bing181

We didn't lose anyone - he wanted to leave and was OOC, and in those circumstances, nothing you can do. As for the top 10 pick part, Freo didn't have one, nor any way of getting one. Given all that, receiving two first-rounders + a second seems more than enough - in fact, if you're a Freo supporter, it's way over what they should have paid. From what I can see, most independents view this either as a fair trade or advantage Melbourne. And so it is.

Surely that applies to their F2 as well, presumably it will also "come in a long way", or at least some way. Something in the 20's? But if you're looking at this through the points system, 44 + 67 = pick 40 which is only a third rounder and some way below the second round pick we received in return. So hard to understand how you can suggest that that second round pick is cancelled out by the couple of low picks we sent to Freo. (If that's what you're saying ...)

Meanwhile, far from the closed confines of Demonland ... "Dockers pay heavy price for AFL’s ‘unicorn’ " https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/dockers-pay-heavy-price-for-afls-unicorn-as-luke-jackson-admits-to-in-season-meeting-with-freo-leaders--c-8503527

Speak for yourself.

If Freo have the same picks next year, 13 + 32, the points value of that is pick 6 but is close to being pick 5. If they drop a place or two or academy picks or whatever push them slightly up the order then it quickly becomes pick 5. Any combo of mid first round with mid second round works out around pick 5, it doesn't even take much to be looking at pick 4, e.g. 10 + 29. OK, grain of salt, and of course Freo would be hoping that they'd improve their position, but that's how the points play out. Who knows how Taylor and Lamb play their cards here.

You mean we get to finish second on the ladder again? Sounds grim.

The last few pages of this thread provide excellent examples of the Sunk Cost Effect.

Haven't gone over the whole thread so perhaps already posted, but trades in for next year (Freo 1 + 2) are equivalent to around pick 5 or 6. Obviously depends on where Freo ends up. So pick 13 + pick 5ish, with a couple of lower picks we weren't going to use going back to them. Fine with it.

Don't quite agree with this - sure, we're limited in options, but Freo are heavily invested in getting him. They lost Hogan, Lobb will leave this year or next, and he's the long term solution to a partner for Darcy and some firepower and flexibility up forward. That gives us some leverage at least.

Key point here I feel, especially for those banging on about trading in a KPF. You can only trade players who are interested or available to change clubs, and in most years, there's only a handful - and of those, almost none of the kinds of players you can build a team around.

Odd, I thought that Casey was chock full of young talent, just waiting to get the call.

Trade period becomes a spectator sport. In a normal year around half the clubs make no trades and in reality there are very few players who change clubs - and many of those who do are fringe, no-longer-required players. In any case, we're already in line for Grundy, who'll be one of the biggest trades of the year, which is hard to reconcile with us "not firing a shot".

No-one we have is good enough to play Petty's role in defence.

Back on topic, I'm sure that Yze is gutted. You don't get as far as he did in the process without an enormous investment, including emotional investment, so I imagine he'd be pretty knocked around by all of this.

The Essendon/Thorburn situation is nothing to do with religion, so not sure why the thread lurched off in that direction. You can't have someone at the head of an organisation that espouses tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity who's also head of an organisation that at least in terms of homosexuality and women (rights, abortion etc.) is the opposite of all that. "City on a Hill holds and promotes some beliefs that are, these days, not mainstream. They include that abortion is murder and homosexuality is a sin. Essendon, by contrast, is (according to a statement by its own chair, Dave Barham) “committed to providing an inclusive, diverse and a safe club, where everyone is welcome and respected”. The point is that he sought simultaneously to be the public spokesperson for two sets of values that are directly opposed and cannot be reconciled." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/05/andrew-thorburn-had-to-choose-between-essendon-and-his-church-their-values-cannot-be-reconciled

Perhaps, but always good to have a few older/experienced players around the place, and both of them have shown this season that they can still offer something. Next year could be different of course, but don't mind it.

Given today's shenanigans at Essendon, he dodged a bullet. What's that they say about behind every successful team is a united board, admin and football dept.

Perhaps a reflection that this is a weaker draft - also that we went for it somewhat last year and have enough younger players coming through.

Spicy thread.

People talk about entries into the forward line and we let two of our worst disposers of the ball leave. Perhaps just a coincidence.

= I don't understand the decisions the FD are making, it must be because Goodwin is stubborn.

Lachie Neale always gets off the chain, that's what makes him a midfield gun.

As with any of our players, sad to see Bedford go. But if you can't cement a place in the firsts after 3 years, understandable that he would be open to offers elsewhere and equally understandable that the club wouldn't be banging down his door to get him to stay. Good luck to him.

No he's not. He was playing in the twos for a reason.

Sad to see him go, but understand. If both Salem and Bowie get back to their best, not sure there's a place for him. Also, OK to have speed, but he was never a great one-on-one defender, which is what we perhaps need more than anything else. Still a bit of a hole down back since Neville Jetta left us.