DeeSpencer

Like we did with Morton or Strauss or Blease? Or like Carlton did with Kane Lucas? Or like how Gysberts kicked on at North? He's shown something, but if we rated Kennedy higher then we make this trade.

Brisbane and GWS do. They have 2 each inside the first round/early 2nd round. It's up to us to see if we can upgrade pick 29 with either of them.

Brent Harvey's been running around for 20 years smaller than that. He's a high half forward/midfield rotation player. He has speed. Almost every team has 1 player that size in their team. The Hawks have 2.

GWS have pushed 2 out (Townsend to Richmond, Hampton to Adel) and are apparently trading up to 35 rejects to Carlton (or realistically 4 or at most 5 - Phillips, Sumner, Lamb, Plowman, maybe Tomlinson). They've added 2 in Stevie J and Simpson. They seem keen to keep McCarthy. I wonder where they sit in terms of list space. Their website lists 46 and presumably they have to get down to 40 including drafting the normal 3 in which case they'd have to ship a few more out.

My main concern with Ben Kennedy is I think he's more a half forward/inside mid than a pure wingman. But I don't know if Toumpas was either although he had a couple of games this year that looked solid. Finding guys who are genuine outside running mids with elite endurance, a dash of pace and reasonable skills isn't easy.

The simplest way to see it is Kennedy for Toumpas IMO. I think that's worth the risk. Why keep a player who hasn't progressed when he's been fit and available. I'm calling that a win. 29 and 50 for Howe is a little unders. But if we can package them up for a pick 20 then it's about right. A bit of a loss, but this draft isn't so bad that you can't find a good player with an early 20's pick if we can combine the 2.

GWS are all about the points. So every bit matters to them. We can offer them 29 and 45 for 22 and Bugg. They might say no. If we offered 25 and 50 that could be more points.

So if we waited until now we could trade pick 29 for Melksham and keep pick 25. Small difference, but every inch counts. Could be the difference between picking and missing a star player, like when we wanted Jack Redden and Brisbane pounced and we got Jamie Bennell.

Buckley said Freeman will take some of his issues with him to his next club. Without looking it up that's almost a direct quote. I'm not sure he would've said that if he was just referencing the hamstring injuries. I've now heard it from a few sources that Freeman like a drink and a night out. Not uncommon with young footballers. But when injured you are meant to be ultra disciplined.

Cincy Houston NE

Tyson's best (last year) was much better. More prolific ball winner. Better hands in close. Goal kicking from stoppages. Reads the ball from the ruckman better. He had a down year this year but is 22 and can likely spring back. If he had 2 more average years then he'd be where Melksham is. Melksham hasn't elevated his game in the midfield. Isn't winning big numbers, isn't dominating through great ball use. So he's getting reinvented through a move to half back and can hopefully step up a level with that chance.

I have no interest in picking him up, but I would have some interest in getting him to the club to train in the lead up to the drafts if that was allowed. If he is a good trainer and kept himself in good shape despite being out all year then he could bring a bit of leadership and a ruthless edge to the training track. I'm not sure anyone would give him a 2nd chance but being in Melbourne might be his best shot to impress clubs. Just a bit of out of the box thinking.

Incredibly unlikely they win the division but the 2nd wildcard spot seem pretty open. Who's looking at better than a 9 win season from (taking out the Packers and Cardinals): NFC North - Vikings maybe NFC East - whoever wins, plus Cowboys if they get hot late NFC south - one of Carolina/Atlanta yes NFC West - Seahawks capable, Rams possible With 2 wins the Saints are now tied for the 2nd wildcard spot for wins. Going 7-3 and 9 wins isn't impossible if they start to clean up in the division. I love the wildcard system, it's going to be a good race in the AFC as well. Steelers, Chargers and Jets probably the favourites, but Bills, Browns, Raiders all in contention for a wildcard spot is fun for their fan bases.

How did Paul Johnson go at Hawthorn? Or even Cam Bruce for that matter? Cheney was a decent servant but he never played in crunch time. The Hawks likely want Fitzpatrick as they need a mature tall to replace Hale and Lake and Fitzpatrick can be an emergency option at either end. If Hawthorn teach him how to kick properly and can get him with a proper AFL looking body, heck even teach him how to run without looking like a baby giraffe then maybe he might make it. But he wasn't going to make it at Melbourne.

GWS are near certain to use their best picks this year on 2 academy kids who are predicted to go early in the first round. They have pick 8 and will get pick 7 from Collingwood for Treloar. They've worked out that because they don't need the picks alone but only the points that come with picks that they can auction off the top 10 picks for 2 picks in the 20's and then use those for the bidding. Essendon's picks 23 and 25 combine to more points than pick 8, so they can trade them and get a top 10 pick pretty cheaply. Sounds to me that once again through a lack of knowledge and abstract thinking around the rules we've missed an opportunity here. Instead of Milkshake we could've loaded up our 2nd rounder and possibly Collingwood's as part of the Howe deal and got another pick in the 10 ten. Have we missed a trick once again?

Jack Watts has played 100 games and is a walk up start in our 22. No other club would touch him for that price. The 100 games is a statistic. It means nothing on it's own. He was a high draft pick that was ready to play early and mostly played in a mid level team or below that never had huge pressure for spots. Certainly at no stage did Essendon have a deep midfield. The experience means he knows what it takes to play AFL but we are moving his position which counters against that.

If Gold Coast offered 3 and 19 for Howe and 6 and the Pies offer Kennedy and 26 for Howe then to be honest I'd take that. We can beat around the bush all week but that's not a bad deal. The Pies will offer 26 and Kennedy for Howe and 43. That's not enough

Taking a C grade midfielder who doesn't make great decisions, giving up a good pick and hopefully turning him in to a solid defensive and attacking back flanker. It's an interesting tactic. Half back isn't a bad spot for us to bring in a mature player, I'm just not sure he's the right one.

Yeah not much point bagging the development team when we've just bought in McCartney. And he's way off the mark with Kent. Who does have to lift in certain areas but is a great talent. He's right on: the need for outside speed and skill the need for extra developmental rucks/forwards the need to bring in the right experienced players at the right time

What is a success though? Besides landing a gun free agent (and for free not in a match and trade) I think success is hard to judge. Because to win a trade you almost have to have the club on the other end stuff up. Even if you get a superstar to nominate you like Brisbane and Beams it costs a hell of a lot to get them. We've made some really good moves over the last few years. But when you break them down almost every deal has cost something to get something which is how it's meant to work. Our best deals: Letting Sylvia walk for pick 23 Garlett Our very good deals: The Vince trade with the Sylvia pick Signing Crossy Letting Frawley walk The Salem Tyson for 2,20 deal We can't recreate any of those this year it seems and that might be disappointing, but it's also about opportunity and needs. There isn't a Garlett this year as far as I can tell. We don't have a Sylvia to flick or a Frawley. We don't have the need for Crossy type. Trying such an ambitious move as the Tyson trade isn't really on the table. I find it hard to think Howe and Toumpas out for Kennedy, Bugg and Melksham makes our list any worse. I'm a touch disappointed we didn't have someone better than Melksham lined up knowing Howe would leave. But then I look around at the trades and I struggle to see who it would be. For the late 1st to 2nd round market (because we aren't signing a star this trade period) there's: Henderson, Yarran, Zac Smith, Redden (left for success), Jetta, Sinclair (contracted, would avoid us), Bennell (no), Ben Lennon (unlikely). It's not a great bunch. Aish and Freeman are the 2 young players out of contract, leaving cheaply and possibly available that could fit our list build and have great upside. But I'm not exactly disappointed we didn't get them. I don't think West Coast made a single trade last year and they jumped right up the ladder. The Dogs traded out Cooney and Griffen for Boyd (who rarely did anything) and jumped up the ladder on the back of their kids improving not trade ins really. Hamling was a nice find as a delisted free agent and that was about it.

Stephen Hill or Jack Ziebell Andrew Gaff or Josh Caddy The skinny smaller guys might be a bit hit or miss but they are also incredibly valuable to your team. By the way Kelly isn't a Bont (in size or ability) but he's not exactly small. Even with the growth in size of midfielders 183cm isn't going to be small and he's skinny but not tiny and is building his frame. Treloar leaving will only up a spot for him to get more midfield time and I think he'll develop pretty nicely.

No but if we trade up the supporters will

I'm a little worried about moving up to pick 3 to take this kid or any kid, because I think it's a throw back to the messiah days. Especially given our need for pace and skill I think a lot of pressure on him to improve our ball movement which is quite ridiculous given there are 18 players on the field at once. If we did do it and it's a decision based on a player we think is head and shoulders above the rest then I still think he'd need to be managed cleverly. The idea that a kid is going to step in on to a wing in his first season and revitalise a stagnate team is quite silly.

They made it clear as soon as they announced his retirement that they wanted to keep him around. But that's a bit irrelevant to the on field aspects of keeping him v bringing in a 28 year old. I think it was the plan to get Melksham and play him at half back, the emergence of White as a decent prospect from the rookie list and the very small semi-resurgence of Jack Grimes (going from complete liability to somewhat ok depth) that made the FD think Crossy should retire. They didn't want him taking up a list spot if he wasn't going to be a regular in the team. Guess we will never know.

Rosa is a far better kick and might have 4 or so years left. Cross had 1 year at best, maybe 10 weeks. He was too slow to play in the midfield, too poor a kick for half back. Rosa could play wing or half back and help with our skill and work rate. Doesn't help with our pace though. I'd want him, but if we are getting all 3 of Melksham, Kennedy and Bugg even if they play different roles we are getting a lot of ready made players in. We might have to see what Melksham, Stretch, Grimes and White offer on a wing/half back instead of Rosa and if Melksham looks the good or someone like a Mitch White is a player of the future or we draft someone then we will be thankful we didn't get the short term option in.