hardtack

Yes, it goes some way to making up for the Watts trade and leaves us with 29, 31 and 38(?) and is it one other pick in the 80's? Not sure what they'll do next as they might need all available picks to top up the list in the event that Garland does announce his retirement.

It's already been reported in Real Footy that the trade will happen tomorrow and that we will be giving pick 66 for him... as mentioned above by another poster. His off-field issues related to anxiety caused by being away from his extremely close family... apparently his mother was quite distraught that he went to the west and his father had, jokingly, offered him $70,000 to stay home. But of course that probably doesn't fit the doom and gloom narrative that is ever popular amongst many posters on this site.

Now that we have an extra 2nd round pick courtesy of the Lever trade, is there a chance one may be used to secure Fritsch in the draft, while the other could still be used in a trade?

Under the current regime, we seem to have done quite well with the likes of Hannan and Pedersen.

EH... that's precisely why I said "assuming that is definitely the case". The article still maintains that climate change is a real thing and is happening, so we should be working towards reducing/eliminating its impact regardless of how much time we do or don't have.

Isn't the keyword in that headline "occurring"? Perhaps we should be grateful that the predictions/models have been wrong (assuming that is definitely the case) and that we have more time available to us to reduce the effects... it certainly doesn't mean we should abandon the treaties and not take preventative measures.

Never mind the fact he plays a completely different role.

And further to my last reply, I was kind of replying while (in my mind) referencing Wrecker's comment along the lines of "...but no club will pay enough with his injury history". Apologies for the confusion.

Yeah, fair enough... definitely not an injury, and I'm pretty sure that once his condition is under control, it can be kept under control.

I think that brick knocked his sinuses out of whack.

I'd be interested to know just how many football related injuries Salem has a history of having had. As far as I am aware, he missed the most time suffering from a thyroid condition (hardly football related), then concussion as a result of a brick hitting him in the head (again, hardly football related... self inflicted) and most recently suffered a hamstring injury (and I get the feeling Salem is not the first AFL player to have done a hammy). So, just what is this injury history he has, and what "worse prognosis" could the club possibly be holding back on?

Aaaaaaand cue GNF!

I believe it was a severe case of tonsorialitis that did it.

I stated clearly why I thought we probably hadn't got a great return from him yet... injuries and illness cruelling his chances. You however called an act that you had not even seen, a "dog act" and then went on to say that "he is a liability with some talent" and then in your next sentence query what his trade value may be. As I had not used quotation marks, I was obviously not quoting you (and hence not misquoting), but rather I was making what I would have thought was a reasonable extrapolation on your critique.

I beg to differ SWYL. The tone of your post was suggesting that he should be traded. It really wasn't hard to read between the lines given your "dog act" statement based on no actual actual vision of the incident having been seen by yourself.

In his time at the club, Salem has played just 45 games in total and this year had been averaging a tad over 21 disposals per game, which is not so bad. He has been cruelled by injury and illness. Yes, he might not be elite (although as someone stated, his kicking is), but he is certainly a cut above numerous others on the list, and with a good run free of injury/illness and another preseason under the belt, he will start to show the class that got him drafted by the club. You had him traded earlier this week based purely on what a few people had overstated regarding his being reported on Saturday - if you had actually been at the game and had seen the incident first hand (there was no available footage at the time you made your comments), then your comments may have at least had some validity... but instead, your judgement on that occasion was indeed clouded..

Yep, to quote the article linked to by Wrecker... "A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century." (perhaps Wrecker considers 2020 to be mid-century?).

We're learning to win more than we lose... foot on the throat can come later.

I'm still yet to see a single episode of this show.

Semantics...where have I misrepresented weather as climate change? If you call the bleaching of the reef or the collapsing of glaciers to an extent never seen before weather, then you may have a fair point... but I'd like to see empirical evidence to support that.

Your words, not mine: "You have exaggerated or in your words used "hyperbole" to misrepresent weather as climate change.". So that was just hyperbole then?

I would be happy to admit it IF I was wrong. However, your lack of comprehension skills are evidenced by the fact that you seem to think my words are used to misrepresent climate change when it's patently obvious they are not... would you care to explain exactly how my words misrepresent climate change?

I did explain what I meant by my response to DC that you jumped on (as was to be expected), so which part of "I condone it as a means of leaving the likes of yourself less wriggle room with that ridiculous "cyclical event" argument." didn't you understand Wrecker? As I said, comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your strengths.

Perhaps... but I'll rest easy in the knowledge that it is only by amateurs like Wrecker who will be clutching that particular straw... as he did the moment he saw your post Wrecker doesn't seem to have too many ideas of his own.

I condone it as a means of leaving the likes of yourself less wriggle room with that ridiculous "cyclical event" argument. Perhaps you might want to concentrate on the content of the post (hyperbole aside, if you like) that DC was referring to?