for) to us, meaning we got the best upgrade they could give us Whether it turns out to be a valuable trade depends on whether Frost is any good or not, but really this seems to be the only plausible trade. We wanted the player, so we paid for him. It would seem to me that people would only have been happy if we'd gotten him for free ala Garlett; that's not how this game works.

I disagree that he can play. If you haven't got a lot going for you personality wise, you need to be a good enough player to offset that, and Robinson isn't.

There is a good chance we'd be looking at the same pool of players anyway. It'll be smaller as some of our options would be gone, but it's likely some of the players we like for 23 will still be there at 40. I'd love to see some analysis on the "hit rate" of picks in the 20-25 range vs the 38-43 range. I expect it would show not much difference I'm comfortable with this for the same reason I was comfortable with downgrading early picks for Tyson: draft picks are monumentally overrated by footy fans.

If he goes on to have a solid career at Adelaide, I won't lose any sleep.

I predict that the ladder next year will be identical to this years.

I'm really looking forward to the next decade of crud Frost jokes.