Slartibartfast

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.

And how successful were we in moving up the draft last year to get into the top 10. Cobblers need tools and suggesting they should do something without them is silly. Why suggest something when you don’t seem to know how it might be achieved? FWIW I agree with the sentiment but I just can’t see a way it can be done.

How?

Yeh, but if that were true, Goody would. See Hogan and Watts. Nowhere near as good a players but both were Bambi. Goody doesn't mind shooting Bambi, and we got a flag as a result.

The reason given is that Essendon want to play a two ruck option and they need support for Drapper. It makes sense in that light. As for not wanting a Premiership which club could he go to that is a serious contender and get a gig? It's a good decision from his point of view and because he's most likely going to play AFL rather than AFL/VFL he'll get a higher salary.

If we picked any players at all.

You may not like it.

I hope we don’t get a Pie cast off.

Yes, if they get it. My theory is the AFL have orchestrated the package to NM so they can use the two future picks to obtain GC 4 but won't give a pick 3 to NM for McKay. That keeps the integrity of the early picks but gives NM two early picks. It means we keep 5 (6 after Walters) but GCS won't have 10. We'll see what happens but IMO it's a pretty elegant solution for the AFL and the other clubs.

We would be paying $500,000 a year for 5 years for pick 4. I still hold hopes that we can get Swans pick 11. Without Grundy they are stuffed and there are no other elite rucks available. Obviously a pick goes back to them.

FWIW Shaun Burgoyne and Andrew McLeod both played with bone on bone for years. Shaun was supposed to have had it when he went to Hawks.

Shades of Billy Stretch. Wishing him a long and successful career.

Nice summary. Suggestions for the forward that can ruck?

Thanks for the response JImmy, a 3am post! Rjay has raised most of what I would. Your suggestions of McKercher and Watson seem to be out of reach. When you go shopping you can only buy what's there, so we'll have to look elsewhere for the forward pocket and half forward. McAdam my fill one need. And if it happens that Watson is there at our first pick I'd still probably go O'Sullivan for structual purposes in preference although I really liked Nascent's suggestion of Sanders/Watson and Murphy but I don't pretend to know too much of those in the ND to judge. You suggest we teach Oliver, Petracca and Viney to play within their limitations. What does that mean, get the ball but not dispose of it?! I'd suggest that whilst that is "doing your head in" it's been a focus over the years and is unlikely to improve significantly. They have their strengths and weaknesses and none of them are elite ball users. If it's a real issue what do you propose doing about it? I see we are in agreement about a KPF. But I think there is something we really need to learn and it's from Collingwood. During the year we've around 11 games decided by less than 2 goals and won 4. Collingwood have had around 9 and guess what. They've lost one, against us. If I was Goody this is the area I'd concentrate on over the PS. I think we've got as good a list as anyone (not better) and it will improve this year. I'm with Rjay, if Brayshaw plays the two finals we are in a GF. Same with Petty. None of this doesn't mean we don't try and improve in all areas but I've highlighted where I'd concentrate. I think everyone would agree we need some more polish on the outside. Gulden, Coleman and Merritt would be great but we most likely won't solving this issue immediately unless we can get Salo or someone like Bowey or McVee into the mid mix. I'd also look at this over the PS.

Oh dear. My bad.

So Jimmy let's just agree that Oliver, Petracca and Gawn aren't very good kicks, I can live with that. What is your suggestion as to how we proceed. How do we deal with their kicking issues, how do we get better? What are the main areas of need? Are you all in for a gun forward and if so who? What would you pay for him?