Rumour The Thread formerly known as the rumour file, now with zero rumours

[etsal1]

Tbh, even with 28 I'd do it. Essentially 3 kids in the top 21 (one with 2 years under his belt), for 7 (gun) and 28 (speculative). Although it ain't ideal, I see it as fair.

I reckon we could push to get 28 taken out. If GWS have added in 21 ( it was originally only 19 + KJ), they might prefer my deal over just 20 from STK or risk going the PSD.

 

[SE_Blue]

I'm not sold on Jaksch.

And I'm not particularly sold on Jones either, but I'd part with a third rounder for Jones a lot more readily than I would entertain parting with pick 7 for Jaksch.

 

[F_therest]

The Age said KJ 19 & 21 for 7 & 28 today. Take out 28 and I'd do it.

Is there something other than 28 we can add?

Imagine the Dogs would have got wind of that and hence the Cooney "bonus" for #28.

I don't want us losing that pick. Even though the deal seems balanced, the #28 may be hard to let go.

If what they are saying about this draft is in fact true (regarding top 5 standouts), then i agree HARKER the deal is actually quite fair.

I would be ok with this deal. Not the unders we were originally hoping (just second round pick) but fair.
Ideally, we should be getting 3 quality kids from this deal...including a need in a KPF who has 2 years development.

Would GWS even want pick 28 though? Might mean nothing to them unless they can on trade it for a more experienced player

 

[BluesRule]

We've been throwing that around for days already
Seems the most logical outcome right now.

GWS would be happy to go into the draft with #4 & #7 in hand, having already secured Steele with their second.
Hawthorn gets O'Rourke and we get Jaksch and 2 * ~#20 odd picks.......Easy.

Why is it OK for O'Rouke to drop 17 places but KJ gets an upgrade to 7? How does that work when both cannot get a game. KJ is worth a second round pick. GWS need to deal with what is on the table. He wants to go to Carlton. Essendon will not offer value and he would baulk at going there like everyone else. The Saints pick is only a few places better than ours and it would send a shit message to the other GWS boys to see the club push someone where they do not want to go (treat them like cattle) for such a small gain.

KJ does not have the upside of our potential pick #7 as he has not shown it in the AFL. He has shown as much as our tall project players have (think of Watson first two years). We hope we can improve him but it is far from certain.

I would prefer we hold pick #7 and actually get a tall we can build around. We have compromised too much on finding a quality tall since Fev left (i.e.. ignoring Talia, Darling, Sam Reid, etc. who were all gettable because we wanted "more valuable" midfield talent). Plus compromised by taking tall prospects (Mitchell, McInnes, Giles, Watson, etc.) with later picks. We must hold #7 and get a quality tall this year (unless the best midfielders slide)!

Offer GWS #28 and maybe an upgrade on 3rd round pick in exchange for GWS later round picks they will not use, but please no more crap that he is worth #14 as he was bought in a compromised draft and has not improved!

 

[BluesRule]

The way I see it, It's going to take a little more than 19 to get O'Rourke from GWS (former pick 2 who is homesick and a little injury prone), and Pick 7 is worth more than Jaksch, 19 and 21.

What player could Hawthorn send our way in a three way trade? (Hallahan is probably the most obvious suggestion)

Hawthorn: O'Rourke + 28 for Hallahan + 19
GWS: Pick 7 for Jaksch + O'Rourke
Carlton: Jaksch, Hallahan, 19 + 21 for Pick 7 + 28

Thats too much in our favour IMO, but not really sure how to balance it out.
Other options could include adding Robinson into the trade - could be Woodward instead of Hallahan.

We would be better off just giving GWS #7 for a good midfielder and KJ. But would prefer pick #7!

 

[RattAttack]

If we could only conjure up another deal to somehow get ourselves another 2nd round pick like we did with Hampson last season.

Garlett, Robbo or Lucas dont seem enough. Not sure if we have any other realistic options. Warnock maybe?

Would Bell or Watson be offered up? If we included Jaksch and Jones someone like Watson may struggle for game time.

 

[etsal1]

Only GWS rated JOR as top 2. They took a risk and it backfired badly.

 

[F_therest]

I reckon we could push to get 28 taken out. If GWS have added in 21 ( it was originally only 19 + KJ), they might prefer my deal over just 20 from STK or risk going the PSD.

As MS3 said, ideally GWS would like to package Jaksch up with pick 4 for pick 1.

Although Saints publicly said no to involving Jaksch in a deal for pick 1, he said internally they are considering it...and you would considering you could get Jaksch and Wright...possibly setting you up in the KPF positions for 10 years.

But if Saints say no, youd think they'd prefer to use Jaksch to get our pick 7, even if they have to give up pick 19 and 21 rather than just get pick 20.

 

[SE_Blue]

Fascinates me how things changed.

This time last year we made a trade for an uncontracted pick #12 who wanted to come to Carlton and had other teams interested and had played 13 games. That cost us pick 33.

Now we want to do the same, except this time the pick #12 has played 7 games and pick 28 isn't good enough.

 

[HARKER]

If what they are saying about this draft is in fact true (regarding top 5 standouts), then i agree HARKER the deal is actually quite fair.

I would be ok with this deal. Not the unders we were originally hoping (just second round pick) but fair.
Ideally, we should be getting 3 quality kids from this deal...including a need in a KPF who has 2 years development.

Would GWS even want pick 28 though? Might mean nothing to them unless they can on trade it for a more experienced player

Remember that we here look at numbers whereas the recruiters look at players.

If Rogers and co know they can get 2 quality players and ones they may have selected earlier anyway at #19 & #21 and possibly feeling/knowing that those players will not be there at #28, then it's a pretty easy decision.

I know it's not that easy but for the sake of the argument, if we feel strong that we could pick up Marchbank and Garlett (Or any 2 players we genuinely think will be quality) @ #19 & #21, then handing over the #7 becomes somewhat easier...............and we get our primary target in Jaksch also.

 

[HARKER]

Fascinates me how things changed.

This time last year we made a trade for an uncontracted pick #12 who wanted to come to Carlton and had other teams interested and had played 13 games. That cost us pick 33.

Now we want to do the same, except this time the pick #12 has played 7 games and pick 28 isn't good enough.

SE_Blue We have to remember that numbers are just that. It's the players you have to look at.

How do we know that we didn't rate Jaksch at #6 in the 2012 draft and O'Rourke at #20? Forget what others paid........It's what we think they're worth.

 

[Sublime]

Fascinates me how things changed.

This time last year we made a trade for an uncontracted pick #12 who wanted to come to Carlton and had other teams interested and had played 13 games. That cost us pick 33.

Now we want to do the same, except this time the pick #12 has played 7 games and pick 28 isn't good enough.

We're dealing with a different team this time around and Jaksch is hardly stamping his foot saying he needs to come to us like Docherty was. I see your point but slightly different situation.

 

[SE_Blue]

SE_Blue We have to remember that numbers are just that. It's the players you have to look at.

How do we know that we didn't rate Jaksch at #6 in the 2012 draft and O'Rourke at #20? Forget what others paid........It's what we think they're worth.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know a single thing about the upcoming draft and the players in it, other than that there are meant to be some quality talls up around when we have our pick.

And then looking at past drafts, I'd rather have the likes of Wines and Aish playing at the club than Grundy and Broomhead.

Ultimately though, my point is that I'm not sold that Jaksch will be a better player than the tall we could get at 7.

 

[Kramer1]

Not sure why people are resigned to GWS giving up JOR for just 19.

 

[HARKER]

Ultimately though, my point is that I'm not sold that Jaksch will be a better player than the tall we could get at 7.

Which one?

Whether we picked up Durdin, Marchbank or Goddard, chances are we wouldn't see much of them for the next year at least.

 

[SE_Blue]

Which one?

Whether we picked up Durdin, Marchbank or Goddard, chances are we wouldn't see much of them for the next year at least.

Does that matter if we're in a rebuilding phase though?

 

[HARKER]

Does that matter if we're in a rebuilding phase though?

A 20y.o. Jaksch + another 2 * 18y.o. is hardly backing away from any re-building. Is it?

That's potentially 3 for 1

 

[SE_Blue]

A 20y.o. Jaksch + another 2 * 18y.o. is hardly backing away from any re-building. Is it?

That's potentially 3 for 1

But that's if we get that deal.

Wasn't the latest 7 for Jaksch + 20?

All of a sudden it's Jaksch + an 18 year old. How deep does the draft go this year?

 

[HARKER]

But that's if we get that deal.

Wasn't the latest 7 for Jaksch + 20?

All of a sudden it's Jaksch + an 18 year old. How deep does the draft go this year?

We're talking about Jaksch, #19 & #21 for our pick #7............ we may though have to hand back #28.

All speculation for now but this just seems to be .................. right. Who knows? Let's see what happens.

 

[Red Bull]

The way I see it, It's going to take a little more than 19 to get O'Rourke from GWS (former pick 2 who is homesick and a little injury prone), and Pick 7 is worth more than Jaksch, 19 and 21.

What player could Hawthorn send our way in a three way trade? (Hallahan is probably the most obvious suggestion)

Hawthorn: O'Rourke + 28 for Hallahan + 19
GWS: Pick 7 for Jaksch + O'Rourke
Carlton: Jaksch, Hallahan, 19 + 21 for Pick 7 + 28

Thats too much in our favour IMO, but not really sure how to balance it out.
Other options could include adding Robinson into the trade - could be Woodward instead of Hallahan.

Hawthorn happy with Hallahan and Hallahan happy with Hawthorn ... He's staying put .

 

[Blue Dimension]

Should definitely not use pick 7 in the trade for Jaksch. We need to come out of this with our first round pick in tact. That's the only way we truly benefit out of it.

Pick 7 could net us a Wines, Selwood, Ryder, etc if we draft well enough.

 

[SE_Blue]

We're talking about Jaksch, #19 & #21 for our pick #7............ we may though have to hand back #28.

All speculation for now but this just seems to be .................. right. Who knows? Let's see what happens.

Then I guess it all hinges on how much faith we put in the recruiters.

If you can pick up the likes of Dunstan around #20 like the Saints did then not a bad result.

But you may also be missing out on an Aish/Wines.

 

[Blue Dimension]

Hawthorn happy with Hallahan and Hallahan happy with Hawthorn ... He's staying put .

Yep, knocked back a long-ish deal with Gold Coast because he wanted to prove he could make it at Hawthorn. Aint going anywhere.

 

[HARKER]

Then I guess it all hinges on how much faith we put in the recruiters.

If you can pick up the likes of Dunstan around #20 like the Saints did then not a bad result.

But you may also be missing out on an Aish/Wines.

No doubt. That's what they have to work out and our lives are in their hands................Do you hear us Rogers and co?

 

[SE_Blue]

We're talking about Jaksch, #19 & #21 for our pick #7............ we may though have to hand back #28.

All speculation for now but this just seems to be .................. right. Who knows? Let's see what happens.

And don't misunderstand me, I hope I'm wrong. If that's the deal we end up with, I sincerely hope the two kids we get at #19 and #21 are good players and that Jaksch is as good as everyone says he is and I'm forced to eat humble pie for the rest of his career like I have been with Rowe all season.