Little Goffy

It might work in our favour a bit because we have the game's fittest ruck, as well as fit key position players at both end of the ground who can stay on the park for almost the whole game (Bonus: Ben Brown was on the field for something like 98% of the time in 2019) We also have more midfield depth than most so we can rotate without losing too much quality. Perhaps most valuable - tired opponents means less flooding back, fewer intercepts and more chances for our forwards to use time and space to make something useful of our wonky entries.

Possibility 1 - we are confident that with fewer than usual players being taken in 2020, the 2021 draft will be deeper with leftovers as well as being higher 'natural' quality as projected. Not so much a need to get into the top picks. Possibility 2 - our late first round picks might be traded out in live trading to clubs who want to get in ahead of their academy picks, so they can double-dip (can someone confirm for me that future picks can be live-traded?) Possibility 3 - one final trade up to make sure we get Archie Perkins.

It's funny how different an impression you can get of someone when you hear them speaking instead of it being BT wailing on about hair and run-ups whenever he comes on screen. ?

Collingwood: "Hey Neville, we're interested in maybe offering you a longer, more secure contract than Melbourne can, because we're keen to have you be part of improving our culture" Jetta: "Oh, yeah, that sounds reasonable, I'll need to think about thaaaaaaa... um, please excuse me, I think I left my cat on the stove."

Two out of three ain't bad.

Hmm. Other things being equal, just from a list changes perspective I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest gaining Ben Brown vs losing Treloar, Phillips and Stephenson is realistically worth a ladder difference of one draw. I'd say we will climb ahead of Collingwood. Bulldogs are basically in the same category as us for 'possible but questionable' except where we threw away a couple of close games we should have won, they let their poorer games really run away from them. Both teams have added valuable players highly suited to their needs. Both might climb further. Either or both could stumble. West Coast being injury-ravaged in 2020 is a myth. They had as many players play the full season or just miss one or two games as any other club - they just publicised their 'outs' better. Never mind their sooking about being in Queensland, they had close to the most stable fixture with perhaps the least travel burden of any club outside Queensland, including the six home games in a row which saved their season. A total of three wins separate us from them and can easily see us being two wins better and them two worse, even if they don't quite drop out of the eight. For the new improved St Kilda I think a fair analogy is North Melbourne from 2002 to 2019. They'll be in and out of finals and almost never rubbish (North managed at least ten wins in 15 of those 18 seasons). St Kilda will finish somewhere from 6th to 10th, roll dice each year. Best of luck to them, I hope one year they grab a premiership with a surge at the right time. 50/50 for finals in 2021. Speaking of dice, Geelong just maxed out their salary cap and cashed in their draft presence on one last roll. Simple schadenfreude demands they fall apart around mid-year. In fact, the omens are good because I just spelled schadenfreude correctly on the first attempt. So it is written, so shall it be.

Today I noticed that my teapot was a bit close to the edge of the kitchen bench and just had to stop for a cry because it might one day topple over and hit a future child of mine as it falls.

I wonder if this will affect Lumumba's lawsuit? Pro; Further evidence that Collingwood marginalises players who don't fit in perfectly, and then treat them like s... Con; Evidence that being [censored] to everyone is just the Collingwood way rather than being specifically racially motivated.

I've gone and developed a genuine draft-crush for the first time in years. Archie Perkins will likely go in the middle of the first round, so we need to get into that range. Possible Targets: Essendon: 6, 7, 8, 44, 77, 85, 87 Lots of list spots to fill. Some top picks but then dross. They might be enticed by some combo of 19+ 28 to keep them participating meaningfully. Fremantle 12, 32, 55 Doesn't seem likely, but hey, it is Fremantle. GWS 10, 13, 15, 20, 29, 52, 74, 88 What the hell are they going to do with all those picks? That's just selfish. Again. Unfortunately they look all set for drafting early and then burning late picks for academy points. North Melbourne 2, 11, 30, 39, 71, 81 That 11 is 'ours' anyway, isn't it? I can see it happening, once they've got their draftee star they'd love to be able to point to as many young guns as possible coming through the system, so a pair of later first rounders may have value. Adelaide 1, 9, 22, 23, 40, 56, 66, 80 Nine would do the job for us nicely, but they might not see the point in adding 18 or 19 to their 22 and 23. But 18, 19 and 28 for 9 and 23 might start a conversation. Collingwood 14, 16, 65, 70, 75, 92 Offer them 18 and 89 for 14 and 92 and see if they are still drunk, but only if Archie is still available at 14. And that's every pick from 6 to 16 covered in just six clubs.

We need a nearest the pin competition on just who it is we are aiming for, and how high in the draft we will worm our way to get them! Clearly it isn't one of the big tall forwards at the pointy end of the draft. Clearly it isn't a chunky inside midfielder. Oh... Archie Perkins. Obviously. Watching his highlights, there's something about his playing mannerisms, the thicker hair, the slight hunch, the way he carries the ball so low and in front when he runs and the way his ball drop barely leaves his hands by the time it is on his boot, that just makes me think 'Demon winger'.

I wonder how much of Treloar's salary they had to agree to pay to get such a good deal from the Dogs? The whole thing smacks of salary cap planning disaster. Maybe they assumed Pendlebury would have retired by now? Well, now they need to him stick around a couple more years.

A nice clear summary (I've removed the pocket fluff details) step 1 swap 4th into third this year in exchange for going third to fourth next year step 2 gain 2nd and third round picks for future second and fourth roud pick step 3 future 3rd rounder for hannan step 4 second rounder for Preuss step 5 gain 25 for 31 and 43 Step 6 Brown in for 33 Step 7 18, 19 and future second, for 25 and future first

25 = 31 + 43 because 25 is actually 28, 31 is 37 and 43 is 52. Ooh, I just realised a whole other way to play the academy pick game. There are several clubs with preferential selections expected to go in the 20s. If we have 25 and their dibs pick hasn't come up yet, they'll be keen to get that pick in live trading ahead of the point where they have to pay out. That wouldn't matter if they could only trade same-year selections but if you introduce a 2021 second round pick into the equation it can work out really well for everyone. They get a pick in the 20s in a draft they would otherwise be excluded from, we get a pick around the 20s in what will very likely be a stronger and obviously much better informed draft. Steak knives change hands to balance it all but the core of it has the style of the modern MFC. It's actuarial-level trading! Would still be nice to have one properly early selection but this deal would be hilarious in its simple-complexity.

As last hours madness rolls in, all we need is for North to trade one of those for Stephenson and Collingwood to decide they want ToMc and we could end up getting it back again.

I'm going to take a wild guess that we are holding our set of 2nd round picks in case a specific combo is needed for either bundling an upgrade to a first rounder or some more pick-swapping shenanigans. It would be unusual for Jason Taylor to not have identified a target or two of particular interest in the first round, so if we need to get to a higher point in the draft we'll do it. By the time the dust settles on draft night, we might actually take no selections in the second round at all, never mind our current three!

Brown for whatever, I'm not too fussed about haggling over a few draft spots in a draft that becomes guesswork within the first round. Seems like the major concern is how efficiently we can move players out, rather than in. I would of course still be sad to see Tom McDonald go but his salary leaves with him and unfortunately that matters. Picks in the 50s or even 60s for the 'respectfully moved on with best wishes' players is fine.

Demons get really good value in the trade and GWS will be perfectly content with their side of the bargain. We've managed to maintain a sustained pattern of that mutual satisfaction with multiple clubs over multiple years. Mahoney's enthusiastic endorsement of Preuss after the deal was done is good form, too. I guess you can feel comfortable doing that when you've got the champion on your list already. Be funny if (and seems likely that) Tom McDonald ends up being traded for a lesser pick as well as with salary subsidy. Trade value is a strange market and I'm glad to have people on hand who are always looking for the small, astute gains.

Over the last 20 years the average premiership player has already played in a premiership. A stat about as useful as a predictor as is 'scored more than their opponents' (Yup) and 'has multiple players who established themselves at AFL level and weren't delisted at 22', which is mostly what that chart tells us.

Angela Merkel will be retiring from politics at some point, she would whip a football club into shape and the sponsorship exposure would be incredible. If you're not constrained by reality, you might as well think big.

I'm pretty sure I'm at least 4 years older than I was eight months ago.

Hogan for pick six turned out to be a huge gain and pick six for May appears to have delivered us a crucial premiership quality key defender and club leader. What I like is that we've also managed quite a few respectable successes that were neither boom nor bust but good value and appropriate for the circumstances. Hibberd, Lewis, Vince, and Melksam in, Frost and Watts out. All good value. I don't think we've really fluffed a trade in a few years. The missing piece now is a couple of bonus free agency signings. But that really only comes when you're already performing and an attractive prospect for 28 year olds looking for less responsibilty and a premiership.

I'm drawing a link in my mind between this and Nathan Jones playing on for 2021. Am I crazy? Casey will need leaders when on-field resources are tight, Jones will need something to do when he's not in that magical last burst of refreshed form that will bring him to a triumphant 300.

Paradoxically, when that day comes this time of year will very much feel like the best times.

I guess my point is in two parts, a) a speculative pick in the mid-season rookie draft is hardly team-defining, and b) You're insistence on superiority over Taylor is at least a year out of date given the acquisition of Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Langdon, Tomlinson and Bennell in a single off-season, not one of which is the plodding inside mid you believe he needs to 'change his attitude about' this year.

May I just clarify, you're all fired up at the club and proud of yourself for 'knowing' that a player picked in the mid-season rookie draft might not develop to high levels? And you also believe selecting Dunkley shows how Taylor is obsessed with slow inside midfielders... such as Jackson, Rivers and Pickett... and that "He needs to change his attitude for this year." I don't think it even counts for trolling credit if people are smirking when they see your comments.