bing181

If someone's incompetent or stinking the place up you don't keep them on for 2 months in the same role, nor employ them beyond that period as a consultant. Pretty clear that Pert hasn't been sacked. Equally true that a change at the top and some fresh blood isn't unwelcome. Provided we get the right person.

Confirmation bias.

"Green said the review did not recommend Pert go." (The Age article)

A lot of what we do at 5 will depend on what the Saint do with their later picks. Hope we have good intel!

Sydney weren't missing Heeney until they were: in the grand final. Heeney had a stress fracture and look how that turned out for the team.

Wasn't helped this year by injury, wherever he plays he needs consistency to even be in the mix. Hope he has a more settled season next year.

Nek minnit ...

AFL: "Melbourne has a suite of selections that includes picks No.5, 28, 40, 49, 54 and 65, but it's unlikely the club will have any luck in attempting to change the minds of GWS officials by Wednesday's deadline."

Well done Tim Lamb. (if it comes off)

By the time we trade to get Derksen - who's a tall in any case - plus Sharp, not sure we'll have many lower picks left.

If he could knock a few seconds off that he'd get close to the women's world record. Or the Australian men's record. Both around 5:20. If that 5:28 is correct it's remarkable.

10. Much easier draw.

I think you'll find the club disagrees with you. JVR, Petty, Turner, then add Fritsch, Kozzie and a couple of smalls plus Jefferson coming through ... workable, and they're all still young, or young enough. Mids would be the priority I would imagine, if not KP defenders for the longer term (May, McDonald, Thomlinson will need replacing over the next year or two).

Given that the buck stops with the CEO ...

Just cherry-pcking = confirmation bias. Why not compare to say St Kilda or North. Look at who Freo have lost over the last few years. etc. etc. Not only are your posts tirelessly repetitive, they're superficial.

Not sure if this has been mentioned. MFC are interested in Lion's first rounder, pick 20. They need the points for Ashcroft. Apart from 28, for lower picks we have 40, 48, 53, 64. Then maybe add a 3rd round pick for Tomlinson if anything goes through under FA. Not sure how much we'd have to give up for pick 20, but we obviously aren't going to take all those lower picks to the draft. "The Lions will have multiple takers for the pick, with the Giants, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs among the clubs expected to hold extra middle-range and later draft picks by deeper in the Continental Tyres AFL Trade Period to have a swing at pushing up the draft board."

Impossible to see how that happens. 2 in the top 15 might work. In any case, this year's draft has now been compromised somewhat by those high compensation picks pushing everything back.

Not for mine. Pick 5 plus trade to get another first rounder and take that to the draft. Much better for the club long-term than another player in his late 20's (or getting there). We're going to be losing a LOT of our key players over the next 4-5 years, starting with Melksham and McDonald next year, May the following year, Gawn and Viney the year after that.

I think it's probably a question of semantics. For Lamb, back-room offers and calls to check on availability or hint that player X could be available for the right place are probably everyday occurrences. For the rest, we don't know who did what in all this. Between MFC, Geelong, Oliver's manager and any number of others who might have been across what was gong on, we'll probably never know the details.

Personally, I can never see trades in raw terms like this, there are too many variables and it ignores context. We needed a player like McAdam to cover for the absence of Melksham and loss of Bedford. I'm not sure who else was available, but if this is what it cost to fill that hole, so be it. The issue with McAdam isn't so much his ability but the fact that he seems to be injury-prone. Fingers crossed for a better second year with us.

Also ignore them getting rid of players like Treloar and Grundy while still paying large amounts of their salary.

Also true of Jackson. He was OK enough to be worthy of a game in his first season, but he's now into his 5th season and is still improving. Against that, 5 years in and he's not exactly taking the comp apart, and the difference between 2nd year and 5th year Jackson is not all that flagrant. 9th in Fremantle's Best and Fairest, still not the finished article. Not knocking him, would love to still have him, but I'm not sure even Jackson is a good counter-example for rucks take time.

Who should we be trading in that won't be coming - or to put it another way, who should we be trading in that isn't going to cost an arm and a leg in terms of picks and salary?

If we finish up near the pointy end of the ladder and win a final or two and then you throw in Academy and F/S picks, trade compensation picks etc., that F1 could easily end up not far off pick 18.

The only actual info out there is that it's Taylor (on his Linked in Profile) and presumably Lamb as he's the List manager. In other clubs it includes the coach, so probably Goodwin. And you would imagine head of the FD, Richardson. But other than that ... who knows. I took it that when Gawn mentioned 10 people there was a touch of hyperbole - no committee of this sort would have 10 people and it's hard to imagine even who they could all be.