Akum

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.

It's this difference between "resigns" and "re-signs". Where's the hyphen, people??!! In Sloane's case, unfortunately the latter.

They were talking about Collingwood on SEN. The plan being, Swan out, Dangermouse in, on maybe twice as much as Pendles. Great recipe for instability, I sincerely hope they go for it. When is it time to get in Swan's ear?

Definitely trade value. For each, we'd need a high pick and a very very good player, or at the very least a good player who meets a desperate need. Do GCS or Brisbane need a versatile reliable defender, a specie merchant or a tall forward with iron hands???

I'd be really happy if Aish was our second target midfielder. Wouldn't be as happy if he was our first target, ahead of the likes of Prestia or Coniglio or Sloane. Is it too greedy to want Aish AND Prestia?? Or do we not have enough to give to get both?

And Selwood.

Yep, agree. The arm-chopping rule went missing too.

Again, people have such short memories. A fully fit & firing Trengove would be like having another Tyson, except right-footed, stronger & could run all day. If he's almost-but-not-quite fit & firing, then it's half-back etc. Trengove fully fit is top-drawer midfielder. He's not as limited as Scully.

"Yeah, a king hit is just a good fair bump."