View Full Version : DOGS' Strategy a winner
The Bulldogs/Hawthorn and to a lesser extent Port must be congratulated on their strategy in this draft.
The Bulldogs if true gave up their first round draft choice to Hawthorn for Vaiale.
*Aim - to get an assurance from Hawthorn that they will not trade Rawlings to anyone else.
As the Hawks have no capacity in their salary to retain Rawlings (Re: money spent on Croad) Rawlings has no options but to go in the PS Draft on the Bulldogs terms.
Rawlings can put whatever price he likes, the Bulldogs I am sure will make him an offer far less to his liking. The Bulldogs have a capacity in their salary to carry whatever Rawlings stipulates in the Pre Season Draft.
North obviously held a gun to the Hawks and were not willing to give up a realistic exchange of draft choices and/or players thinking that as the time got nearer to the deadline the Hawks will cave in. How wrong can they be? They were strategically out maneuvered by the Bulldogs and the Hawks.
Same with the Magpies re: Stevens
They were not prepared to pay a realistic price for Stevens thinking that Port will take anything, as the deadline got closer.
Williams played their bluff and once again Collingwood walk away from a draft period with nothing of substance. After all their posturing and chest beating strategically they lost out.
Stevens now has two options. Go into the P S Draft and go to Carlton or option two accept to stay with Port on their terms.
If Stevens goes to Carlton he will get the money and four years of purgatory, but will never get to play for his beloved Collingwood.
So he may well stay with Port and Williams will have the last laugh.
The big winners are the Bulldogs and maybe Port (depends what happens now)
I am not excluding a secret deal between Carlton and Port (not to deal with Collingwood and keep Stevens for the pre season draft so that Carlton can pick him up)
The losers - North and Rawlings (big time) and obviously Collingwood and Stevens.
The final day of the draft has been a great day for the annalists. There has been some terrific maneuvering between the clubs.
:D
Originally posted by irel
If Stevens goes to Carlton he will get the money and four years of purgatory, but will never get to play for his beloved Collingwood.
So he may well stay with Port and Williams will have the last laugh.
if stevens goes to the draft, i am sure he can nominate for 1 year only, which means after his contract is up, he can then ask to be traded or move again via the psd. there will be nothing keeping stevens at carlton for 4 years ... unless carlton finish bottom for four yrs and keep re-drafting him or don't trade him.
if stevens goes to the draft, i am sure he can nominate for 1 year only, which means after his contract is up, he can then ask to be traded or move again via the psd. there will be nothing keeping stevens at carlton for 4 years ... unless carlton finish bottom for four yrs and keep re-drafting him or don't trade him
Carlton wont be so stupid to only sign him up for one year. The offer was for four years and I am sure in light of the current circumstances the 500K's per year will now be re negotiated as well if Stevens wants to nominate for the pre season.
My prediction is he will stay wit Port
Jim Boy
17 Oct 2003, 17:29
DOGS - winners??
They could have stolen Stevens and kept pick 6, instead they decide to go 'safe' and buy Rawlings.
Real spineless stuff, considering the worst that could have happened would be that they get pick 6 in the national draft.
Whats more is that if Rawlings is really peeved, then he will sign on for one year only and then leave, WB end up with nix.
Originally posted by irel
Carlton wont be so stupid to only sign him up for one year. The offer was for four years and I am sure in light of the current circumstances the 500K's per year will now be re negotiated as well if Stevens wants to nominate for the pre season.
My prediction is he will stay wit Port
I think you find the rules are if stevens wants a yr, they must sign him for at least that, and if he says one yr they will have to give it to him. I don't think there is much chance of him staying at the power, whould they really want him? either way, i expect stevens to be up for trade next season either from carl or port. Possibly the same deal with rawlings as well.
oh and what if carlton say bugger this, he has already f***ed use around once, why bother with him? so he may end up at the next vic club that can afford him, say geelong.
Porthos
17 Oct 2003, 17:36
Of course Carlton could draft Stevens and demand a two year contract.
If he won't take it, they can send him to play in a lesser league for a year.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 17:38
North obviously held a gun to the Hawks and were not willing to give up a realistic exchange of draft choices and/or players thinking that as the time got nearer to the deadline the Hawks will cave in. How wrong can they be? They were strategically out maneuvered by the Bulldogs and the Hawks.
We offered Corey Jones and Pick 9 for Jade, they ended up excepting Danny Jacobs!!!! They excepted a lesser deal for Jade, how stupid is that.
Rawlings can put whatever price he likes, the Bulldogs I am sure will make him an offer far less to his liking.
The Bulldogs have to pay whatever the player puts on his head, if he said he wanted $500,000 per year and drafted him, they would have to pay that.
The losers - North and Rawlings (big time) and obviously Collingwood and Stevens.
How are North losers, we still have all our draft picks, we didn't have Jade in the first place, so we haven't lost anything.
Originally posted by Porthos
Of course Carlton could draft Stevens and demand a two year contract.
If he won't take it, they can send him to play in a lesser league for a year.
i don't understand, stevens says 1 yr @ 500k they must give him that deal, even if they are willing to offer better.
The Bulldogs have to pay whatever the player puts on his head, if he said he wanted $500,000 per year and drafted him, they would have to pay that.
Not necessarily. They can renegotiate and pay whatever they like and sign him for whatever they negotiate if they pick him up.
I do agree if he puts only One-year stipulation than that is the minimum of the contract, but it can be varied with negotiation. However, the 500k's stay in the TPP.
Rod Stroker
17 Oct 2003, 17:50
Originally posted by Jim Boy
DOGS - winners??
They could have stolen Stevens and kept pick 6, instead they decide to go 'safe' and buy Rawlings.
Real spineless stuff, considering the worst that could have happened would be that they get pick 6 in the national draft.
Whats more is that if Rawlings is really peeved, then he will sign on for one year only and then leave, WB end up with nix.
Furthemore, if Rawlings agrees to stay at the Hawks - which is likely (I mean who would leave a team with real finals prospects like the Hawks to play at the Dogs ?), then basically the Dogs have just given pick 6 to the Hawks for Lochlan Veale ? Morons !
Anja_Nees
17 Oct 2003, 17:53
Originally posted by Rod Stroker
Furthemore, if Rawlings agrees to stay at the Hawks - which is likely (I mean who would leave a team with real finals prospects like the Hawks to play at the Dogs ?), then basically the Dogs have just given pick 6 to the Hawks for Lochlan Veale ? Morons !
The whole point of the trade was that Hawthorn DON'T contract Rawlings again. If they did, then it'd be a low act, but the two clubs have had a good relationship for a long time and I doubt it will happen.
How are North losers, we still have all our draft picks, we didn't have Jade in the first place, so we haven't lost anything. [/B][/QUOTE]
North's assessment in order to play finals next year Rawlings was needed. You didn't get him. I know it does not mean North won't play finals next year but it certainly reduces that possibility.
Originally posted by Rod Stroker
Furthemore, if Rawlings agrees to stay at the Hawks - which is likely (I mean who would leave a team with real finals prospects like the Hawks to play at the Dogs ?), then basically the Dogs have just given pick 6 to the Hawks for Lochlan Veale ? Morons !
To Rod Stroker, you've been "Stroking it" too long. You are missing the point, Hawthorn don't want him anymore and even if they did, they couldn't fit him under the salary cap now that they have picked up Croad. The is only one moron, and it ain't the dogs
Jim Boy
17 Oct 2003, 18:03
Originally posted by Anja_Nees
The whole point of the trade was that Hawthorn DON'T contract Rawlings again. If they did, then it'd be a low act, but the two clubs have had a good relationship for a long time and I doubt it will happen.
With Jacobs and Croad on board, the Hawks wouldn't com close to being able to pay for Rawlings.
WB could still miss out on Rawlings though. Nothing to stop Rawlings nominating a one year contract for $1,000,000. Would the WB sign him up for that amount for one year only to see him walk one year later. However if Geelong sign him, then the one year deal may suddenly be renegotiated into a 4 x $400,000 deal.
Western Bulldogs may be massive losers from this deal, serves them right too.
Rod Stroker
17 Oct 2003, 18:05
Originally posted by Anja_Nees
The whole point of the trade was that Hawthorn DON'T contract Rawlings again. If they did, then it'd be a low act, but the two clubs have had a good relationship for a long time and I doubt it will happen.
So are you telling me that if Rawlings requested to remain at the Hawks instead of going to the Dogs, then they couldn't accommodate him ? If I was Rawlings, that's what I'd be doing, even if i meant staying for less money. Better the devil you know, right ?
Originally posted by Jim Boy
With Jacobs and Croad on board, the Hawks wouldn't com close to being able to pay for Rawlings.
WB could still miss out on Rawlings though. Nothing to stop Rawlings nominating a one year contract for $1,000,000. Would the WB sign him up for that amount for one year only to see him walk one year later. However if Geelong sign him, then the one year deal may suddenly be renegotiated into a 4 x $400,000 deal.
Western Bulldogs may be massive losers from this deal, serves them right too.
Jim Boy, you are missing a very important point. Geelong (or any other club for that matter) would have to include the $1,000,000 in it's TPP, whether they paid him $1,000,000 or $1. What ever the player stipulates as his terms, must be included in the TPP, whether it is paid or not.
How are Collingwood possibly one of the big losers? This is our trade results
IN: Pick 35
OUT: Scotland.
We did not lose or gain anything by not getting Stevens.
The only thing Port will get is a fair chunk of cap room.
So will Collingwood by not gaining a big name player.
Jim Boy
17 Oct 2003, 18:22
Originally posted by Secco
Jim Boy, you are missing a very important point. Geelong (or any other club for that matter) would have to include the $1,000,000 in it's TPP, whether they paid him $1,000,000 or $1. What ever the player stipulates as his terms, must be included in the TPP, whether it is paid or not.
Not a problem, Geelong would have at least $600,000 free now (if not a million). All they do is get four senior players to take a one year $100,000 pay cut in exchange for an extra $100,000 plus interest the following year. A miilion dollars free, simple!
Originally posted by irel
The Bulldogs/Hawthorn and to a lesser extent Port must be congratulated on their strategy in this draft.
The Bulldogs if true gave up their first round draft choice to Hawthorn for Vaiale.
*Aim - to get an assurance from Hawthorn that they will not trade Rawlings to anyone else.
As the Hawks have no capacity in their salary to retain Rawlings (Re: money spent on Croad) Rawlings has no options but to go in the PS Draft on the Bulldogs terms.
Rawlings can put whatever price he likes, the Bulldogs I am sure will make him an offer far less to his liking. The Bulldogs have a capacity in their salary to carry whatever Rawlings stipulates in the Pre Season Draft.
North obviously held a gun to the Hawks and were not willing to give up a realistic exchange of draft choices and/or players thinking that as the time got nearer to the deadline the Hawks will cave in. How wrong can they be? They were strategically out maneuvered by the Bulldogs and the Hawks.
Same with the Magpies re: Stevens
They were not prepared to pay a realistic price for Stevens thinking that Port will take anything, as the deadline got closer.
Williams played their bluff and once again Collingwood walk away from a draft period with nothing of substance. After all their posturing and chest beating strategically they lost out.
Stevens now has two options. Go into the P S Draft and go to Carlton or option two accept to stay with Port on their terms.
If Stevens goes to Carlton he will get the money and four years of purgatory, but will never get to play for his beloved Collingwood.
So he may well stay with Port and Williams will have the last laugh.
The big winners are the Bulldogs and maybe Port (depends what happens now)
I am not excluding a secret deal between Carlton and Port (not to deal with Collingwood and keep Stevens for the pre season draft so that Carlton can pick him up)
The losers - North and Rawlings (big time) and obviously Collingwood and Stevens.
The final day of the draft has been a great day for the annalists. There has been some terrific maneuvering between the clubs.
:D
Originally posted by irel
The Bulldogs/Hawthorn and to a lesser extent Port must be congratulated on their strategy in this draft.
The Bulldogs if true gave up their first round draft choice to Hawthorn for Vaiale.
*Aim - to get an assurance from Hawthorn that they will not trade Rawlings to anyone else.
As the Hawks have no capacity in their salary to retain Rawlings (Re: money spent on Croad) :D
Croad will cost the Hawks f all as Freo are paying most of his salary
Originally posted by irel
The Bulldogs/Hawthorn and to a lesser extent Port must be congratulated on their strategy in this draft.
The Bulldogs if true gave up their first round draft choice to Hawthorn for Vaiale.
*Aim - to get an assurance from Hawthorn that they will not trade Rawlings to anyone else.
As the Hawks have no capacity in their salary to retain Rawlings (Re: money spent on Croad) :D
and the Hawks let Harford go which saved another 300K pa.
Think before you type clown shoes............
Originally posted by Spook
Croad will cost the Hawks f all as Freo are paying most of his salary
What's Freo's contribution? Do we know or we are just speculating?
:confused: