RalphiusMaximus

The media types seem to think we're going targeting Parish and Weideman. The picks would look about right to get both. A quick theoretically classy mid and another beast of a forward would be a good pair to pick up.

This is great news for the Fitz. I really hope he kicks on with the Hawks and manages to get some senior games. The sooner he's on their list the sooner he can start training with them and working with their fitness staff. There are insurance issues and things involved in letting a player who isn't on your list work with your people. We drafted him with pick 50 in the 2009 draft. Also, I would like to take a brief moment to enjoy this working out.

After a very poor start to the week I am both amazed and impressed that the club were able to come home so strongly. Once again we've worked really well with GWS to get a great result. For some reason they seem to like trading with us and the last few years we've had some really good, profitable and presumably fair trades with them. Burning our first round pick for next year is a bit of a concern, especially if we were really looking at bringing Prestia in, but realistically I think this is an amazing result. I think I may need to admit to jumping the gun on my earlier comments that the recruiting staff need to be sacked.

If you're planning on replying to someone's post, make sure you actually read the whole thing first. It helps, trust me.

Even if Kennedy turns out to be the next Ablett, on what he's shown so far we come out the clear losers in this deal. Roos can complain about the air of negativity around the club all he wants, but how else can we react to [censored] like this?

So was Byron. However Moorcroft and Byrnes were terrible pickups.

I've never seen Kennedy play, but right now it looks like we've once again paid way too much for someone the Pies didn't want to hang on to anyway. Howe was worth far more than we've been given, so now I guess it's up to little Ben to show us that he's worth a hell of a lot more than anybody thinks. Good luck with that mate.

This is just a shocking deal. We did well to get 29 for Toump, but the rest of it is rubbish. Once again we trade with Collingwood and get shafted. It's seriously time to sack the recruiting department and bring in a few people with some vague idea of how to go about the job. First point would be NEVER TRADE WITH COLLINGWOOD!

You explicitly stated that "The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan." It wasn't. Even if we were already looking at Dawes at the time, it was still an entirely separate deal. Collingwood had no involvement in the deal to get Hogan and we would have traded for Dawes whether that deal went ahead or not. I also question your claim that because Collingwood took Broomhead with that pick it was of little value. There has never been any indication that this is who we would have picked.

Dawes had nothing to do with the Hogan deal. The deal for Hogan was with GWS, not Collingwood. The only link is that we used the pick we got back with Hogan to trade for Dawes, who was not in any way worth pick 20 and has been an utter failure for the most part since he got here.

Dawes and Lamumba come to mind. We paid way too much for both of them. Melksham? Probably paid too much there although that is offset a bit by the shallow draft. Letting Howe dictate that we accept a worse trade to accommodate him. In essence we seem to have this reputation for being easy to trade with, also known as we'll give them what they want and won't push for what we should.

Collingwood can take a flying leap if they think they can give us that deal. Once again, we demand their first round pick. If they want to spend it on someone else, it's "Sorry Jeremy, they obviously didn't want you at their club after all. Fortunately we've got another club who'd be happy to take you..."

Pretty sure we'll find out.

Fair comment. I include them basically to point out that we've come out behind the last two times we've traded with the Pies and now have a chance to screw them if we can, but you're quite right that it shouldn't be a consideration for this trade period.

I disagree. Didn't they have two weeks with no trades back when they tried a three week trade period?

Interesting. I'd love to get Rioli with that pick 16 if he was still available.

Neither of them are worth enough. Yes they were reasonably high picks, but Freeman is broken and Kennedy is a VFL player. What player from their first 22 are we going to get for Howe?

Well, after all the large scale debate on here about value and what we should pay he's here. Welcome to the club Jake. I really hope you do work well with Goodwin and take your game up a notch or two after stalling at the Bombers. I can safely say that every Melbourne supporter will be thrilled if you kick on and become more than a handy depth player.

Good point. I have GC on the brain over the Howe situation.

You don't go into a trade looking to break even. We're after a profit here. GC have offered a really good deal for him. We need to get at least as good a deal from Collingwood. We have a golden opportunity here to get back some of the credit we lost in the Dawes and Lamumba trades where we paid Collingwood far too much for players they didn't want anyway. This time we have a player we would be happy to keep, who is an automatic selection in our first side, and people are talking about letting him go for LESS than we paid for either Dawes or Lamumba in a very weak draft year. This is the best opportunity we will see this year to get a decent return on a trade. We need to capitalise on it.

Who paid for it? That sort of thing would normally be covered by the club (GC). If you're saying they didn't know, did the Pies pay? Their insurance wouldn't cover him. Did he pay for it himself?

Either way, a precedent has been set. Also with the Hawks offering two first round picks for Carlisle. It seems abundantly clear that outside the top half-dozen or so picks nobody really rates the players in this draft, so players are going at premium prices. We need to be sure to factor that in to Howe's price and be sure to get value for him. Especially since doing so could mess with Collingwood's ability to bring in the raft of quality players they are trying to snare.

People are drastically undervaluing Howe here. Have a look at the trades that have gone through so far. It's clear that nobody rates this year's draft. North Melbourne just gave up their first round pick for a 21 year old who's played 10 games. Howe is a 100 game player with multiple clubs chasing him. If the Pies want him they can give us a first round pick. It's that simple. None of this rubbish of the club bending over backwards putting together a five club trade to net a bundle of second and third round selections. In this year, with this draft, he is worth the Pies' first round pick and it isn't our problem if they want to use it for someone else. If the Pies won't put up a reasonable offer, we simply tell Howe and his manager that they aren't willing to offer what he's worth and he'll have to go with someone else.

SO Anderson is worth a first rounder and some later picks exchanged? We HAVE to ask for a first round pick for Howe.

Anyone who knows the rules re. trades and such, exactly how much power do clubs have to trade players? If Howe says Collingwood and the club says Gold Coast because it's a better deal, who has the most power to force the issue? IF Howe is insistent that he stays in Victoria, could we then trade him to a different Melbourne-based club for better compo? What if the club were to go to him and say outright that they won't trade him to the Pies because they have nothing to trade back that matches his value? From the look of things right now it appears that the clubs have virtually no power when a player decides they want to go to another side