Who do we want for Rawlings?? [Archive]

year of the roo

3 Oct 2003, 15:32

Originally posted by jj flash
Baird plus pick #4. Kangas don't have pick #4 but stuff 'em, they can get it otherwise the Bullies can have Rawlings.
awwww....need a tissue mate?! not our fault he chose to play with us instead of agree to an unfair 2 year deal. if you stop crying and open your eyes, you will see that the deal suggested below is quite fair.

Originally posted by Hodgie_15
Hopefully Baird and pick 9, but I doubt the kangas will agree to that. We might have to throw in a third rd. pick or a fringe player such as Tim Clarke.
make it brett johnson instead of tim clarke and you gots yourselves a deal.

year of the roo

3 Oct 2003, 15:33

Originally posted by MightyFighting
A million dollars and two Hawiian islands; good ones, not the leper ones.
mate, you are dealing with the kangaroos not eddieFC!! :D

Scottroo

3 Oct 2003, 15:57

Johnny Baird, Digby Morell and pick 24 for Jade Rawlings and Adrian Cox?

Grendel

3 Oct 2003, 16:18

Originally posted by jj flash
Baird plus pick #4. Kangas don't have pick #4 but stuff 'em, they can get it otherwise the Bullies can have Rawlings.

Actually, agree to that. We dont (just as he doesnt to us) owe Jade any favours in this.

We have had better (from reports) offers elsewhere than what the Roo's would be able to deal up on what pick they have atm.

Ball's in their court but we can play it back how we want it. I'd personally draw the line right here (if it was up to me.. which.. it ain't) and either make sure that we got what we could have from others or let him (Jade) enter the pre-season draft and let the Dogs or Blues take him for nothing.

Yea, we get hurt but still prefer that than being forced into a situation where somebody else dictates to us what they're prepared to deal for 'our' player. We've been down that road to many times recently, time to make a stand and say it ends now.

jj flash

3 Oct 2003, 16:25

Originally posted by year of the roo
awwww....need a tissue mate?! not our fault he chose to play with us instead of agree to an unfair 2 year deal. if you stop crying and open your eyes, you will see that the deal suggested below is quite fair.

I'm hardly upset, just proposing what we should be getting for him.

We'll have Baird plus a top 5 pick minimum, pick 9 isn't good enough.

Rawlings was our second highest Brownlow vote getter, was in the top 5 mark takers in the league and has great leadership ability.

When he's not taking gutsy contested marks in the forward line he's saving the game down back.

He's the only proven KPP of quality available so we want quality for him, ie no crap that North are trying to get rid of and something better than sh1tty pick 9.

Bothers

3 Oct 2003, 17:24

Are we sure we want Baird? Just heard from a North supporter who says he hurt his knee preparing for a Prelim final with Port Melbourne.

Who else have they got? Maybe Dylan Smith...

Yianni

3 Oct 2003, 18:03

Originally posted by jj flash
He's the only proven KPP of quality available so we want quality for him, ie no crap that North are trying to get rid of and something better than sh1tty pick 9.

Sh1tty Pick 9?

Mate, Melbourne traded Woewoedin for pick 16 and he's a brownlow medallist!

We traded Byron Pickett for pick 15!

Pick 9 AND a player is a very good deal. You should be happy if you even get that!

Plus he's out of contract. Think about Collingwood last year. They had to take pick 23 for Nick Davis or risk him walking. They probably should have gotten higher than that.

Adelaide Hawk

3 Oct 2003, 18:12

Originally posted by Yianni
Pick 9 AND a player is a very good deal. You should be happy if you even get that!

Without really thinking it through, I'd probably be quite happy to let Rawlings go for pick 9 and a player ... perhaps Digby Morrell.

couldabeen

3 Oct 2003, 19:58

BRING ON SOLOMON!

Shinboners

3 Oct 2003, 20:14

Originally posted by Grendel
Ball's in their court but we can play it back how we want it. I'd personally draw the line right here (if it was up to me.. which.. it ain't) and either make sure that we got what we could have from others or let him (Jade) enter the pre-season draft and let the Dogs or Blues take him for nothing.

Yea, we get hurt but still prefer that than being forced into a situation where somebody else dictates to us what they're prepared to deal for 'our' player. We've been down that road to many times recently, time to make a stand and say it ends now.

And you know that isn't going to happen.

Leigh Matthews made the same threats to Des Headland about dumping him into the pre-season draft, but in the end, he knew that getting something was better than nothing (although in the end, Brisbane did well out of the draft).

The best thing for Hawthorn to do is to just deal with North Melbourne without the crap of auctioning Rawlings off to other clubs. By auctioning off Rawlings, all you do is give North Melbourne time to stall, and in the last minute, you get screwed in the deal as what happened with Collingwood and Nick Davis. Compare that to the Roos dealings with Adelaide over Wayne Carey. We knew other clubs would be keen to get Wayne, but we just dealt with Adelaide and got the deal done quickly and without playing games.

BUBBALOUIS

3 Oct 2003, 20:56

Originally posted by Shinboners
And you know that isn't going to happen.

Leigh Matthews made the same threats to Des Headland about dumping him into the pre-season draft, but in the end, he knew that getting something was better than nothing (although in the end, Brisbane did well out of the draft).

The best thing for Hawthorn to do is to just deal with North Melbourne without the crap of auctioning Rawlings off to other clubs. By auctioning off Rawlings, all you do is give North Melbourne time to stall, and in the last minute, you get screwed in the deal as what happened with Collingwood and Nick Davis. Compare that to the Roos dealings with Adelaide over Wayne Carey. We knew other clubs would be keen to get Wayne, but we just dealt with Adelaide and got the deal done quickly and without playing games.

With all due respect shinners , i reckon you only dealt with Adelaide coz they were the only ones stupid enough to give so much up for a past champion in decline!

Shinboners

3 Oct 2003, 22:48

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
With all due respect shinners , i reckon you only dealt with Adelaide coz they were the only ones stupid enough to give so much up for a past champion in decline!

Shhhh.....don't tell them that. They still think they got a good deal.

But if you want other examples, the Headland to Freo deal and the Bell to Freo deal were good for Brisbane and the Roos simply because they faced up to reality and made the best of the situation.

IMHO, if the Hawks threaten to play hardball with Rawlings and the Roos with threats of sending him into the pre-season draft, you run the risk of screwing up like Collingwood did with Nick Davis.

vanders

3 Oct 2003, 23:44

Jess Sinclair please! :D ;)

Mr. Bass

3 Oct 2003, 23:49

Originally posted by ViperV10

Bloody Jade...it had just dawned on me that he has a girly name, well there you go.

Aahhh and he'll now play alongside BRADY.........

Reckon Mr. and Mrs. Rawlings were hoping for girls????

Grendel

4 Oct 2003, 00:26

Originally posted by Shinboners
And you know that isn't going to happen.

Maybe so mate, still what I'd do though and I will tell you why if you read on.

Leigh Matthews made the same threats to Des Headland about dumping him into the pre-season draft, but in the end, he knew that getting something was better than nothing (although in the end, Brisbane did well out of the draft).

Yea and you mentioned the Davis *below paragraph* (actually I always thought that was about his worth *teen draft pick*) as well.

However the difference being that more or less have been 'one-off's'.

We will have now lost McPharlin, Rawlings, Chick, Jarman, Allan and even go back to Robran. Hawthorn has a terrible history in losing players and not really being in any position to deal on our terms. We simply have to draw the line and make it tougher for players to 'walk'. If it means (and make no mistake, one day a club will take the option) of letting him go and making a stand. Then I think our time for doing so is very very close.

The best thing for Hawthorn to do is to just deal with North Melbourne without the crap of auctioning Rawlings off to other clubs. By auctioning off Rawlings, all you do is give North Melbourne time to stall, and in the last minute, you get screwed in the deal as what happened with Collingwood and Nick Davis. Compare that to the Roos dealings with Adelaide over Wayne Carey. We knew other clubs would be keen to get Wayne, but we just dealt with Adelaide and got the deal done quickly and without playing games.

I think your mis-reading me. Not so much 'auctioning him off' as getting what the market dictates his worth. I.e we could do better than what is now being suggested (mainly Roo's fans funnily enough ;) ) of the like's of 2nd rounder's and fringe North players.

There is simply no way known that we should (if it comes to it) settle for that. Fringe is fringe, be it at your club or mine.

No, the HFC needs to be strong on this issue, very strong. Even if it means short term we burn our strength, long term I reckon we'd be a lot better off for it.

Cheers.

Thewlis Dish

4 Oct 2003, 02:01

Originally posted by Grendel

I think your mis-reading me. Not so much 'auctioning him off' as getting what the market dictates his worth. I.e we could do better than what is now being suggested (mainly Roo's fans funnily enough ;) ) of the like's of 2nd rounder's and fringe North players.

There is simply no way known that we should (if it comes to it) settle for that. Fringe is fringe, be it at your club or mine.

No, the HFC needs to be strong on this issue, very strong. Even if it means short term we burn our strength, long term I reckon we'd be a lot better off for it.

Cheers.

would you accept john baird and the number 9 pick? i'd be reasonably happy with that as a north supporter, what do you think?

1jasonoz

4 Oct 2003, 02:07

Originally posted by jj flash
Baird plus pick #4. Kangas don't have pick #4 but stuff 'em, they can get it otherwise the Bullies can have Rawlings.

So you want a top 5 pick, plus Baird for Rawlings................... you are joking. You Hawks supporters all year have been saying how this is his best year ever, and you hope his knees hold out as the are dodgy. Well you will not get a top 10 pick for him, let alone a top 5, simple really. Maybe 24+ a couple of players.

Hawk71

4 Oct 2003, 02:47

No! Just a Top 5 pick! :D

Grendel

4 Oct 2003, 03:31

Originally posted by Petrie Dish
would you accept john baird and the number 9 pick? i'd be reasonably happy with that as a north supporter, what do you think?

PD, I reckon something similar to that is what will probably end up happening.

However it's comments like the one jasonz made that the Hawks simply cannot allow to take place. IF it did (don't think it will btw) then the problems of the Hawks compound themselves again and again and again.

No offence meant but a North supporter really wouldnt understand where I am coming from on (five plus seasons now) on this sort of issue about HAWTHORN players and how we have been burnt on losing to many decent players in their prime.

As said, we owe Jade nothing in this. If we can work out a deal (and again as said, in all likelihood will do) of equitable value then yea, he end's up at North.

If not however the Hawks are offered 2nd round selection and a fringe player, then it must be time (and again, it will happen one day) to simply cut the loss and do no favour to either the club trying to select or the player leaving or the club left without any compensation.

High minded and stupid? Perhaps, also sends out a clear message (and lord knows we need to) that the time of the Hawks being bunnies in trade deals is over.

Adelaide Hawk

4 Oct 2003, 09:41

Originally posted by Petrie Dish
would you accept john baird and the number 9 pick? i'd be reasonably happy with that as a north supporter, what do you think?

Bargain!! Hawthorn would be the winner in that deal. Bring it on.

Thewlis Dish

4 Oct 2003, 11:00

Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
Bargain!! Hawthorn would be the winner in that deal. Bring it on.

i'm assuming by raising the offer to match geelong and melbourne that we're prepared to trade the number 9 pick. i could be wrong tho

TheNextBigThing

4 Oct 2003, 13:53

Pick 9 and Baird seems right, i think thats what will happen unless you want Morrell instead.

Shinboners

4 Oct 2003, 16:51

Originally posted by Grendel
However the difference being that more or less have been 'one-off's'.

We will have now lost McPharlin, Rawlings, Chick, Jarman, Allan and even go back to Robran. Hawthorn has a terrible history in losing players and not really being in any position to deal on our terms. We simply have to draw the line and make it tougher for players to 'walk'. If it means (and make no mistake, one day a club will take the option) of letting him go and making a stand. Then I think our time for doing so is very very close.

With that extra insight, I can totally understand your view.

The right thing for the Hawks to do would be to push him into the pre-season draft as a signal to other players. It might be short term pain, but it will be for long term gain.

mattyc2422

4 Oct 2003, 17:05

Pick 9, John Baird and Shannon Motlop.

me_dane

4 Oct 2003, 17:25

I think that we should at least get a first round draft pick and a player for Rawlings. However i think that i would be ready to accept Baird, Morrel and Pick 24 for Rawlings. I admit that Morrel isnt the most consistent player goin around but neither is Nathan Thompson. Dont get me wrong, I am not comparing the two on ability just on consistency.

If I recall correctly, Morell played on some of the best defenders in the league while at the Roos, due to Sav missing a couple of games. At Hawthorn there is no way that he could play on the best defender, as we have other forwards that are more accomplished than he is. Please correct me if i was wrong about Morrel playing on the best defenders in the league.

However one drawback, about not receiving a first round pick is the ability to trade one for a top line player like Wirrpunda or Solomon. Due to the fact that we would have two in the top ten, Hawthorn shall be prepared to deal on one of them.

danny rooboy

4 Oct 2003, 19:46

would Hawthorn be interested in Sav Rocca as part of the trade? He potentially has a couple of good years left in him. Could easily kick 30-40 goals a season.

tige19

4 Oct 2003, 19:51

Taking Baird would be a step back, the club neglected him while he was at Box Hill so why should they take him know??? to prove they were wrong in the first case??. I know inreality it would be better to get Baird but i cant see us doing it.

cheers

Thewlis Dish

4 Oct 2003, 20:32

Originally posted by tige19
Taking Baird would be a step back, the club neglected him while he was at Box Hill so why should they take him know??? to prove they were wrong in the first case??. I know inreality it would be better to get Baird but i cant see us doing it.

cheers

baird is not even close to the same player he was at box hill, he's been given the chance to develop in an AFL environment and he's a more than capable player. throw in the number 9 pick and thats a fair deal

moistie

4 Oct 2003, 22:39

Originally posted by danny rooboy
would Hawthorn be interested in Sav Rocca as part of the trade? He potentially has a couple of good years left in him. Could easily kick 30-40 goals a season.

We do not want anything to do with Sav Rocca. We'll be looking for someone on the way to the peak of their footballing career, not well past it.

WILKO_6

5 Oct 2003, 14:08

Originally posted by mattyc2422
Pick 9, John Baird and Shannon Motlop.

Im not gonna bother commenting on that one.

Ramma

6 Oct 2003, 09:40

Originally posted by tige19
Taking Baird would be a step back, the club neglected him while he was at Box Hill so why should they take him know??? to prove they were wrong in the first case??. I know inreality it would be better to get Baird but i cant see us doing it.

cheers

Weren't Hawthorn going to pick him up before North jumped in ahead
of us a few drafts back??
He played 20 games this year, and what I saw of him looked pretty
good. We NEED a key defender - not many of them out there at the
moment, tige!!
I say, let's take Baird, with a sweetener (early draft pick/s) and be
happy with it...

...having said that, Leigh Colbert hasn't re-signed with North yet.....

jj flash

6 Oct 2003, 10:26

I'm with Grendel, play hardball Hawks. You North supporters really don't get it - of course you're happy with pick #9 and Baird, its a good deal for you.

Sorry but you're getting a quality tall KPP so you're just gunna have to feel a bit of pain for it.

Blokes like Rawlings don't grow on trees you know, clubs invest 10 years to develop them.

Hawk71

6 Oct 2003, 11:10

Pick 9 + Kanga's 2nd round pick + Baird , would be a fair deal.
Gives us two first and two second round picks which can be used in bargaining for a quality player.

Adelaide Hawk

6 Oct 2003, 11:52

Originally posted by jj flash
Blokes like Rawlings don't grow on trees you know

But they DO live in them.

Kimbo

11 Oct 2003, 02:02

If Woewodin and Pickett went for Pick 15, then Pick 9 + a player is too much IMHO for Rawlings.

Having said that, we may have to pay it if the Hawks want a quality player, as reported. The Roos may need to ontrade Pick 9 to another club (plus?) to get someone of the ilk of Solomon, Brown, Notting etc.

Interesting times, eh?

BTW, you can have Morrell and Shane Clayton for nothing, okay? And yes, Morrell has played on oppositions 1st/2nd best defender, which is above him. He can take the 3rd best. Clayton tries not to play anywhere near anyone.. it gets a bit rough.

Archer_11

11 Oct 2003, 12:08

Now the club has come out, would be interested in knowing what 'established player' you guys would be interested in getting.

You were only prepared to give Rawlings 330-350K (correct me if I'm wrong), so Soloman at 400K on a three year contract is out. Ditto Brown for similar reasons. You know Stevens is going to be out of Hawthorn's price range (or break the 'two year' rule), can you think of any other players? Hypothetically, would you take Croad back on a fat contract if something could be magic'd up?

mattyc2422

11 Oct 2003, 18:35

Originally posted by Archer_11
Hypothetically, would you take Croad back on a fat contract if something could be magic'd up?
No.

Adelaide Hawk

11 Oct 2003, 21:10

Originally posted by Archer_11
You were only prepared to give Rawlings 330-350K

I love the way you say ONLY 330-350K, as if it's monopoly money or something. That's waaaaaaaaaay too much for most players, and Rawlings is included.

Horace

11 Oct 2003, 22:56

Originally posted by Archer_11
Now the club has come out, would be interested in knowing what 'established player' you guys would be interested in getting.

You were only prepared to give Rawlings 330-350K (correct me if I'm wrong), so Soloman at 400K on a three year contract is out. Ditto Brown for similar reasons. You know Stevens is going to be out of Hawthorn's price range (or break the 'two year' rule), can you think of any other players? Hypothetically, would you take Croad back on a fat contract if something could be magic'd up?

I think Archer_11 has raised a very interesting point in highlighting the fact that Hawthorn offered less money to Rawlings than what they will have to pay to get any of Solomon, Brown and Stevens. If the club needed to approach a number of players to take pay cuts, to retain Lekkas and Rawlings, then how can they possibly fit in someone else at a higher salary than Rawlings? Doesn't make any sense.

While the decision may be due to a much greater awareness of just how Rawlings knees are and how much longer he has got at AFL level, if I was a Hawk supporter, I would be pretty disappointed that someone who has played with the club for the length of time and given the service that Rawlings has, was offered 2 years rather than 3, at less money than they will have to pay to people like Brown in particular, who comes across as much more of a mercenary than Rawlings does.

I have watched Rawlings play some wonderful football and in my view he was one of the best this year for the club. Surely that entitled him to better treatment than he has been given especially as in his heart of hearts my guess is that he will always see himself as more a Hawthorn man than anything else.

moistie

12 Oct 2003, 00:09

Originally posted by Horace

I have watched Rawlings play some wonderful football and in my view he was one of the best this year for the club. Surely that entitled him to better treatment than he has been given especially as in his heart of hearts my guess is that he will always see himself as more a Hawthorn man than anything else.

Fair enough, Horace. I think he was offerred good money but went elsewhere because he wasn't sure if he could last three years injury free and wanted guarenteed money for the third. As for him being a Hawk man, I certainly hope he still considers himeself so. After all, he's married to Richo's sister and we want to lay claim to any sons he has, after all they should grow to be pretty tall :D

As for the money situation, the cap will open up a bit when we move on Harford, Rawlings, Johnson(?), Loats(?), McCabe(?) and put Crawf and Dutchy on the veterans list. Even so, there are other players I'd rather see at Hawthorn than Solomon or Brown (KPP for a start).

Adelaide Hawk

12 Oct 2003, 00:17

Originally posted by Horace
I think Archer_11 has raised a very interesting point in highlighting the fact that Hawthorn offered less money to Rawlings than what they will have to pay to get any of Solomon, Brown and Stevens. If the club needed to approach a number of players to take pay cuts, to retain Lekkas and Rawlings, then how can they possibly fit in someone else at a higher salary than Rawlings? Doesn't make any sense.

While the decision may be due to a much greater awareness of just how Rawlings knees are and how much longer he has got at AFL level, if I was a Hawk supporter, I would be pretty disappointed that someone who has played with the club for the length of time and given the service that Rawlings has, was offered 2 years rather than 3, at less money than they will have to pay to people like Brown in particular, who comes across as much more of a mercenary than Rawlings does.

I have watched Rawlings play some wonderful football and in my view he was one of the best this year for the club. Surely that entitled him to better treatment than he has been given especially as in his heart of hearts my guess is that he will always see himself as more a Hawthorn man than anything else.

Who says Hawthorn are chasing Solomon, Brown, or Stevens? I can't see any of them coming to the Hawks, and quite frankly I couldn't care less if they do or don't. As for Rawlings being a Hawthorn man, let's just say he has proven that he isn't. If he really wanted to stay he could have, it was his choice to leave, not Hawthorn's.

Personally, I'd love to see all the clubs make a stand and refuse to trade any of these players. Then we may attain some sanity in player payments and trades. I know it won't happen, but I would dearly love to see it.

Players are being paid far too much these days, especially ordinary ones. Solomon and Rawlings in particular .... worth $300K-$400K? No freaking way!! You know who is paying these wages don't you? Us!!! The paying public. We are paying through memberships, gate receipts, pay-tv subscriptions, AFL approved merchandise ... and every other item that we pay for at grossly inflated prices ... we are paying top dollar so our administrators and precious players can live in luxury.

Major club sponsors can write off any monies invested into football clubs as taxable business expenses ... can we? No.

The average person is being priced right out of the game whilst others are getting richer and richer. Rawlings a Hawthorn man at heart? Don't make me laugh ..... players who have the club at heart are an anachronism. Players are nothing more than auction items ...... SOLD to the highest bidder.

carlos' roos

12 Oct 2003, 19:34

Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
Who says Hawthorn are chasing Solomon, Brown, or Stevens? I can't see any of them coming to the Hawks, and quite frankly I couldn't care less if they do or don't. As for Rawlings being a Hawthorn man, let's just say he has proven that he isn't. If he really wanted to stay he could have, it was his choice to leave, not Hawthorn's.

Personally, I'd love to see all the clubs make a stand and refuse to trade any of these players. Then we may attain some sanity in player payments and trades. I know it won't happen, but I would dearly love to see it.

Players are being paid far too much these days, especially ordinary ones. Solomon and Rawlings in particular .... worth $300K-$400K? No freaking way!! You know who is paying these wages don't you? Us!!! The paying public. We are paying through memberships, gate receipts, pay-tv subscriptions, AFL approved merchandise ... and every other item that we pay for at grossly inflated prices ... we are paying top dollar so our administrators and precious players can live in luxury.

Major club sponsors can write off any monies invested into football clubs as taxable business expenses ... can we? No.

The average person is being priced right out of the game whilst others are getting richer and richer. Rawlings a Hawthorn man at heart? Don't make me laugh ..... players who have the club at heart are an anachronism. Players are nothing more than auction items ...... SOLD to the highest bidder.

Wrong Rawlings chose the roos and when the deal is done it will be significantly less than you could have got off other club.\
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

jacqui9

12 Oct 2003, 19:49

Originally posted by carlos' roos
Wrong Rawlings chose the roos and when the deal is done it will be significantly less than you could have got off other club.\
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HAHAHAHA

Rawlings is not at the Roos yet. He is only chose the roos as some bulls*t excuse to play with his brother. Otherwise he was off to Geelong.

I just hope Hawthorn stand tough. If north dont give us a good deal, you aint getting nothing pal.

Adelaide Hawk

12 Oct 2003, 20:15

Originally posted by carlos' roos
Wrong Rawlings chose the roos and when the deal is done it will be significantly less than you could have got off other club.\
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

It's amazing .... they managed to teach an idiot how to use a computer. Crawl back under your rock and stop making a fool of yourself.

Thewlis Dish

12 Oct 2003, 22:38

Originally posted by carlos' roos
Wrong Rawlings chose the roos and when the deal is done it will be significantly less than you could have got off other club.\
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Don't be a knob. The deal isn't done, and although it is very likely North will pass the number 9 pick to another club to strike a 3 way deal with Hawthorn, nothing is done yet. Hawk fans are quite rightly pointing out that there's no guarantee he'll be in Blue and White next year - I have no doubts that sanity will prevail and a suitable deal will be struck by Friday, but in the meantime don't be a penis about it.

Hawk71

13 Oct 2003, 11:31

So a third club will get involved. So how about ;

Nick Stevens - Hawthorn
Hawks Pick 41 + Jade Rawlings - Kangaroos
North's Pick 9 + Daniel Motlop - Port Adelaide (since he is keen to go to Port)

Not sure if it should be North's 1st or 2nd Round pick??
Would be nice if we could secure John Baird somewhere in this deal.

also ;

Daniel Harford and Brett Johnson - Carlton
Blue's Pick 36 - Brisbane
Tim Notting - Hawthorn

(this trade at least free's up some salary cap space for the Hawks and lands them a good player in Notting )

Nathan Lonie straight swap for Paul Wheatley

just some thoughts......probably won't come to fruition!

Hawk in waiting

13 Oct 2003, 12:18

Originally posted by Hawk71
So a third club will get involved. So how about ;

Nick Stevens - Hawthorn
Hawks Pick 41 + Jade Rawlings - Kangaroos
North's Pick 9 + Daniel Motlop - Port Adelaide (since he is keen to go to Port)

Can't see North trading Nick Stevens away if they only had to use their own draft pick and player to get him. Would require something from Hawthorn as well to come to fruition.

Perhaps:
Stevens & Baird - Hawthorn
Pick 41 & Rawlings - Kangas
Pick 10, Brett Johnson & Motlop - PA.

Only guessing, but isn't it fun.