List Mgmt. 2016 general list discussion and speculation (cont in Pt.2)

[Cezz The Catter]

Just a question. Sorry if in wrong thread.
Geelongs hopes of jumping into the top 8 is becoming more of a reality each day thanks to Sellwood and the 99.99% chance of dangerfeild going to the cats and 00.01% of the hawks (sarcasm).

Any who, how does geelong get dangerfeild if adelaide match your offer, what do you trade for henderson, what do you trade for sellwood if wce match the offer, what do you trade for zac smith who has requested trade to geelong.

I just don't know the cats pull it off as teams can make it very hard for you guys if the above happens. And let me know if i forgot someone.

Good luck for Free agency and trade period

the way I see it they will take it as it comes. priority list;
-Danger
-Henderson
-Smith
-Selwood

now it would be a massive trade period to get all those moves done but Jansen and Walker may give us some leverage and incoming picks.

 

[catempire]

Just a question. Sorry if in wrong thread.
Geelongs hopes of jumping into the top 8 is becoming more of a reality each day thanks to Sellwood and the 99.99% chance of dangerfeild going to the cats and 00.01% of the hawks (sarcasm).

Any who, how does geelong get dangerfeild if adelaide match your offer, what do you trade for henderson, what do you trade for sellwood if wce match the offer, what do you trade for zac smith who has requested trade to geelong.

I just don't know the cats pull it off as teams can make it very hard for you guys if the above happens. And let me know if i forgot someone.

Good luck for Free agency and trade period

Appreciate you're just popping in but the answer to your question was just a few posts up:

Worst case scenario:

Pick 9 for Dangerfield
Pick 28 for Henderson
2016 2nd round pick for Smith.
Selwood stays at West Coast

 

[Since 2001]

Appreciate you're just popping in but the answer to your question was just a few posts up:

Appreciate you're just popping in but the answer to your question was just a few posts up:

More for dangerfield
they'll want more for henderson
and more for zac smith
and slewed wont stay

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Worst case scenario:

Pick 9 for Dangerfield
Pick 28 for Henderson
2016 2nd round pick for Smith.
Selwood stays at West Coast

I think the worst-case scenario sees us losing more than that for Danger. I would imagine worst-case in that deal would be some of the deals floated by the Adelaide board posters, like 2 first rounders and a player. If Adelaide matches, just losing pick 9 is just about the best outcome we can hope for. Also highly doubt Carlton will take just pick 28 for Henderson. A first-round pick is overs, but 28 will be perceived as unders. We'll need to somehow get a better pick (late teens, probably) or package Walker in that deal to get him. If we have to trade next year's first-rounder, then we can't get Z. Smith for next year's second-rounder.

I think my worst-case scenario (if we want all four) would be:
Pick 9 + 2016 first rounder + player (let's say Murdoch) for Dangerfield.
Pick 28 + Walker for Henderson.
Don't get Smith.
Don't get Selwood.

Lose Jansen for pick 57 to Brisbane.

7 spots currently on the list, with the losses of Walker, Jansen, and the player to Adelaide making 10 list spots open.

To be filled by Dangerfield and Henderson (making 8).

And we take into the draft picks: 46, 57, 64, 82, 100 etc. and no first-rounder next year. Maybe have to elevate some rookies and draft some delisted players.

 

[catempire]

More for dangerfield
they'll want more for henderson
and more for zac smith
and slewed wont stay

We all want more.

But...

 

[catempire]

I think the worst-case scenario sees us losing more than that for Danger. I would imagine worst-case in that deal would be some of the deals floated by the Adelaide board posters, like 2 first rounders and a player. If Adelaide matches, just losing pick 9 is just about the best outcome we can hope for. Also highly doubt Carlton will take just pick 28 for Henderson. A first-round pick is overs, but 28 will be perceived as unders. We'll need to somehow get a better pick (late teens, probably) or package Walker in that deal to get him. If we have to trade next year's first-rounder, then we can't get Z. Smith for next year's second-rounder.

I think my worst-case scenario (if we want all four) would be:
Pick 9 + 2016 first rounder + player (let's say Murdoch) for Dangerfield.
Pick 28 + Walker for Henderson.
Don't get Smith.
Don't get Selwood.

Lose Jansen for pick 57 to Brisbane.

7 spots currently on the list, with the losses of Walker, Jansen, and the player to Adelaide making 10 list spots open.

To be filled by Dangerfield and Henderson (making 8).

And we take into the draft picks: 46, 57, 64, 82, 100 etc. and no first-rounder next year. Maybe have to elevate some rookies and draft some delisted players clubs.

There is no logic to any deal with Adelaide where we give up more than 9. Think about it. Offer 9 and don't budge. What does Adelaide do? It's better than compo. It's MUCH better than losing him for nothing in the draft. It's a no-brainer.

 

[rooie]

More for dangerfield
they'll want more for henderson
and more for zac smith
and slewed wont stay

nope.
walker.
nope.
meh.

 

[Kaatman]

As Guru Bob says -You cant always get what you want. But you get what you need.
So you swap that for what you want.

 

[Vdubs]

We all want more.

But...

Now you're talking my language.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

There is no logic to any deal with Adelaide where we give up more than 9. Think about it. Offer 9 and don't budge. What does Adelaide do? It's better than compo. It's MUCH better than losing him for nothing in the draft. It's a no-brainer.

Geelong are easybeats at the trade table. Adelaide will threaten to let him go into the draft, which means there's no guarantee Geelong will get him, and so Geelong will cough up more for him. There are dangers for both clubs and both clubs have some leverage in the deal. For Adelaide, the danger is that they wind up with nothing out of the deal; for Geelong, it's that they don't get Danger. It's a game of who cedes to the other party's wishes first, and history suggests that will be Geelong. Geelong has built up a history of being easy to deal with at the trade table, mainly because clubs are able to extract way overs from the club over the years. Geelong has always been a much better drafting club than trading, so this is concerning territory for us. If the GFC is Mark Blake, then our drafting is like tap work and our trade negotiations are like kicking skills - they're usually shanks.

 

[catempire]

Geelong are easybeats at the trade table. Adelaide will threaten to let him go into the draft, which means there's no guarantee Geelong will get him, and so Geelong will cough up more for him. There are dangers for both clubs and both clubs have some leverage in the deal. For Adelaide, the danger is that they wind up with nothing out of the deal; for Geelong, it's that they don't get Danger. It's a game of who cedes to the other party's wishes first, and history suggests that will be Geelong. Geelong has built up a history of being easy to deal with at the trade table, mainly because clubs are able to extract way overs from the club over the years. Geelong has always been a much better drafting club than trading, so this is concerning territory for us. If the GFC is Mark Blake, then our drafting is like tap work and our trade negotiations are like kicking skills - they're usually shanks.

I'm going to channel JubJub here.

Starting with the false premise that Geelong is weak at the trade table is the silliest argument I've heard yet. Actually, I wish it was. Maybe the silliest argument I've heard today.

 

[David the Cat]

I think the worst-case scenario sees us losing more than that for Danger. I would imagine worst-case in that deal would be some of the deals floated by the Adelaide board posters, like 2 first rounders and a player. If Adelaide matches, just losing pick 9 is just about the best outcome we can hope for. Also highly doubt Carlton will take just pick 28 for Henderson. A first-round pick is overs, but 28 will be perceived as unders. We'll need to somehow get a better pick (late teens, probably) or package Walker in that deal to get him. If we have to trade next year's first-rounder, then we can't get Z. Smith for next year's second-rounder.

I think my worst-case scenario (if we want all four) would be:
Pick 9 + 2016 first rounder + player (let's say Murdoch) for Dangerfield.
Pick 28 + Walker for Henderson.
Don't get Smith.
Don't get Selwood.

Lose Jansen for pick 57 to Brisbane.

7 spots currently on the list, with the losses of Walker, Jansen, and the player to Adelaide making 10 list spots open.

To be filled by Dangerfield and Henderson (making 8).

And we take into the draft picks: 46, 57, 64, 82, 100 etc. and no first-rounder next year. Maybe have to elevate some rookies and draft some delisted players clubs.

As an expert in worst case scenarios I doubt anyone could do better.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You could start with Bartel.

No. Not Jimmy

I'm just going to pretend you didn't say that SoG. Remember sometimes words can hurt

 

[Willo_]

Calls someone petty and childish then proceeds to put said person on ignore for having a differing opinion... ok.

I don't understand why people announce that they are putting someone on ignore

Like seriously.... who cares?

 

[rooie]

I don't understand why people announce that they are putting someone on ignore

Like seriously.... who cares?

i dont know why people announce they dont care about people putting people on ignore. like seriously, who cares?

 

[Since 2001]

There is no logic to any deal with Adelaide where we give up more than 9. Think about it. Offer 9 and don't budge. What does Adelaide do? It's better than compo. It's MUCH better than losing him for nothing in the draft. It's a no-brainer.

and the 8 other clubs before you guys?

 

[catempire]

and the 8 other clubs before you guys?

Check out the Dangerfield thread. Adelaide isn't going to walk him.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'm going to channel JubJub here.

Starting with the false premise that Geelong is weak at the trade table is the silliest argument I've heard yet. Actually, I wish it was. Maybe the silliest argument I've heard today.

Eastwood gif. Tasty!

Geelong are easybeats at the trade table. Adelaide will threaten to let him go into the draft, which means there's no guarantee Geelong will get him, and so Geelong will cough up more for him. There are dangers for both clubs and both clubs have some leverage in the deal. For Adelaide, the danger is that they wind up with nothing out of the deal; for Geelong, it's that they don't get Danger. It's a game of who cedes to the other party's wishes first, and history suggests that will be Geelong. Geelong has built up a history of being easy to deal with at the trade table, mainly because clubs are able to extract way overs from the club over the years. Geelong has always been a much better drafting club than trading, so this is concerning territory for us. If the GFC is Mark Blake, then our drafting is like tap work and our trade negotiations are like kicking skills - they're usually shanks.

BB I asked you this LAST trade period and didn't really get much of a response so here goes take 2.

I'm interested to see which trades in recent history we have been 'bent over' so I thought I'll go back 7 years to 2007.

2007.
Playfair to Syd for #44
King and Gardiner to Stk for #90
Callan and #66 to WB for #62.

2008.
Brent Prismall out for pick #39 in.

2009.
We gave up pick #33 and #97 (unused pick) and gained #40 and #42 and #56
We traded Mumford for #28
We then traded #49 for Marcus Drum.

So in summary we gave Essendon 33, Fremantle 49, Port Adelaide 97 and Sydney Mumford and Gained 28, 40, 42 and 56.

2010.
We traded away our middle of R1 Ablett compensation to GC giving us pick #15.

We also gave Carlton Laidler and #41 for #36 (37 after compensation) and #53 (54).

We gave the WB Djerrkura for #57.

2011.
Only one trade for us. Pick #26 out to GC in exchange for #32 and #34.

2012.
Hamish McIntosh in for pick #38.
Josh Caddy for 1st round compensation (activated this year at 14) and #57.

2013.
Podsiadly to Adelaide for #64.
Chapman to Essendon for #84
Hunt to GWS for # 75
West to Brisbane for #41.

So we've had some token trades to help fringe/older players get to their 2nd clubs. Now keep in mind you said " Recent history pretty much suggests the opposite" So picking out more than 1 or 2 trades where we've been 'bent over' will be required to even remotely justify your claims.

I for one think over the last 6-7 years (recent history) we've on the whole been quite fair. Hardly bent over.

**Now I'm willing to admit we got unders for Allen on his worth but got as much as we could in the circumstances and I'm willing to accept Stanley as overs. Isn't the case for the other years, by and large they were fair trades.**

 

[Turbocat]

and the 8 other clubs before you guys?

One can ask lots of what ifs... what would Haw do if another side could actually handle the moment and kick straight?

If we look at it as a probability.The most likely outcome is probably determined by ones own self interest. Is it better for Crows to match and just waste a R1..when we probably would be willing to ensure they endup with more than that. Perhaps twice as much. Even just P13 and P14 sounds a lot better than P13. Just look at the players they may miss on and be kicking themselves. And perhaps we do a side deal when 14 and 9 are exchanged...or even if 9 is trade all together? How knows... but Geelong will not be paying beggar man rates

and once Danger is done... the others will come together. ... and we can look forward to our Easter Monday clash with renewed competitiveness.

 

[Since 2001]

One can ask lots of what ifs... what would Haw do if another side could actually handle the moment and kick straight?

If we look at it as a probability.The most likely outcome is probably determined by ones own self interest. Is it better for Crows to match and just waste a R1..when we probably would be willing to ensure they endup with more than that. Perhaps twice as much. Even just P13 and P14 sounds a lot better than P13. Just look at the players they may miss on and be kicking themselves. And perhaps we do a side deal when 14 and 9 are exchanged...or even if 9 is trade all together? How knows... but Geelong will not be paying beggar man rates

and once Danger is done... the others will come together. ... and we can look forward to our Easter Monday clash with renewed competitiveness.

Pressure is too good.

TBH the rivalry is nearly done, all the players that are leaving geelong is the reason why its fading. When every player from the 08 is gone from both clubs or majority, i won't find it a rival game anymore.

 

[Turbocat]

Pressure is too good.

TBH the rivalry is nearly done, all the players that are leaving geelong is the reason why its fading. When every player from the 08 is gone from both clubs or majority, i won't find it a rival game anymore.

This from a since 2001 type person... yeah can see that. The rivalry is in hibernation.... we may not bounce... but if we do... and we catch you on the way down... I think you will find there is plenty of heat in the game. Hawks and Geelong games have had something for decades.. perhaps back to the 60's with JKSr and Davis.

and pressure? 3 interstate side in a row. amazing what pressure , luck can bring.

 

[Since 2001]

S

This from a since 2001 type person... yeah can see that. The rivalry is in hibernation.... we may not bounce... but if we do... and we catch you on the way down... I think you will find there is plenty of heat in the game. Hawks and Geelong games have had something for decades.. perhaps back to the 60's with JKSr and Davis.

and pressure? 3 interstate side in a row. amazing what pressure , luck can bring.

sounds like someone is a bit bitter. Can only beat the team that gets there. Which is the top 2 teams going at it. How is it not pressure? Haven't watched this years, last years and the year before? Pressure comes in different ways and hawks have provided mental, score board, physical and unsociable pressure to each one, but 2012 we failed.

 

[Burtyl78]

S


sounds like someone is a bit bitter. Can only beat the team that gets there. Which is the top 2 teams going at it. How is it not pressure? Haven't watched this years, last years and the year before? Pressure comes in different ways and hawks have provided mental, score board, physical and unsociable pressure to each one, but 2012 we failed.

 

[Burtyl78]

Sorry mate but he is right, 3 interstate teams in a row that didn't show up, you were gifted a 3 peat, having said that the Hawks may have won them anyway but it would be good to have seen someone show up on the day

 

[you pick one]

S


sounds like someone is a bit bitter. Can only beat the team that gets there. Which is the top 2 teams going at it. How is it not pressure? Haven't watched this years, last years and the year before? Pressure comes in different ways and hawks have provided mental, score board, physical and unsociable pressure to each one, but 2012 we failed.

Not to many who know anything about the game will dispute that but the thing the Hawks did better than every one else is read the situation of the game a few years back and while a lot of clubs were worried about reshaping their lists to prepare for the perceived domination of the Gold Coast and GWS the Hawks looked at it and decided there were flags up for grabs now and used the free agency and cleaver trading to stay ahead of the pack and let tomorrow look after its self.And as they say the rest is history.