Slartibartfast

Today should be a lesson for those who wanted to do the trades early and for those who continually wanted to play hard ball. MFC and GWS clearly had a plan from the beginning of trade period to use the system to benefit both parties. They were prepared to do this because of a trust between the parties. This trust was also evident in the initial GCS trade. Playing hard ball only puts people off side. MFC with Mahoney and Roos have built a reputation of being sensible to deal with and trustworthy. We have clearly worked on outcomes that are "win win" which is the key to all successful negotiations. Well done MFC. Let's hope the posters who shot off at the mouth learn from this. I'm so sick of blokes coming out slagging decisions and then saying "I'm happy to eat humble pie" and then being stupid enough to make exactly the same mistake two minutes later. On another note, I wonder if Prodee is still "underwhelmed".

Ah, got ya.

Gosh, I hope it gets done today! I'm not sure I can wait until tomorrow. Tell me why it matters when it gets done as long as it gets done.

I'm ok whit what's happened. In brief I don't think we wanted either Howe or Toumpas on the list but we did want Kennedy and Melksham. We got 29 and 50 thrown in and if we can use 50 on Bugg we get three players we want for two we don't for a drop of 4 spots from 25 to 29.

First post was laced with sarcasm - difficult to see in a post I admit but many that know me would have picked it up. I mean what does it matter if Treloar got an operation in Tassie paid for by who cares who. He isn't coming to us and it will have no impact on anything much. Like I said, I couldn't give a flying duck.

Brent Harvey.

So many guns, so few bullets.

I think Kennedy competes with Harmes doesn't he? I'm with you on excitement level. Last time I was excited was when we got Tyson. It's just about improving the list really.

Bet your mates pleased you've splashed it all over the internet.

Hope you're right.

I couldn't give a flying duck.

I guess that the point I'm trying to make is that with the list where it now is there is no point recruiting someone who you don't expect to become best 22 and in fact I'd argue that bar a couple of players the list is full of potential "best 22". That has not always been the case. I think we are playing semantics. You are talking about "Best 22" and I'm talking about players having the ability (and a genuine crack) at becoming best 22. Like you I'm lukewarm on Bugg, think Melksham will be good value for money and think Kennedy clearly is more exciting than the other 2. Taylor was with Collingwood when he was drafted. We rated him very highly in his year (middle top 10 is what I've heard) so their was a body of good footy people who thought he had high level talent. I don't know why he hasn't made it at Collingwood but Taylor, Viney and O'Donnell would. Whether their confidence proves correct is to be seen but I certainly don't have the knowledge to say "poor move". As for best 22 I'm not really interested. If you've ever done a best 22 at this time of year you'll notice that by the time we've played 4 rounds there are usually about 6 or 7 changes. If you want a team with Bugg and Kennedy in it I'll have them instead of Harmes and Lumumba. I have questions over Harmes tank and level of skill and I don't rate Lumumba. But really, who cares?

Why do you think we are recruiting them then?

How do you know? Maybe all three are. That's why they are paid the big bucks. Reality is those three guys have been in the system long enough for us to know what role we want them to play and whether they are best 22 by start of 2016 season. Little point in recruiting them if they aren't.

We've been screwed again. Can't believe it. I'm outraged.

Put him on ignore and let those that enjoy his posts enjoy his posts.

Let people have some fun for heavens sake. We need it.

Hey Nudge, welcome back. Don't forget Salem mate, will be one of the best.

North are copying what Hawks and Swans have done for years. They have identified what they need and are paying pick 15 for a known quantity with a few years on the clock that they will get more out of than a draftee. They have an ageing list of stars and want a crack at a flag. Anderson provides the outside run and speed they lack. If Wells and Anderson both play well next year and their older players stand up they will see themselves as a genuine chance. I think it's a good strategy and they have the footy IP to judge Anderson. Draft picks are hugely over rated. There was a recent article that said you've got just as good a chance of a player at 40 as 15. I'm not at all concerned about Melksham at 25. You've got to back your IP to make the right moves. It's what's made Hawks so successful.

The manner in which Howe has conducted this is unprofessional but we can't respond in like. For all the angst here we don't even know what the deal with Collingwood is yet. They may work with us to get us what we want because that gets them what they want. Business is business. Get over it and get on with it.

Always rated Fitzy and was surprised when we delisted him. I thought we would have at least waited until the end of trade week. Good luck Fitzy, reckon you might surprise a few.

Chaser J is pick three that much better than pick 6? I haven't seen the kids at all but it's a deal that doesn't appeal to me.

Yes, all valid. But I could quote you 4 for every one that doesn't make it after pick 40 and I suppose I still hold some hope. There are also players like Cunnington, Rohan, Sheppard, Conca, Hoskin Elliott, Buntine, Armatage, Masten, Myers and Plowman who were all early picks and took time or are still being given time. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

He isn't but either is pick 50 in a weak draft. If that's the offer then we have a decision to make. And all the issues I mention above are relevant. Some would sell and some would hold. I'd hold. I think there is more chance of him making it than a late 40's pick. I don't like either option much.

I think he is evaluated on more than his 3 years on the list. He's evaluated on his career. Being pick 4 indicates that he had/has talent which for one reason or another has failed to translate to MFC. It might be for a number of reasons and it's the evaluation of those reasons which sets the good recruiters from the bad. He's been in a toxic environment in his first year, he's been at a club where there has been little leadership and who have been the easy beats of the competition for all his career, he came in after two hip operations, he's probably at a club whose game plan doesn't suit his style, he came in with big expectations at a club known to drown its youngsters and he's intermittently played good footy. He might also just be a bust. But certainly nobody expected him to be a bust when drafted and so the question is was everyone wrong or did something go wrong that can be fixed? If he was pick 15 in the rookie draft nobody would bid for him but he was pick 4 in the ND and that does count for something. It's why Port are prepared to take him on.