Gibbs requests trade to Adelaide

[TheLeftFist8]

Will we see the first AFL trade with a clause for a 'protected' 1st round pick whereby if the Crows fail to make the 8 the pick is protected and we handover our 2nd rounder instead?

If we do make the top 8 the deal stands as 2 1sts for Gibbs and 2017 2nd.

Nice insurance policy to mitigate a higher cost.

 

[Paladin]

Yes and no, it depends where Adelaide and Carlton finish next year.

If we have a few injuries and finish 11th and Carlton hypothetically finish 10th

It would then be pick 9 (if we traded our 2nd) vs having 2 picks in the 30s (if we trade our first and receive Carlton's 2nd).

That's the problem with speculative pick trading. At the time you think it's great, but like Collingwood found with the Treloar trade they can also turn around and bite you too.

We aren't Collingwood and its a calculated risk worth taking to secure a class player like Gibbs.

 

[Deaneus!]

 

[Allefgib]

Silvagni is just coming out of this looking like a grand standing, chest beating flog.

What has he actually done?

 

[Mike Smyth]

Haha as you have proven comprehension is beyond you.

Ouch, nice comeback. Your limitations are extensive.

 

[NCHammertime]

Another genius at work.

We could get Gibbs, Cripps and 4 future second rounders but the melters would be all wahh 2 first round picks for Gibbs!11!!

In all likelihood swapping our first for Carlton's second in 2017 is a much better result than 13 + a second rounder but carry on. Cant help stupid i guess.

Technically better, but not 'much better'. Let's be conservative and say in 2017 we finish 6th and Carlton finish 12th (risk involved with these scenarios). We give up pick 13 and receive pick 24. Points difference is 427. Pick 31 (2017 2nd, assuming same scenario) is worth 606.

And if we disregard the points argument, I'd suggest most on here wouldn't swap pick 13 for 24 and 31 either... Particularly as we bagged Port for doing a similar thing today.

 

[TexMachine]

We need a poll . Would u trade Gibbs and Carlton. 2017 second for 2016 first and 2017 first. I vote no.

It's Boom or Bust time for me. I'm sick of not making the last weekend!!! I vote YES!!!

 

[dylan123]

If the swap of first rounder for their second is true, not sure how I feel about that as it's pretty risky given Carlton might impress more than expected or we fail to fire. Add that with compo picks being handed out and it could drop a few more places but I suppose it's better than no Gibbs.

If their second back was true I'd love for us to turn it over for Rockliff, basically giving up two first rounders for Gibbs and Rockliff which would be a win in my eyes. Lose Lyons (for cap reasons) but it gets us into the second round of this draft so we can still top up a little.

That said, I feel we won't be doing anything else outside of Gibbs in return for players coming to us, hasn't really been any talk of anyone else linked with us at all which I think we'd have otherwise heard by now. If Rocky was much of a chance I think there would be a little more noise about it.

 

[F_therest]

That is why its imperative we don't give up first rounders for a 28 year old with baggage. they come along to few and far between for us a club that never bottoms out.

what baggage?

 

[Brentmeister]

Haha as you have proven comprehension is beyond you.

Using father son points as an indicator, unless we seriously drop off next year and Carlton shoot for the top 8, we'd be giving up MORE for Gibbs by adding a second rounder to Pick 13 than if we swapped our 2017 first for their 2017 second. Doesn't matter though, the melties on this board hear "2 first rounders" and the blood starts boiling. Can't help imbeciles like that.

 

[little graham]

As I said, 2 x 1st rounders for Gibbs is insane.

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Yes and no, it depends where Adelaide and Carlton finish next year.

If we have a few injuries and finish around the same position as Carlton (say we finish 11th and Carlton finishes 10th). It would then be pick 9 (if we traded our 2nd) vs having 2 picks in the 30s (if we trade our first and receive Carlton's 2nd). Under those circumstances you would take pick 9 any day of the week.

That's the problem with speculative pick trading. At the time you think it's great, but like Collingwood found with the Treloar trade they can also turn around and bite you too.

Carlton will finish bottom 4 IMO and potentially bottom 2, they will be in full rebuild mode

 

[little graham]

what baggage?

I respectfully decline the invitation to savage your clubs poor culture.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Yes and no, it depends where Adelaide and Carlton finish next year.

If we have a few injuries and finish around the same position as Carlton (say we finish 11th and Carlton finishes 10th). It would then be pick 9 (if we traded our 2nd) vs having 2 picks in the 30s (if we trade our first and receive Carlton's 2nd). Under those circumstances you would take pick 9 any day of the week.

That's the problem with speculative pick trading. At the time you think it's great, but like Collingwood found with the Treloar trade they can also turn around and bite you too.

Carlton will finish bottom 4 IMO and potentially bottom 2, they will be in full rebuild mode

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Yes and no, it depends where Adelaide and Carlton finish next year.

If we have a few injuries and finish around the same position as Carlton (say we finish 11th and Carlton finishes 10th). It would then be pick 9 (if we traded our 2nd) vs having 2 picks in the 30s (if we trade our first and receive Carlton's 2nd). Under those circumstances you would take pick 9 any day of the week.

That's the problem with speculative pick trading. At the time you think it's great, but like Collingwood found with the Treloar trade they can also turn around and bite you too.

Carlton will finish bottom 4 IMO and potentially bottom 2, they will be in full rebuild mode

 

[Malte]

I told you so. This deal was never going to happen without two first rounders on the table.

 

[Pdub]

Port have shown that there is no such thing as a missing piece of the puzzle, one player doesn't fix a team. 2 picks is way too much to gamble when we've been pick starved.

 

[Paladin]

Technically better, but not 'much better'. Let's be conservative and say in 2017 we finish 6th and Carlton finish 12th (risk involved with these scenarios). We give up pick 13 and receive pick 24. Points difference is 427. Pick 31 (2017 2nd, assuming same scenario) is worth 606.

And if we disregard the points argument, I'd suggest most on here wouldn't swap pick 13 for 24 and 31 either... Particularly as we bagged Port for doing a similar thing today.

Could be much better if we finish top 4 and Carlton finish last. Carlton are losing Gibbs and Touhy.

 

[ams4crows]

Cant understand why we aren't going to GC with 13 and Lyons for one of their Top 10 picks and one of their 2nd rounders, then we don't need to bloody put any of next years picks on the table

honestly 13 and Lyons for 10 and 26 is a good deal

10 for Gibbs that's it.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

We aren't Collingwood and its a calculated risk worth taking to secure a class player like Gibbs.

I get what you've been posting on this scenario however it only works if we end up higher and Carlton stays lower.
The issue I have is that our draw will be tough again in 2017 and there are a number of teams trading well that you can see will have better results in 2017 than they had in 2016. Add to that our dream run with injuries in 2016 and that's a mighty risk to take.

We lost too many high draft picks with the Tippett fiasco. If we do this trade as has been suggested and it doesn't pan out in our favour forget competing for a premiership any time soon.

 

[Paladin]

Port has shown that there is no such thing as a missing piece of the puzzle, one player doesn't fix a team. 2 picks is way too much to gamble when we've been pick starved.

Yep we are much better off not trading for good players you convinced me. Premiership here we come!

It wouldn't be 2 picks it would be 13 + a downgrade for us.

 

[little graham]

I told you so. This deal was never going to happen without two first rounders on the table.

Then Carlton have had no interest in trading him, are playing games. Obviously don't buy into 'family reasons'.

 

[Paladin]

I get what you've been posting on this scenario however it only works if we end up higher and Carlton stays lower.
The issue I have is that our draw will be tough again in 2017 and there are a number of teams trading well that you can see will have better results in 2017 than they had in 2016. Add to that our dream run with injuries in 2016 and that's a mighty risk to take.

We lost too many high draft picks with the Tippett fiasco. If we do this trade as has been suggested and it doesn't pan out in our favour forget competing for a premiership any time soon.

We don't trade in an A grade mid and you kiss a flag goodbye anyway. I will be stoked if we go all out to win it. Gibbs is step 1.

 

[ad victoriam]

Big question I have If its pick 13 and 2017 1st round plus a 2017 2nd back, If the Crows believe Jackson is 1st round material its a shit deal. Because if he does then we lose both 2nd round picks. Therefor we have No draft pick until 50 plus in arguable the best all round draft in years. (50 base on us finishing 5th or higher)
If Jackson is 2nd round then it may work for us. If we finish strong and Carlton finish weak. And get to use that 2nd round and maybe both before Jackson called.

So I would be looking at where they think Jackson will be before signing of on both first round picks.

 

[NCHammertime]

Could be much better if we finish top 4 and Carlton finish last. Carlton are losing Gibbs and Touhy.

Therein lies the problem. Do we risk a 'could be' scenario that could also turn really bad if we finish 8th and Carlton finish 10th. We had virtually zero injuries this year.

The 2 firsts scenario is probably ahead on paper but not to the point of the 'stupid' and 'imbecile' comments