pantaloons

The Clark trade does make it even more advantageous to trade Bate. If that deal is still on the table, trading Bate not only gives us another free list spot which is important, but gives us picks 36, 39 and 54 instead of 36, 54 and 72. The only thing that might save him is another trade of someone else.

Well, that was surprising news to wake up to! I'm absolutely thrilled with this. This is our biggest trade since the Jeff White deal in 1997. Harrington and co could be roundly congratulated for this. They've put the time in trade week into a deal I though was well-intentioned but fanciful, and it's paid off. I always thought it was a fool's errand due to his desire to go home to family, but I guess with the extra coin he'll be able to fly them out more often! Great stuff. Atention now turns to what we can do in the rest of the trade period. Clark in for LeTom means we have no list spots left. Maric & Warnock delisted/traded. Spencer would have to be in the gun. Does the Bate deal now get put back on the table? Should be a interesting day and a half. In the meantime, I'll try to wipe the smile off my face!

On second glance, according to The Age: "Contrary to some reports, the club confirms that it never received an offer from Freo involving Picks 16 & 20 for Mitch Clark," the Brisbane Lions tweeted this afternoon. Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1ajfTlL73 In which case, my point about trading 12 for 16 and 20 is obsolete.

Was Brisbane actually more keen on just pick 12 as opposed to 16 and 20? Surely they wanted a little extra? If not, how about our pick 12 to Freo for 16 and 20 so they can trade that on to Brisbane! We could sweeten it up with a bit of Maric magic or pick 90.

Yep. I was listening to it. Colin Young confirmed that Melbourne's offer was satisfactory to Brisbane (Pick 12, he said). Clark is adamant that he wants go to Freo though, so that's just about that.

According to trade week radio just now, Brisbane have just rejected Freo's offer of picks 16 and 20. Good times.

Yep, ok. That sounds a bit better for them. Having your third pick in the mid-70s isn't ideal, but they've got time to move up with other deals.

You're right old, and this reported deal from Emma Quayle may make it less likely that North will want to deal another draft pick for Maric: Interesting little deal done today. Hawthorn's trading rookie Will Sierakowski to North Melb for pick 58. He'll go onto North's senior list. 24 minutes ago So there goes North's third round pick. If they dealt 40 for Maric and 54, their picks would be around the 18, 54 and 76 mark, and they'd have picked up Maric and Sierakowski. Can't see that happening.

I believe Neeld has a 'no perm' policy.

The thing is, we've been crying out for a crumbing forward and Maric still couldn't get a guernsey. Hopefully we can get something done.

Yes, that was in today's Mitch Clark article in the Herald-Sun. It sounds a bit strange that we'd be unrealistic enough to ask for a first round pick for a player who's been on the list for 7 years and now can't get a game in a poor side. The new coach and crew may think they can get something else out of Bate and asking for a first-rounder was our way of saying we wouldn't be trading him unless something insanely more than he's worth came our way.

I read that minutes ago and am still trying to process it. Unbelievable. I don't know what Neeld sees in him and perhaps he's hoping he can perform a big-bodied midfielder's role, but I think pick 39 was more than fair for a player of Bate's limitations who couldn't crack a game for most of the season in our rancid midfield/forwardline.

I think if Neeld and the FD want a key forward, they'll keep looking to address this need in the trade period. That may mean looking at people from Clark to Setanta. I think it's more due diligence than desperation.

Let's hope we get this done tomorrow. It'd be more than nice to head into Monday knowing where we're placed pick-wise given we've got other deals to make which will probably also affect our draft position. I like old's suggestion of Maric + 54 for 40 - that'd be my preferred option. Other than that, North's pick 58 would be the other realistic option.

My two cents worth: Firstly, I think it's highly unlikely that Clark comes to Melbourne. Perhaps because the last real big fish we landed was Jeff White 14 years go I'm shellshocked into disbelieving it'll ever happen again, but from what's been reported for some time it's been Clark's desire all along to return to WA and I think that will win out over extra coin. Furious d's post regarding Clark's motivation for choosing Freo being money does paint a more hopeful picture though. As to what we'd need to offer Brisbane if Clark was happy to come to Melbourne and a trade eventuated, Pick 12 is the starting point, and a good starting point. Redleg has flagged Spencer as a hypothetical throw-in. I'd certainly be up for that. Pick 12 + Spencer for Clark + a pick from Brisbane (either their 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder, most likely that latter). A trade for Clark as has been discussed here plenty would have huge ramifications on the list. Yes, we'd primarily be recruiting him as a forward, but the reality is he can ruck, and we'd either look to play three ruckmen a game with Gawn continuing to develop in 2012 at Casey, or we look to trade a ruck (in this scenario we wouldn't have traded Spencer but rather added something else on top of Pick 12). We can talk about trading Jamar in 12 months time, but his value will have dropped significantly in that time. If we land Clark, the time to do it would be now while we could still get a top 10 pick. Let's hope this doesn't drag on until Monday. That will significantly hurt our chances of picking up another key forward in the trade period if the Clark deal doesn't eventuate, plus any other trades we might contemplate if the Clark deal went through. For the record, I think it'd be a real coup for us if we were able to snare him. Here's hoping!

Agreed. Surely if we're getting their second rounder it'd be something like Maric + 54 for 37.

Thanks so much, Daisycutter. My son under 2 is already signed up for his third consecutive year of membership in 2012, but I've dobbed in my soon to be born daughter!

Probably mid-late pick upgrades.

He's also just tweeted that Dawes will be staying at Collingwood despite the "lure of hundreds of thousands" from Melbourne. Not of the fairy bread variety either. And Jon Ralph has tweeted his support for a Setanta to Melbourne move. I'll be interested to see how on the money Clarky's call on Crouch to Melbourne for one of the compo picks is.

Also from today's Age came this little beauty on Andrew Krakouer (put down your coffee before reading): Krakouer's manager, Peter Jess, yesterday said the small forward was worth about $500,000 a season Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/krakouer-seeks-an-expanded-contract-20111008-1lf55.html#ixzz1aFgo4Jzd Seriously, player managers are some of the biggest comedians on the planet. It was great to see Ross Lyon give them a collective reality check a few weeks ago.

Nice. Although it can't be any more tedious than what we've endured the last 7 days. I reckon this this the worst week of the footy calendar. We sit and watch some other team celebrate winning the flag, and are subjected to a pituful few morsels of news on who 'might' be on the trade table, with no ability to actually have any trades completed until Monday at the earliest. And yet I still check Demonland every day to see if Michael Newton and a fourth round pick has been enough to entice Essendon to give up Michael Hurley.

'Untouchable' is a bit of a furphy I reckon. Every player has their price. If Carlton were offered Gary Ablett and every GC pick in the draft, they'd trade Judd. With that said, the following players I'd only trade if we were offered way over their perceived value: Frawley Watts Trengove Gawn Garland is close to being on that list. Obviously there are folks that we'll surely be shopping around hoping for a nibble next week (Warnock, Bate, Dunn, Spencer, Maric, MacDonald) who have no or limited future with the team. If we can get rid of those for a draft pick upgrade, half-useful draft pick, or player who fills one of Neeld's needs, then that'd be a very good result. I'd be actively putting pick 12 out there this year.

Thanks for the reply. My personal bias is usually for tough, hardened competitors in big games (obviously there needs to be some skill and ability there too). Our team isn't particularly blessed with a whole heap of tough, solid players, and I think he's important to us going forward. That said, again, you're right that it's all hypothetical and in all likelihood Dangerfield isn't going anywhere.

You picked a bad week to play the Raiders. Al Davis just passed away. As a KC fan, I hope you can knock them off.

Patrick Dangerfield. At least if we had him we'd have either he or Colin Sylvia play a good game each week. I know you have to give something to get something and that Tapscott's name has just been raised as a hypothetical, but I cannot believe that after watching the finals series, good posters could even suggest that trading one of our few hard-bodied, courageous youngsters with good disposal would be a good idea. I'm not sure what 'limitations' Tapscott has that cannot be worked on under a potentially decent new coach. Particularly if we are giving Morton the benefit of the doubt that he can bulk up, and Strauss the leeway that he might produce something close to what Tapscott has shown, after resuming from lengthy recovery.