Search results for query: *

It will, but I thought he'd go much higher than that. But I wouldn't really know.

I suspect we'd take that in a heartbeat. If we combine that with the St Kilda offer. We'd have 7, 16, 37 without degrading our future hand. Tauru, Hannaford, Barrat/Sims would be ideal for us.

He'll surely be gone well before that. We haven't been linked to any of those talls, other than Tauru. Maybe we are running a very tight ship this year.

I haven't heard us linked to Barrat at all, why is that? He seems like the type of player we need. We just recruited Darling for a couple of years because we need an aggressive leading forward to help Larkey and make our forward line function better. We need to recruit a player who will be...

I doubt we'll get that for our F1, but if we can get a pick around 30 for our f2 there are several key forwards who could be available. Gerryn, Barrat and Sims all look promising.

Essendon have a couple of decent picks 28, 31 that they will look to trade out before the draft, as they should enough points to match the Kako bid with their later picks. I would be trying to get one of those with our F2.

No. We only have four. And one of those will be River Stevens - possibly as a rookie.

Must North either be 'desperate' to trade pick 2 or definitely not trading it? It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Pick 2 will get traded if the offer is good enough, otherwise it won't. PS. Good call on Barrat.

We don't have any other picks. Our F1 should be off limits. We may be able to get one with our F2 and F3, but it would be the same old story: using up our best picks on mids then filling in the rest with whatever we have left.

That's true. But surely, we aren't taking another mid. If we aren't going tall in this draft will we ever?

Sure, but the Dogs didn't want to keep him, we should have offered them future picks or walked away. That trade has painted us into a corner and will cost us significantly more than the pick we paid for him.

It is inept because we let a minor trade undermine the value of biggest trade asset. Those justifying it are looking at the deal in isolation, in which we overpaid, but not horribly.

With list numbers, I meant using our free list spots and number of picks to maximise our options at the draft. In the past we have had to trade picks for unders before the draft because we have had more picks than free list spots. This time we have four list spots but only one pick and it is...

I think we could be persuaded to throw our F2 in.

It's probably true, but I'm not certain of it. We just recruited Darling for a couple of years because we felt we needed an aggressive leading forward to help Larkey and make our forward line function better. I would have thought the player we would be after would be someone ready to replace...

There is also the possibility that North were also just doing due diligence on Tauru thinking he would be a possible option if we were able to get pick 10 or 11 off Richmond. There has been about 30 pages added to this thread assuming that this rumour is true whilst all the others are speculation.

But there isn't a market for it. We would be selling at a heavily discounted rate. Heaps of teams want to trade in, but nobody is looking to trade out of this year's draft. GWS have six spots free on their main list and two on their rookie list. They aren't trading out, though maybe up...

Why are you so keen to trade out our F1? Future picks are being valued at 50c to the dollar and we'll need it next year. We would be lucky to get better than pick 16 for it. A Melbourne trade that could work would be in a three way with GWS. But they may not be interested in moving further up...

The Daniel one was weak. I don't think WB had any intention to keep him, we should have been prepared to test that and walk away. That trade has weakened our negotiating position and the value of pick 2 - which was always the main game this trade period. Four list spots, one pick. Why would...

Rawlings didn't stare down St Kilda, he was willing to let X go, but for a higher draft pick. We were lucky, he had just signed CCJ thinking he could ruck, despite all the evidence to the contrary. On that topic, how many favours has he done Richmond over the years? The CCJ trade. Chucking...

Qualified in the sense that they have all the requisite skills to do the job. We seem to make the same mistakes every year.

It was in the same sentence. Long term planning. Negotiation. Strategy. Ruthlessness.

I agree that it gets you a foot in the door, but it isn't particularly helpful for the role. In our group we are missing some important skills for the role which is why we always struggle with negotiations and managing list numbers. Every trade or drafting decision seems to be made...

They are one of the few posters on BF who post accurate stuff.

He is extremely good at dealing with the off-field stuff, I like that. I can listen to any one of his press conferences and feel reassured, bordering on hypnotised. But I would like there to be some clear direction to our list management. They just look confused.

How so? Our results went backwards this year.

No

Am I the only one who finds it weird that the three people in charge of our list management, Brady, Will, and Todd, are all ex-footballers? Wouldn't we be better off getting people qualified for these roles?

That doesn't make much sense unless the 'brains trust' think that whoever they bring in for our F1 will improve our results next year. In this case, maybe the issue is the 'brains trust'.

'the target' is surely already landed by virtue of having pick 2, the debate is about what else we get. Your F1 is nice, if we use it next year, but worth little otherwise.