Cevap_Roll
Brownlow Medallist
- Oct 14, 2012
- 12,584
- 36,461
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Anything involving CROATIA & M.City
Anyone in here think a trade for Foley and Nahas are worth picks 12 + 13.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Official GIANTS trade period thread
- Thread starter Scully2Folau
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Nope.
Would you still be interested in Warnock?
He's 206 cm, a skilled tap ruckman and will benefit from the new rule changes
I know Giles has re-signed but Warnock is only 26 (still four-six years) of football left and would be in the prime of his career when all you're boys are in their fourth/fifth years and in (you'd hope) premiership contention.
You've got a ton of draft picks, want to throw one our way for the services of 206
Pick #12??
We'll throw in Thorton as knives as well
He's 206 cm, a skilled tap ruckman and will benefit from the new rule changes
I know Giles has re-signed but Warnock is only 26 (still four-six years) of football left and would be in the prime of his career when all you're boys are in their fourth/fifth years and in (you'd hope) premiership contention.
You've got a ton of draft picks, want to throw one our way for the services of 206
Pick #12??
We'll throw in Thorton as knives as well
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #281
I don't think Warnock is interested in GWS. The reason I say that is because he re-signed with you guys earlier this year after reports of GWS's interest in him. If he didn't want to sign with us as an uncontracted player, I doubt he's going to agree to a trade and say "Hey yeah, now that I won't get as much money, of course I'll go!"
He would be a first selection in your team as well as in plenty of others
And he's contracted so you would have to give us overs so its worth more than keeping him for three years
Plus you guys already had like ten first rounders last year and another 5 or 6 this year, stop being greedy, share the love
He would be a first selection in your team as well as in plenty of others
And he's contracted so you would have to give us overs so its worth more than keeping him for three years
Plus you guys already had like ten first rounders last year and another 5 or 6 this year, stop being greedy, share the love
Clearly, you're mistaking us for Fremantle.
Well its a question of, get a solid ruckman who will benefit from the new rules and will be a 250k-300k player for the next four to six years. Or get another top 15 draft pick and inevitably lose one of them, or even more of them, two or three years down the track when they all start demanding 400-500k and want to go home.
You can't field an entire team of first round draft picks, you need a solid mix and Warnock would be good for you.
What about one of your later draft picks, you have one in the 21-24 range right??
Warnock (steakknives) > GWS
#20odd + Jed Anderson > Carlton
Warnock would be a handy acquisition if he cost us very little but there is no way he is worth a 1st round pick.
The more I think about it the more I think we should take Grundy with pick 3.
The more I think about it the more I think we should take Grundy with pick 3.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #286
Warnock's knocked us back once when we were interested earlier in the year. Given we'd have been looking to take him as an uncontracted player, the money on offer would've been higher then. He re-signed with Carlton for three years. So once more I ask, why would he be interested in coming to us now? He's already knocked us back once when we offered him more money than he'd be on if he switched now. You realise players have to agree to any trade, right?
As far as I know, its just fan chatter.
As any players taken at 12 and 14 would be paid minimum wage, it also doesnt make sense from a cap perspective. You've also got Daniher coming off the board in the middle of that.
I'd be very very suprised if it happened.
I'd think that a KPD would be quite high on your priority list. Perhaps the reason you want 9 is to get a crack at Plowman or maybe Stringer, as you have great depth in your midfield. You are quite keen on Nahas and are trying to trade into a late teens/early 20's to get him. So it could be Nahas + 9 for 12 + 14, which is much fairer.
No mate. We will add Rutten and Johncock to the Veterans list opening up two more spots. We will then have 3 live picks.
Here is a post from from of our experts on our board. Explains it perfectly for you. Its actually 2 picks that we will have
Here's the math, in relatively idiot proof logic:
2012 Team List: 38 senior, 1 veteran
Doughty (ret): 38, 0
Symes, Knights, Tips (gone): 35, 0
Rutten, Reilly (promoted to vets): 33, 2
Graham (new signing): 34, 2
Callinan, Crouch (promotions to senior list): 36, 2
Thus we have 2 positions remaining on our senior list. However, with the promotions of Callinan and Crouch both counting towards our mandatory 3 list changes, only 1 of those vacant positions needs to be reserved for use in the ND. The other position could be used for either the ND or trading in another player.
To re-state the obvious, we only have 2 list vacancies remaining right now. If we want to draft a 3rd player then we would need to delist another player, with all 35 players currently on our list holding contracts for 2013.
There is no "veterans list" that gives you extra spots.
Veteran Players
Under AFL player rules, each club may nominate or list any number of what are called Veteran Player’s.
- In order to be eligible for classification as a Veteran a player must have been the age of 30 as at September 30 in the relevant AFL season and be on the primary list of the AFL club for at least 10 years or in the case of Port Adelaide since the inception of the club.
- From 2006 there is now no limit on the number of veteran players a club can list, as long as the player meets the required classification.
Rookie Players
- All clubs can maintain a rookie list of up to six players. Participation at the NAB AFL Rookie Draft is voluntary. A player included on a clubs rookie list cannot play for the club in the AFL except in the Pre-Season competition of if a rookie-listed player is promoted as a long term injury replacement player
http://www.afl.com.au/development/aflexplained/about/tabid/13532/default.aspx
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #294
That site is the really basic version and tends to be out of date. You can have up to two veterans on the Veteran's List instead of on the Primary (Senior) List, effectively taking up rookie slots. This is regardless of salary cap considerations.
From the AFLPA's Player Rules:
32.1.1 Each Club May Nominate or List Veterans
A Club may for each Football Year:
(a) nominate any number of Players on its Primary List as a veteran
Player provided that the Player or Players are eligible under Rule
32.1.3 and the Club obtains the approval of the General
Manager – Football Operations in accordance with Rule 32.2;
and/or
(b) delete the names of up to 2 Players from the Club’s Primary List
and include such name or names on the Club’s Veterans List
provided that:
(i) the Player or Players are eligible under Rule 32.1.3;
(ii) the total number of such Players in each year does not
exceed 2; and
(iii) the Club obtains the approval of the General Manager –
Football Operations in accordance with Rule 32.2.
...
32.1.2 Allocation of Player(s)
(a) Where a Club transfers a Player or Players from its Primary List
to its Veterans List, the General Manager - Football Operations
shall reduce the maximum number of Players permitted to be
included on the Club’s Rookie List by 1 or 2, as the case may be,
in lieu of the Player or Players transferred to the Veterans List.
- Thread starter
- #296
Very interesting...
@neilcordy: Giants close to trading player for a pick in the 20's
Two things I'm pondering; who could the player be, and given the rich stocks of draft picks, would that pick in the 20s be conveyed in another deal?
@neilcordy: Giants close to trading player for a pick in the 20's
Two things I'm pondering; who could the player be, and given the rich stocks of draft picks, would that pick in the 20s be conveyed in another deal?
Would expect the player to be a zone selection, but yes would think the pick would be on traded for a player
Mate, not sure who is more credible but Herald Sun are saying GWS trade of player for pick in 20's will not happen and that GWS are done and dusted for trade week.
Ha! now saying "GWS close to a trade - scratch earlier remark"!!
These guys are just throwing darts!!!
These guys are just throwing darts!!!
- Thread starter
- #300
Yep, didn't even think of that, could be Anderson.
