Past #24: Levi Greenwood - officially traded to Collingwood FC for pick 25 (2014) - retires rd16 2021 due to concussion symptoms - go well Pig

Remove this Banner Ad

Doesn't look great for the footy department if the club is willing to pay money for two serviceable free agents but doesnt leave enough money in the bank for one of our guns. Levi will stay surely
 
Mixed Results said:
Bloke on the Collingwood board saying they've put their offer to Greenwood and expect to hear back tomorrow.

Reading all the half truths and probably lies and vague hints here and there, this is how I assess the situation. Fairly confident this is mostly accurate.

- Greenwood if he had it his way would prefer to play for North.
- Pickering is a knob.
- Apart from Collingwood, other clubs (Dogs, Tiges) may have casual interest but are all about a 0.1% chance, none are prepared to make a tempting enough offer.
- After our best and fairest, us and Collingwood have put forward an offer. Levi in that time has also toured the Westpac Centre.
- There offer is better, yet as others have stated he won't be the first North player to knock back extra coin to stay in the blue and white.
- He'll decide tomorrow whether he wants to stay loyal or earn an extra ~100 grand to help out Bucks with his rebuild.

Worst part of it being Collingwood is that we will be absolutely bent over during trade negotiations, best we could possibly hope for is an upgrade from our first pick to Brisbane's first pick, however they'll probably be insisting we take 30 and Lumumba:thumbsdown:.
Click to expand...

Well into the PSD with him if we cant be compensated fairly.

We're talking a player who finished 2-3 in our B&F in a year we finish 4th. Meanwhile Collingwood's Beams is worth pick 4 plus extras? At the very least we should get a pick around 8-12. Picks in these ranges are no sure fire certainties and take time to develop. Greenwood is in his prime right now.

We've looked after Levi, paid him well and made a fair offer. This isnt FA where you find the highest bidder and then automatically get there, fair compensation also must be paid.

Id happily give up a speculative 2nd round pick to make a statement that we wont be screwed with.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tas said:
Collingwood
Essendon
Port Adelaide
Any club employing Pelchen.

These are pretty horrific clubs to trade with.
Click to expand...

Why?

Can't speak for other clubs that I don't follow, but in terms of actually getting deals done, Collingwood are regularly one of the more active teams during the trade period. Assumedly other clubs involved are "happy" with the deals they make with Collingwood too, otherwise they'd assumedly not be agreeing to them.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Why?

Can't speak for other clubs that I don't follow, but in terms of actually getting deals done, Collingwood are regularly one of the more active teams during the trade period. Assumedly other clubs involved are "happy" with the deals they make with Collingwood too, otherwise they'd assumedly not be agreeing to them.
Click to expand...

Lets just say Collingwood over-rate their players, it makes coming out with win-win deals very hard. If you look at recent drafting, Collingwood has attempted and has largely screwed everyone over.

Wellingham can't get a kick, first round pick.
Dawes can't mark, first round pick.
Offer pick 67 for Karnezis and refused to budge, we weren't even that interested in him but offered Brisbane 47 late in trade week because 67 for Karnezis was just pure rubbish.
Beams wants to go, pick 4 + rockliff, Hanley, etc, which is absurd because you should get someone as good as Beams with pick 4 alone.
 
Tas said:
Lets just say Collingwood over-rate their players, it makes coming out with win-win deals very hard. If you look at recent drafting, Collingwood has attempted and has largely screwed everyone over.

Wellingham can't get a kick, first round pick.
Dawes can't mark, first round pick.
Offer pick 67 for Karnezis and refused to budge, we weren't even that interested in him but offered Brisbane 47 late in trade week because 67 for Karnezis was just pure rubbish.
Beams wants to go, pick 4 + rockliff, Hanley, etc, which is absurd because you should get someone as good as Beams with pick 4 alone.
Click to expand...

Every club tries to get as much as they can for as little as they can. You'd be stupid not to. Negotiation requires give and take, and player's wishes and preferred destination are also factored in too. I think the fact that Collingwood do actually get deals done lends itself to them at least being willing and able negotiators. Public perception of value can often be very different to value in the industry too. Personally, I think the general public overvalue draft picks in discussions about AFL trades, but I don't know how the clubs feel.

As I said, if the other clubs weren't in some way happy with the deals that eventuated, they could have easily just not agreed to them. Clubs would be stupid to agree to something you didn't think benefited your club at the time. There's nothing forcing them to give up a particular draft pick or player in exchange for a draft pick or player from Collingwood.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Every club tries to get as much as they can for as little as they can. You'd be stupid not to. Negotiation requires give and take, and player's wishes and preferred destination are also factored in too. I think the fact that Collingwood do actually get deals done lends itself to them at least being willing and able negotiators. Public perception of value can often be very different to value in the industry too. Personally, I think the general public overvalue draft picks in discussions about AFL trades, but I don't know how the clubs feel.

As I said, if the other clubs weren't in some way happy with the deals that eventuated, they could have easily just not agreed to them. Clubs would be stupid to agree to something you didn't think benefited your club at the time. There's nothing forcing them to give up a particular draft pick or player in exchange for a draft pick or player from Collingwood.
Click to expand...

Agreed in general draft picks are overvalued, but that can depend where your at. The strike rate of draft picks isnt as good as we'd like to think outside the top 7 id say, they really get hit and miss after that. Then theres all the cost of time and dollars into development. A top team losing a key player while contending a draft pick isnt that great, as the kid requires time before they can contribute. Where as say StKilda, they're happy to take picks because they're in a total rebuild and dont want players inflating their ladder position too much (deflating picks)

For North imo we lose with getting anything less than a mid to late first rounder for Greenwood. While a kid cant contribute its enough for us to on trade together with a second rounder or fringe player to find a player who can and fits the age profile ect. A second rounder is near useless for where we're at imo.
 
R00StaR said:
For North imo we lose with getting anything less than a mid to late first rounder for Greenwood. While a kid cant contribute its enough for us to on trade together with a second rounder or fringe player to find a player who can and fits the age profile ect. A second rounder is near useless for where we're at imo.
Click to expand...

Second rounder still gets you a pick in the top 40, who is a reasonable chance of being a decent player. Greenwood himself was a second rounder once upon a time.

TBH, I'd value him in the 15-25 draft pick range, which is late first/early second. Our second rounder is at #28 (I think), and given were Collingwood are at, I'd prefer them to invest that in a younger player (Nakia Cockatoo, please!), so unless we get a late-teen/early 20s pick coming in from somewhere else (that we're then willing to trade on), I'm not sure a deal would happen. That's just my opinion though, I'm not a decision maker.
 
Last edited:
Damon_3388 said:
Second rounder still gets you a pick in the top 40, who is a reasonable chance of being a decent player. Greenwood himself was a first rounder once upon a time.
Click to expand...

Not sure when #32 was a first rounder, to be honest.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Meant to say second rounder. Eg. you can still get a good player with a second round pick.
Click to expand...
The problem is, irrespective of when Greenwood was picked in the draft 6 years ago, he just finished second in our B&F, a point below the winner. This says his value to our team right now is pretty high, and if we are losing him, we need to be adequately compensated. He's not going home for compassion reasons, or anything like that. If he chooses to chase money, that's his right but we aren't obliged to accommodate him morally, unless the deal is a good one to us. Which IMO is pick 10-20.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TennisPlayerAndy said:
What you can potentially get with a pick is irellevant when discussing what a player is worth.
Click to expand...

Well what is a draft pick really worth, beyond the potential quality of the player that can be drafted with it?

Event Horizon said:
The problem is, irrespective of when Greenwood was picked in the draft 6 years ago, he just finished second in our B&F, a point below the winner. This says his value to our team right now is pretty high, and if we are losing him, we need to be adequately compensated. He's not going home for compassion reasons, or anything like that. If he chooses to chase money, that's his right but we aren't obliged to accommodate him morally, unless the deal is a good one to us. Which IMO is pick 10-20.
Click to expand...

I'm not really disagreeing with that (I think he's more 15-25 as I've said, but the difference isn't really that much). As I've said though, Collingwood don't have a pick in that range at the moment, so unless they acquire one they're then willing to trade on right away, there might not end up being a deal.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Well what is the pick really worth, beyond the potential quality of the player that can be drafted with it?
Click to expand...

Levi is worth a first round pick coming off the year he has had.

You guys gave up pick 14 for Cameron Wood FFS.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Every club tries to get as much as they can for as little as they can. You'd be stupid not to. Negotiation requires give and take, and player's wishes and preferred destination are also factored in too. I think the fact that Collingwood do actually get deals done lends itself to them at least being willing and able negotiators. Public perception of value can often be very different to value in the industry too. Personally, I think the general public overvalue draft picks in discussions about AFL trades, but I don't know how the clubs feel.

As I said, if the other clubs weren't in some way happy with the deals that eventuated, they could have easily just not agreed to them. Clubs would be stupid to agree to something you didn't think benefited your club at the time. There's nothing forcing them to give up a particular draft pick or player in exchange for a draft pick or player from Collingwood.
Click to expand...

I think good clubs to trade with look for win-win deals, especially in hindsight, too many win-lose deals and clubs don't want to deal with you any longer. Trading is about improving your list with sideways trades.

Beams wants to go to Brisbane, I personally call BS on his foot in the grave dad given he is refusing to go to GC (which is closer to his dad), but whatever, he no longer wants to be at Collingwood so I guess the reason doesn't really matter.

If I was in Collingwood's shoes I would tell them it is close to impossible to get decent compensation with a one-on-one trade because realistically they would have to cough up Rockliff for Beams to get a fair trade and they are unlikely going to want to part with him, but I would be fairly honest about what my realistic needs are.

In my opinion, Collingwood need a list rejuvenation given the numbers of players leaving, rather than stutter for a few more years just say * it, lets fix the problems and inject as much talent as possible over the next couple of years.

I'd tell Brisbane that pick 4 and 24 and a fringe player (someone that someone else wants) from Brisbane would be sufficient, but we don't want pick 4, we want 3 first round picks so we are going to have to drag other parties into this deal and not wait until the last day before we start this dance. Find someone who desperately wants pick 4, maybe it is a Richmond who is eyeing off someone really good early in the draft, perhaps they will throw in 11 and Vickery, Fremantle perhaps coughs up 12 for Vickery and the fringe player plus 24 go to the other club for a late first round pick (effectively using the player to upgrade the pick a bit).

Fremantle would get a big KPF that can take contested marks that is mature and ready to go for pick 12. Richmond upgrade pick 11 to 4 at the cost of Vickery (who is pushed out by Griffin now and will likely devalue rapidly if left in the VFL). Third club gets Brisbane's fringe player for the price of an upgrade. Collingwood would get pick 11, 12 and a later first round pick. Those 3 picks would be invaluable given you are likely going to burn 8 on Moore.

So my strategy on Monday would be to find a club who wants a Brisbane fringe player who is prepared to downgrade their late first round pick to 24 and find a club who desperately wants an early crack at some talent who would put in their first round pick and enough currency to generate a second.

I'm not suggesting do this trade, I am saying something like this where you get ticks from each party that will be really happy with the outcome and result in win-win deals across the board would elevate Collingwood from a club teams just do not like to trade with into one clubs don't mind dealing with again in the future.

Hawks under Pelchen found doing it the hard way and stalling trades until the last day of trade week made a lot of enemies reluctant to talk to them come future trade weeks, when they gave him the arse and started to deal fairly with other clubs they found clubs were a lot more willing to trade with them, very important when you eventually become a side that wants to top up down the track.
 
Tas said:
Offer pick 67 for Karnezis and refused to budge, we weren't even that interested in him but offered Brisbane 47 late in trade week because 67 for Karnezis was just pure rubbish.
Click to expand...

Forgot about this. May I just say thank you to Patrick Karnezis for not taking North seriously and Collingwood for beating us for the trade.

#47 stayed in play and brought Ben Brown to Arden Street. Cheers guys.
 
Tas said:
Hawks under Pelchen found doing it the hard way and stalling trades until the last day of trade week made a lot of enemies reluctant to talk to them come future trade weeks, when they gave him the arse and started to deal fairly with other clubs they found clubs were a lot more willing to trade with them, very important when you eventually become a side that wants to top up down the track.
Click to expand...

Absolutely factually incorrect. Pure Tas TM
 
Tas said:
I think good clubs to trade with look for win-win deals, especially in hindsight, too many win-lose deals and clubs don't want to deal with you any longer. Trading is about improving your list with sideways trades.

Beams wants to go to Brisbane, I personally call BS on his foot in the grave dad given he is refusing to go to GC (which is closer to his dad), but whatever, he no longer wants to be at Collingwood so I guess the reason doesn't really matter.

If I was in Collingwood's shoes I would tell them it is close to impossible to get decent compensation with a one-on-one trade because realistically they would have to cough up Rockliff for Beams to get a fair trade and they are unlikely going to want to part with him, but I would be fairly honest about what my realistic needs are.

In my opinion, Collingwood need a list rejuvenation given the numbers of players leaving, rather than stutter for a few more years just say **** it, lets fix the problems and inject as much talent as possible over the next couple of years.

I'd tell Brisbane that pick 4 and 24 and a fringe player (someone that someone else wants) from Brisbane would be sufficient, but we don't want pick 4, we want 3 first round picks so we are going to have to drag other parties into this deal and not wait until the last day before we start this dance. Find someone who desperately wants pick 4, maybe it is a Richmond who is eyeing off someone really good early in the draft, perhaps they will throw in 11 and Vickery, Fremantle perhaps coughs up 12 for Vickery and the fringe player plus 24 go to the other club for a late first round pick (effectively using the player to upgrade the pick a bit).

Fremantle would get a big KPF that can take contested marks that is mature and ready to go for pick 12. Richmond upgrade pick 11 to 4 at the cost of Vickery (who is pushed out by Griffin now and will likely devalue rapidly if left in the VFL). Third club gets Brisbane's fringe player for the price of an upgrade. Collingwood would get pick 11, 12 and a later first round pick. Those 3 picks would be invaluable given you are likely going to burn 8 on Moore.

So my strategy on Monday would be to find a club who wants a Brisbane fringe player who is prepared to downgrade their late first round pick to 24 and find a club who desperately wants an early crack at some talent who would put in their first round pick and enough currency to generate a second.

I'm not suggesting do this trade, I am saying something like this where you get ticks from each party that will be really happy with the outcome and result in win-win deals across the board would elevate Collingwood from a club teams just do not like to trade with into one clubs don't mind dealing with again in the future.

Hawks under Pelchen found doing it the hard way and stalling trades until the last day of trade week made a lot of enemies reluctant to talk to them come future trade weeks, when they gave him the arse and started to deal fairly with other clubs they found clubs were a lot more willing to trade with them, very important when you eventually become a side that wants to top up down the track.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Pies list management team!
Couldn't agree more because right now any draftee between 10 - 20 doesn't look to much worse than who we are likely to get at pick. We would likely go for a midfielder IMO at 5 which could be a bit of a reach for a Laverade/Weller type. Why not change that pick 5 into 2/3 in the teens
 
R00StaR said:
Id happily give up a speculative 2nd round pick to make a statement that we wont be screwed with.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He might change his mind when he looks at the risk of going into the draft, although he'd put a figure on his head and probably get to Collingwood that way.

Early 20s pick at absolute worst.
 
RooTed said:
The part about Pickering being a knob is spot on. We are all assuming collingwood's offer has more coin than ours but it may not be $100K. What irks me is that Levi may not be getting independent advice. Pickering KNOWS that North is a better option for his client but has a massive conflict of interest because of the higher commission with the Collingwood offer. He may be pretending to give Levi independent advice.
Click to expand...

The inherent conflict of being a player manager.
 
POKsPies252 said:
Welcome to the Pies list management team!
Couldn't agree more because right now any draftee between 10 - 20 doesn't look to much worse than who we are likely to get at pick. We would likely go for a midfielder IMO at 5 which could be a bit of a reach for a Laverade/Weller type. Why not change that pick 5 into 2/3 in the teens
Click to expand...

Given we traded one draft pick for two draft picks a couple of years ago, I could see it happening again.

EDIT: Pies are more reasonable than the likes of Essendon.
 
I think he will stay.
But if he is being forced or looking to move, there won't be much bargaining power.
Your salary cap is tight and that will create issues in a trade sense.
It really depends on what other clubs are offering him.
If he moves, North aren't in a strong position trading wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giantroo
Past #15: Daniel Howe - #31 in '14 ND to HFC - delisted end '22 - #33 in '23 RD to NM -retires from AFL & NM end '23 - 107 AFL games / 11 NM games
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
399
Views
28K
r00boy96
r00boy96

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top