Slartibartfast

Delist him, have him as a train on and then take him in the PSD because we move Melk onto the long term injury list. Does this work? him = Kye Turner.

I think the attraction of Billings is for mature depth and to pressure Langdon and Hunter, both who didn't finish in the top 10 of the B&F whilst playing 49 games between them out of a possible 50. That indicates to me that the FD didn't rate their performances this year given the B&F strongly favours players who play games. Some will say "they play their role" but if they did then they'd have finished higher in the B&F.

But at least you gave it a go!

Well I think you can discuss things while being optimistic but that's just me.

You're a smart man, Old.

Discussing was exactly what I was doing, but there were a few posts pointing out the dangers so I presented the other side of the discussion. Oh, and I didn't mean to infer that all our youngsters would improve but that as a group we'll get more out of them next year than last. It's interesting you mention Daicos and Ashcroft (with another coming next year). both FS. It's hard to counter that sort of influence. Daicos x 2 and Moore. With no FS Pies don't win the flag. Ablett, Hawkins and Scarlett. Geelong don't win the flags. FS stink for mine but it isn't changing.

I agree our mature midfield depth is shallower now that it was last year. But you can't both keep depth and regenerate the list. It's one or the other. And my point was that perhaps we do have the midfield depth, we just haven't used it. We can't totally control what happens with Gus and Clarrie. If both are unavailable it will be a body blow but there's no real way to deal with that for next year. It's a risk. And our ruck situation is now exposed, but the alternative is to have someone playing at Casey taking $650,000 of your TPP. Of course I'd like to be better covered, particularly in the ruck but what were the alternatives? Keep Brodie? He didn't want to be a back up ruck and I can understand that. We may well take Lycett or Teakle as backups, that to me is much more sensible than putting another backup mid in. No list is perfect Dazzle, we make calls given who is available. If we have no injuries we have a great team. We have reasonable cover but not perfect cover, we make our best judgement calls. All clubs are in the same position.

Did you say the same about Vince, Hibberd and Melksham (and perhaps Langdon)?

Turner to be upgraded. Oh, and you're welcome to be a pessimist, you'll just be unhappy with no recourse to do anything about it. And then if your right you've just been sad for longer. And if you're wrong you've been sad for no reason.

For all those advocating we trade players in, how do we create the list space? The only way I can see it happening is if we consolidate 11 and 6 but in all likelihood we won't know that until draft night or shortly before. Kye Turner is the only other player I can see us delisting and he's a rookie and as far as I'm aware we can't trade onto the rookie list. We are very tight for spot and yet we've got people lamenting letting JJ, Dunstan and Harmes go.

I don't subscribe to the views of @JimmyGadson, @fr_ap and @dazzledavey36. If we had lost our finals by 5 goals each there would be serious cause for concern. But we didn't and the majority understand that fortune did not favour us during the finals nor in the lead up to them. It was a throw of the dice who won both our games. Even with a decimated forward line we were very competitive. Secondly, it's folly to suggest there isn't significant improvement to be had from players like Rivers, Bowey, Sparrow, Chandler, Kossie, JvR, Petty and McVee. That's one third of our current team who will improve and doesn't consider those playing at Casey. It also doesn't include two of the top tier of talents that we will secure this draft period (as it now stands). We have been seduced by the way we won the flag in 2021 where we thought we were significantly in front of the opposition. But we had everything running for us in terms of a settled team, no injuries to key players and a patch of form that was never sustainable. I'm bullish about next year. I don't think we've had much luck in the last two years and I think if we have normal fortune we are as good or better than anyone. We will have an influx of talent this year that our opponents will envy. As for depth it's funny isn't it. JJ was deemed by most to be very disappointing at the end of the season when he was given a good chance. Harmes couldn't get in the team and nor could Dunstan. Many called for Rivers, Bowey and McVee to be given runs in the midfield but recognized we are so strong in that area it was difficult to do. But now our mediocre depth midfield has been let go to allow for young talent we are exposed. Really? There are so many really good opportunities to improve next season. Natural growth, a settled forward line and the influx of two highly talented players. That's the flip side to the three I've mentioned above. I think there is room for optimism and frankly I can't see the point, as supporters, viewing it any other way.

How about you put your personal gripes with Deespencer on hold for a while and stop using Tom as collateral damage in your petty feud. We get you don’t like Tom as a player, for most of us you only need to say it once. Welcome Tom, as a Demon you have our support (other than a few posters who don’t understand the concept of support) and best wishes and I wish you great success while you are with us.

How?

I didn't ask if he had any strengths at AFL level, I asked if he had the ability to play in more positions. I get you don't rate him, I don't either, but if any tall other than Gawn was injured I'd have Schache play as a tall back or forward before Grundy. I think he'd do it better. I think that was the thinking of the footy department. You disagee, I get that. But that's the reason they selected him as the substitute.

Do you agree Schache can play more positions than Grundy and offered more protective cover for a greater range of players?

I'm not very good at this but now we have so much cap space is GWS 7 in play as a salary dump for Haynes? What would we have to give back?

6, 11, 41

No, Petty was on our list for the season. And with Petty we may have well won a GF so why trade a player who is so structurally important. I'm fine trading Petty if there is an outcome that replaces him and puts us in a better position but to be taken seriously I've got to see the better position.

How are you going to structure the forward line without Petty? We'll get McAdam anyway so he's not part of the Petty deal really so it's 10 and 20 for Petty. What is the likelihood that we'll get a player who is structurally significant as Petty with one of those picks and how long will they take to mature into someone meaningful? Petty is a pretty valuable player. He can play both back and forward and he's very competent now but is not at his peak being only 23. I'd guess if you put him on the open market he'd attract something higher than 10, in fact I reckon NM may use pick 3 on him and one of their future end of first rounders. I'm just not sure you're thinking it through but I do agree that we need to be nimble in our thinking and I think we've got a history of doing that.

I reckon your good for the forum Jimmy as you come from left field as does DeeSpencer. I don't agree with you on this because I think Petty is a very important structural part of our team and that part is very hard to replace. Not only that but we are short of that structural part. I'm in agreement with you that we don't need to throw the house at getting a KPF but only if we've got Petty on the list. I can't see us improving much in the next two years without Petty or a good immediate replacement who would probably cost the same - if they were available - but they're not. You say you want sustained long term success and in my view this is what we've had over 3 years. Never out of the top 4 in those three years and we've won a flag. We don't need to gamble the house by trading Petty. We've already got two picks in the top 20 and that will add spice to what we've got. In my view you're way off the mark in wanting to trade Petty. You'd have a much stronger argument if it was an area we had an abundance in.

Good idea Jimmy, we could trade away Trac as well for NM picks to really reset ourselves with a bunch of kids who may or may not succeed. Im being facetious of course but in my view you don’t trade away really good players to punt on draft kids. That doesn’t improve you. IMO Petty is untradable this year unless there is some really pressing family reason for him to go interstate.

Not for me unless he’s requested a trade.

Very insulting to Grundy.

Why? What large salary player are we bringing in? We would have budgeted for him to stay for his full tenure when he was recruited. Yes, we'd like him off but not at any price. I'd say Swans need a good ruck more than we need his salary off the books.

Well, I think we threw 3 first rounders at Suns but they didn't bite. To me saying "I want three picks inside the top 10" is the same as "why don't we go and get Bont". Nice sentiment but it's just not going to happen. And saying we have the draft capital this year is a bit of a guess as we don't know what we'll get for Grundy or even if he'll be traded. I doubt the trade for Harmes will help us. As I said, like you I want as many low picks as possible. Why not make it 4 with pick 1 thrown in for good measure? Let the cobbler's cobble.