Akum

I think this deserves another look. The thing is, if this is our 6, there may well be only two of them left by the time of pick 7 (or 10 if you prefer). For example, if we take Parish at 3, Bummers take, say, Weideman & Curnow, Suns take Oliver, that leaves us Milera & Francis. Maybe they're good, but they're not the type of player we need & I'm not the only one who'd be surprised if we picked up either of them because no mock draft has us even considering them. So giving them two spaces in our top 6 seems odd? On the other hand, we seem not to be looking at another potential tall-forward-second-ruck in Harry McKay. Or any mids other than Parish & Oliver, who will both be gone before pick 7/10. I hope they are looking a bit more broadly outside this 6.

I think it's likely that Parish and Weideman were our original reasons for trading up to picks 3 & 7 respectively. And that JT and his team have had a really close look at all the other options, but come back to their original preferences.

How about the possibility that he's faking it to lower his value and get (past the Bummers) to us?? Wasn't there a report that he was very happy when he found out that we'd traded up to pick 7? JT: "We'll pick you at 7 no matter what your beep test is." Everybody else: "Not interested unless beep test better than 13" Well, it's a possibility. If you were a KPF, wouldn't you want to get to the team that has Hogan?

What I like about Parish is his ability to move the ball quickly and effectively from a tightly congested situation into space. He also seems to have very good awareness of when he's got a bit of time to run the ball out and when he's under pressure and needs to dispose of it quickly. With the Falcons and Vic Country, his teammates knew to provide options. My concern is that this will be completely lost on our midfield, though maybe the likes of Brayshaw, Salem & Petracca may be able to anticipate what he might do when he has the ball and run to the right places.

And wasn't Josh Mahoney himself telling us all along not to judge the trade period by any single trade, but to wait to see the overall picture? Some were fine with that because they understood that to be wise strategy. They just got swamped by the doomsayers.

Could it be possible that there's a slight difference in quality of the merchandise being traded - Beams vs Howe?

This. Been overlooked in the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Quite possible that we'll go to the draft with pick 6 (pick 3 if we're lucky) and 2 late picks for rookie upgrades.

Perhaps more likely that we're waiting on the 3rd rounder from Essendon to trade for Kennedy. Or Bugg. 25 for Kennedy would be way overs. If we get a 3rd rounder back for Melksham, it means we've got Melksham PLUS Kennedy for pick 25. Which sheds a totally different light on our trading.

As long as it doesn't hold up any other trades - for example, if we need an extra third-rounder to on-trade. As other posters have mentioned, a large slice of the entire AFL commentariat thinks that pick 25 is overs and that a 3rd rounder back is totally reasonable. But Dodoro seems to get less pleasure out of a reasonable trade than he does from gridlocking another club's entire trading period.

... or we're asking for a third round pick back ... or, as ManDee pointed out, we're offering a second-round pick from next year, not this year - which will probably be a later pick, and will come after the WADA issue has been resolved one way or t'other (and, with any luck, after Melksham's had a stellar season in the games he does play) I think the language from Mahoney is that the trade will involve a second round pick - it's Dodo who's assuming that this means pick 25. But of course this could all be wrong - it could be just pick 25, although if that's the case, one can't help but wonder why they're taking so long to close what seems such a simple deal.

The trade is surely not just Melksham for #25 (if it was just Melksham for 25, we wouldn't be waiting until tomorrow), but Melksham-plus-Bugg (for example) for #25. We thus get two players who will follow instructions & play disciplined footy, run both ways, attack hard off half-back etc, and contribute to the whole-of-team effort. Howe, for all his talents, wasn't always great at this. It only takes one or two players out of 18 to cruise and not man up or not run defensively etc and the whole team structure falls apart, like it did far too many times last season. Both Bugg and Melksham will make our team structure a whole lot tighter. All this for pick 25 in a weak draft. And THAT'S smart trading & good value!

Agree with this. The other factor is that, once we decided to target him, we can beat the offer from his present club either by offering him either more money or a longer contract. So by offering him a longer term, we don't have to offer him as much money as we would if we only signed him for 2 years. Leaving more in the kitty for the Big Fish. Trouble is, I can see the reasoning behind offering him 4 years, but like many I'm still not convinced ...

Could we make him our Environmental Ambassador?

Not unlike Jack Watts, except for the bit about the commentators. They do what they do really well, they just don't do enough.

You're welcome to believe that NicNat is "elite", M C, but nobody else is buying it. I like NicNat, he's great for the game, but rather than a show-pony, he's a one-trick pony, though it's a damn good trick. It works best at centre bounces, and it's not as effective at ball-ups and throw-ins. But his weaknesses are really bad. HIs endurance is poor so he's less effective as the game goes on, his defensive game is just non-existent, and he spectates a lot if he's not sure he can get the ball. He has been very well coached, and it's kept as simple as possible for him - "just leap to here, and then tap it here, here or here". He is surrounded by a great group of mids who corral him really well against any third-man-up attempts, and who know exactly where he's tapping it to. He's a great athlete and has been brilliantly utilised, but he's not elite. Sooner or later one of the top sides will work out how to blunt his effectiveness, and it will be back to the drawing board.

Not ruling out trading a top pick for an A-grader. Can't let the top clubs have the free agents all to themselves. Yeah, riveting stuff.

Did Roos say that we'd be heavily involved in FA specifically, or just in trading more generally?

Has Sloane re-signed with Crows yet?

Yeah, I guess you're right. If we take Vince, Cross, Vandenburg, Toumpas, Watts, Petracca, Trengove, ANB, & Stretch out of our midfield, we ARE "thin". You missed out JKH & Garlett. That's even before we get down into the role-players and the fringe. Not disagreeing that we need more mids, by the way. But what we need is more quality (1, maybe 2) at the top end, not more depth (3 or 4) at the bottom end.

Exactly. Not only that, but because they depend too heavily on Gazza to win them games, it's stifled the development of their other mids (as has Judd did at Carlton). When Gazza's playing, he does all the heavy lifting, and they have less responsibility. So that when Gazza's (or Judd's) not there, they can't win without him because their developing mids struggle to step up. I'm arguing against the superstar trade. On the other side of the coin, we've done well in recruiting the #4 or #5 mid from sides that are chock-full of mids, and who have been able to step up when given the extra responsibility to be #2 mid with us - Tyson & Vince. And, for that matter, JPK. It's why I'd prefer Coniglio, for example, to Dangerfield.

rjay. you've made your point really well, and I totally agree with you. There's a big difference between trading in good or very good players to build a star team, and punting it all on an elite player. Judd to Carlton & GAJ to GCS are other examples of a superstar trade that was supposed to bring the ultimate reward much closer, but ended up taking both teams much further away.

"About as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal"

Looks more like Ro Bail. Viney would've hit him hard & low & not got suckered by the inevitable duck of the head.

Could we add "beat a team coached by a Whinge Twin"?

Absolutely right. At full pace too. A "don't argue" stops the tackler grabbing your body, but if they have the presence of mind to grab your arm, you're totally stuffed. Love the way Weller realised he was in deep trouble the moment Viney grabbed his arm and used it to pull him in closer. Then he really found out how much trouble he was in. And I can't wait for Dustin Martin to try the "don't argue" again on Viney.