Tom Lynch.
List Mgmt. 2020 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy
- Thread starter Determinant
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Tom Lynch.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
I touched wood when I said it! I did!
someone has to post here to make this board active
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
Many are and having positive discussions, even some of your fellow Geelong supporters.
You are not. Just a crybaby cat who is upset the Giants matched.
How the hell could we include Cockatoo, when he wants to go to Brisbane? Likewise Fog who's said he wants to go to Carlton.
Christ I swear there's just 12 year olds with no logical reasoning ability running these boards/sites
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
DO NOT INSULT LOCAL POSTERS. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BOARD TO DO THAT.
I'm not upset they matched [DELETED].
I think it's stupid that people act like the Giants will get 3 FRP or 2 FRP and a good young player. They won't.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
Dork? Lol ok can see we are dealing with a live one.
And why won’t we get 3 frp?
Supposedly Cats offered up to two picks and a player that doesn’t make best 22.
Only a small jump to 3 picks and or 2 picks and a decent player.
The jump from 15, 20 and Constable to 13, 15 and a FR1 is pretty big.
If they want 2.5mil of their cap on 2 players, then by all means go ahead
- Sep 23, 2012
- 1,979
- 1,396
- AFL Club
- GWS
Good to see us still getting deals done. Hopefully Prueuss can be that matured ruckman we've been searching for.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,887
- 17,631
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #2,066
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
Our supposed request.
It can also be revealed the Giants would accept Picks 13, 15 and Geelong’s future first-rounder, which would likely be in the mid to late teens in 2021.
GWS would then send Pick 44 back to the Cats, though Geelong is gunning for a second-rounder in return.
It can also be revealed the Giants would accept Picks 13, 15 and Geelong’s future first-rounder, which would likely be in the mid to late teens in 2021.
GWS would then send Pick 44 back to the Cats, though Geelong is gunning for a second-rounder in return.
AFL trades 2020: Jeremy Cameron trade, Geelong Cats, GWS Giants, Cats players offered, trade targets, Rhys Stanley, news | FOX SPORTS
GWS flatly rejected a list of players offered up by Geelong as potential trade bait in Jeremy Cameron negotiations.
coupler.foxsports.com.au
- Oct 12, 2016
- 6,755
- 7,718
- AFL Club
- GWS
We find a 3 way to on-trade them to. Given we supposedly asked for players to get the deal done, Geelong are doing the right thing by offering some options and putting it back onto our team to find value for them. At some point somebody will blink and fold.
3 first round picks? From our camp that’s Dodoro level outrageous and don’t see happening.
We’ve offered 15 + 20 for Cameron + something back which was quoted by his manager as respectful. But rejected.
We can both argue infinite points but it’ll fall somewhere in between.
The outcome in the middle of those is probably:
13 + 20 for Cameron (nothing coming back)
Personally I’m reluctant on that (no need to go into why). Geelong wouldn’t give up more and I suspect we’d legitimately try going down the draft/psd. I’d support it and go for the risk of missing out, if the giants reject 2 first round picks in isolation.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
Your outrage is interesting considering the game playing that the cats did for Kelly and what the Cats are doing now for an injured mid that was reported today.
His manager would of said it was respectful if we got zip. It wasn’t respectful.
So only other clubs are allowed to decline offers, but we just have to accept anything? Cockatoo hasn't been injured for the last 3 months - and we have put a lot of work into getting him right. He's a former Pick 10 with game-breaking ability, and we don't want to lose him.
Apparently it's ok for you guys to reject all offers for Caldwell and Cameron, but we can't for our player? That's a little unfair
Kelly is not relevant at all. He was not a RFA. The crucial detail being less that he was younger, 5th in Brownlow coming off an AA yr (which is valid), but more to do with the fact Kelly gave 2 yrs of service. The reason free agency was brought in was to allow players who’ve given great long term service a pathway. Cameron has given 9 years of service to you blokes and you’re acting in his way and demanding max value.. which goes against the whole premise. Sorry, but the Kelly trade is completely irrelevant. It’d be like Geelong fans comparing it to losing GAJ in his prime for to late first founders... it’s not always fair you know.
RFA carry less value. Period. The rightful precedent is NOT Kelly, but dangerfield.
Danger was better than Cameron, younger and cost 1 first 1 second and a fringe player. We even got back a third. That’s the equivalent and giants are being a little hard to deal with on this one.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,352
- 42,269
- AFL Club
- GWS
You haven’t just accepted anything hence we are here.
Considering you have spent the last week complaining about having to trade and “the look of it”. I’ll just sit back and laugh at your talk of “fair”.
Callums_Guns
Community Leader
- Feb 26, 2019
- 19,249
- 37,271
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #2,075
