Nasher

I’m confused about what’s confusing. Gist of post: pick 5 and 14, or 5 and 23 = not an enormous difference. Is that a bewildering proposition?

Yes, but you’re the one who keeps carping on about how his position is untenable now. If that’s true then it’s irrelevant whether what we get in return helps get May or not. You’ve been out-logicked(?) by WYL.

What?

Doubt it came from match committee. A million times more likely they’ve just stolen the idea from here.

14/23 is an immaterial difference anyway. It’s the same outcome: the ability to get May, and a draft pick in the range that gives us a reasonable chance to draft a good player. The chance of getting a good player does not reduce very much at all between 14 and 23. If the other pick was to be involved in an on-trade anyway, then it makes no difference at all if it was 14 or 23.

Yep. In the Mahoney/Viney/Taylor era we’ve seen two distinct strategies as well. Early in the Roos era it was all about finding cheap ready mades and otherwise trading our way up the draft, loading up on as many talented 18 year olds as possible. Now that those 18 year olds are now 21-22 and have formed a solid nucleus for the side, we seem to almost trade our way out of the draft to bring in the right support players to keep building the side. When looking back, I certainly can’t remember who we gave what draft pick or what we got back. I just remember that the likes of Oliver and Salem are on our list because these guys know what they are doing.

Have we, though? My recollection is that most of the dialogue was about whether or not he should give the game away and what a waste of a draft pick he was.

My interpretation was a more basic version of the same: dumb footballer trying to use corporate wank speak and mincing his words.

From this post I can only assume you are unaware of this poster’s history. I will suggest that you treat the info he shares with some circumspection and leave it at that.

How the heck did you arrive at this conclusion?

Ahh, here we go. The poster who knows eff all during the year, then at trade time, suddenly knows every intimate detail that gets discussed in the FD, right at the moment that you could probably just assemble all the rumours and take a wild stab and get to the same conclusion. Add a dash of “trust me, this is rock solid” and there you have it. The only surprising thing is that it’s taken over 300 pages of this thread for him to turn up.

Freo can very much validly offer a pick they haven’t received yet if they think they’ll be able to deliver it. If they are unable to, the deal simply falls through. That’s why you’ll often see one deal go through and then a chain of dependent trades go through in short succession.

The timing of these “issues” is pretty convenient. Without meaning to add to the speculation, footy is the worst industry in Australia for keeping secrets. Everyone knew Watts liked a party more than hard work. St Kilda would have known Jake Carlisle was a fan of the nose beers beforehand, although him being dumb enough to video it was probably a shock. If it’s “failed a medical”, well dur, he just sat out the end of the season with a serious foot injury. To me the explanation that Freo are circulating rumours on purpose to try and knock down the price still passes the sniff test. I just can’t believe that they’ve unburied some deep dark secret in all their “due diligence”. And whatever it is only reduces his value from 2 firsts to a first and a second? Please. As to the source being of known reliability - obviously moving past Dumber and Dumbest Langdon and Nixon - even known channels of good information can get polluted with incorrect information in a great game of Chinese whispers, especially if there are parties out there motivated enough to be spreading lies intentionally.

Jesse Hogan is damaged goods because Ricky Nixon and Karl Langdon said so. Jesus Christ. Just... Jeez.

Is there a way we can package up pick 62 and 65 to one of the clubs looking to accrue points? I could probably work it myself, but the hard bit is knowing which clubs want the points and what they’ve already got. Looking at the chart, I think if we package them up with one more lower pick (pick 50), we should be able to get in to the top 30, which would be a decent result. I don’t know if there are any buyers out there though. In: Preuss, top 30 pick. Out: Kent, Tyson, pick 50.

It’s concerning that Freo have such a rank amateur in such a senior position (or so it seems - anyone know his resume prior?). It would be like Mahoney trying to do a deal for one of our best players with their BigFooty board. It’s all based on some skewed ideal rather than sensible reality. With this bloke at their helm I’m expecting Hogan to play for Melbourne in 2019 now.

It’s honestly crazy, isn’t it. Two teams have a surplus player in their area of strength that corresponds with the other team’s area of weakness, so they swap. This is the most obviously win-win trade I’ve seen in a while. Preuss and Tyson would be playing against each other in the VFL next year if it weren’t for this.

North’s list manager blinked first, according to their fans on BigFooty ?

Onya Dom. Was an important part of the rebuild, and is pretty unlucky that we managed to build an even stronger midfield underneath him. Hopefully he can be a starting inside mid at North. Finally, some AFL quality Gawn insurance. I think many underestimate the value of this. Preuss won’t be intending to play for Casey though, he’ll want to demonstrate that he can support Gawn in the Melbourne side (or maybe even attempt to pass him if he’s ambitious enough). Really looking forward to seeing how he gets used.

The Sydney bloke must have blinked first ?

Correct. As the story goes, Sewell had emptied his locker and was ready to go. Ferg went in to Neale Daniher’s office, turned on the waterworks and begged him not to execute the trade. This was right after the Broadbridge thing and the Brad Miller lead Phi Phi Island memorial construction, which had a profoundly bonding effect on the players, so Daniher caved. It was a very unique situation though.

Would you have signed him for three years? That’s what it would take to have kept him. The MFC wanted to give him one year. I would have kept him given the choice, but St Kilda put a deal in front of him that in my mind is preposterous and it tied our hands. Our options were 1) agree to St Kilda’s offer, 2) spend valuable time to and froing with them and risk having him walk, or 3) offer him three more years (the grapevine says they also offered him 3x the coin too, but this is uncorroborated). Given his injury history and sporadic form, I can’t see how 3) is in any way sensible and 2) I think would be a time waster, especially if we’re trying to line up Hogan/May deals.

You've got to love the armchair trading experts on here.

I'm pumped to hear this. Not particularly for the player himself, just the symbolism of it. He had every reason to want to go, and nobody but a few nuffies would have begruded him, but in the end said "no thanks, I want to play for the Melbourne Football Club". I know some don't personally invest in the players, but for me this will add some shine when he does play well. Happy days!

I don't hate any of the rule changes per se, I just hate having to learn new rules every year. It makes me feel very sorry for the umpires, especially when there are a few changes in there that are ripe for making judgement errors. Ho hum. I'd love to know where the AFL are getting their intel that the fans want the rules changed in order to make the game more interesting or whatever. I'm in my mid 30s and have seen the style of the game change heaps over time, including the Terry Wallace flood and the Paul Roos turn everything in to a scrap being in vogue, and I've never had my interest in the game affected by it. The main thing that affects my interest level is how the Dees are going.