bing181

It wasn't for you, and yes, your ears aren't letting you down!

"The overall philosophy will be to try and improve our list ... We'll look at every avenue we can, whether that be free agency, trade and then obviously that flows into the draft."

He hasn't said "we have no interest in this draft" either. He's said that the draft is compromised by father son/academy picks. Unlike Oliver, Lamb and co. pick their words very very carefully, and they're not saying anything that might come back and bite them. Edit: See Youngblood's post above.

Why do people keep saying this? We've never said that. Head scratcher.

Agreed, but "good" is doing a lot of work there.

Sure, but the idea that we hold all the cards here is difficult to justify. On overall balance, I'd say that the Suns are in a (much?) stronger position than us. Also: the contract is meaningless once a player commits to leave. It might help get a first rounder instead of a second rounder, but doesn't provide any leverage in terms of whether or not the trade goes ahead. After all, this is the Bailey Humphrey thread and everyone posting here does so on the premise that if Humphrey nominates Melbourne the deal will get done, contracted or not. And re the 5-year contract, I haven't seen that reported in the media. The Petracca camp proposed it to Adelaide as a kind of "go away" counter-offer because he didn't want to go there, but GC?

It's called the AFL Trade Period for a reason. The clue is in the title. No-one is being bought or sold here. You analogy only works if (for starters) your TV has a say in who buys it.

What, the logic that: a) Petracca will be 30 next year, most of his footy is behind him. Dangerfield was 26 when he was traded to Geelong, Chris Judd was 24 when he went to Carlton. b) Petracca is on a MASSIVE salary that the Suns will have to take on. He would be highest paid player at GC. c) Petracca wants out d) We want Petracca out (forget all the public posturing) e) Petracca has nominated the Suns f) there are no other potential suitors. None of the above plays in our favour. Quite the reverse.

Speaking of OMac, got himself a 1 year extension. Getting the band back together over in Freo.

Mea Culpa, could have worded that better. Or better still, not posted at all. Apologies, and thanks for the measured response and clarification.

Fair enough trade, but great that we pushed it through so quickly. No-nonsense Lamb, do the deal and move on.

ADHD in a nutshell. Unfortunately.

"his former club". Still contracted last time I checked.

Agree, and if it's the only possibility, happy to go to the draft and let Taylor and co. do their work. Against that, I suspect the club would have preferred to balance the list with players who are further along in their careers. But those players have to be available, and they have to want to come to us.

Something like that. 6 or 7 plus the equivalent of a lower first round, either this year or next. One thing people are constantly overlooking in all this is Petracca's age plus - and it's a big plus - he's on a massive contract that the Suns will have to take on board. Neither work in our favour.

If you can find a quote from (say) Lamb to this effect, I'd be interested to see it. All I've seen is the club saying "improve our list", "turn our heads" etc. Very general.

Can't believe people are hanging on this as if it means something.

No we haven't.

Except that Lamb isn't saying no. Quite the reverse: "if someone wants him, come and talk to us and pay up." https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1911112/trade-day-one-lamb-on-dees-focus

I have no idea where it's coming from or who's behind it, but it seems increasingly clear that getting rid of Goodwin was the first domino in a club-wide reset, both on and off the field. There's an argument that we could have moved on players, assistant coaches etc with Goodwin still in place, but appointing a new coach creates the clear water you need to wreak havoc without there being much pushback. Period of grace and all that. If you wanted to go further and venture into outright speculation, you could even suggest that the ultimate goal here was to sort out the locker room once and for all by getting rid of Trac, Clarry and May - but to do that, we had to move Goodwin on first.

Which only goes to confirm the club's position in wanting him gone. How the mighty have fallen. (sadly)

What will prove to be detrimental to the new coach is having players around the place who put themselves before the team and/or don't want to be there.

Yes, what would McRae and the Collingwood football department know about coaches and coaching ...

... as forwards coach.

At least they had the discussion. The more clubs the merrier, helps push up or at least maintain his value.