List Mgmt. Gibbs - 2017 trade discussions! (Gibbs swapped for Wigg or 2nd)

[Malifice]

Crows have shown they're quite happy to not get Gibbs, they entertained the idea at his request but were quite fine walking away too.

Didnt Roo say you offered a 1st and a 3rd rounder, then sat back playing games thinking we would cave?

You're characterizing it as a bit of tire kicking and then you walked off. That wasn't quite what happened at all.

I'd argue Carlton need to get picks in more desperately than the Crows need an ok midfielder. Particularly in a market with 3 huge midfield free agents this year all younger and better than Gibbs.

The two are not related. I agree we need more picks in, but we're not really rushed on this 66 game rebuild timeline. Im happy pushing it out a year or two and doing it right rather than trying to do it all in three drafts. I would have traded Gibbs for your 1st least year (that you had on the table) and your 2nd this year (by all reports that wasnt far off what your offer was). I agree we need more picks and more players; but on the other hand we cant afford to lose too many senior players or we become a rabble like Melbourne did when they gutted all seniority in one hit.

As to whether you needed him desperately, I disagree. Again; If I was your list manager last year I would have traded Gibbs for the 1st and future 2nd (on the condition that Carlton pay his salary so I could afford a Free agent the next year), and offloaded McGovern to WCE for their 1st rounder (he's probably leaving this year in any event). I would have brought in a big bodied ready made player like Power Pepper who could contribute straight away.

From there I spend all this year in Martins ear.

The way I see it, you guys are primed for an assault on the flag. If you had have strengthened your midfield this year (where the competition looks pretty weak with the Hawks, Swans, Dogs, Giants and Cats all looking shaky) you would be in with a much better (indeed favorites) for the flag.

As it is at the moment, you have a huge weakness. You could have gone some of the way last year to addressing it. Add Gibbs and a ready made player to your midfield last year, then add one more this year for a concerted assault in 2018.

Now you might go on to win the flag anyway. Beats me. But from where I sit, right at this moment, it looks like a terrible idea not to actually sit down with Carlton and negotiate in good faith. One of the grounds that may have enticed you was us paying Gibbs salary (we can certainly afford to) meaning you could get him without jeopardizing going after a free agent. Instead you tried to play silly buggers expecting us to cave, and find yourself where you are at present. Looking at a very midfield hole sized problem.

 

[Vhaluus]

Didnt Roo say you offered a 1st and a 3rd rounder, then sat back playing games thinking we would cave?

You're characterizing it as a bit of tire kicking and then you walked off. That wasn't quite what happened at all.



The two are not related. I agree we need more picks in, but we're not really rushed on this 66 game rebuild timeline. Im happy pushing it out a year or two and doing it right rather than trying to do it all in three drafts. I would have traded Gibbs for your 1st least year (that you had on the table) and your 2nd this year (by all reports that wasnt far off what your offer was). I agree we need more picks and more players; but on the other hand we cant afford to lose too many senior players or we become a rabble like Melbourne did when they gutted all seniority in one hit.

As to whether you needed him desperately, I disagree. Again; If I was your list manager last year I would have traded Gibbs for the 1st and future 2nd (on the condition that Carlton pay his salary so I could afford a Free agent the next year), and offloaded McGovern to WCE for their 1st rounder (he's probably leaving this year in any event). I would have brought in a big bodied ready made player like Power Pepper who could contribute straight away.

From there I spend all this year in Martins ear.

The way I see it, you guys are primed for an assault on the flag. If you had have strengthened your midfield this year (where the competition looks pretty weak with the Hawks, Swans, Dogs, Giants and Cats all looking shaky) you would be in with a much better (indeed favorites) for the flag.

As it is at the moment, you have a huge weakness. You could have gone some of the way last year to addressing it.

Now you might go on to win the flag anyway. Beats me. But from where I sit, right at this moment, it looks like a terrible idea not to actually sit down with Carlton and negotiate. Instead you tried to play silly buggers expecting us to cave, and find yourself where you are at present. Looking at a very midfield hole sized problem.

You say you're not rushed. But if you don't get picks in for Gibbs, where are they coming from?

Who else have you got with trade value you're willing to lose?

Also have you seen Power Pepper recently? He had a good opening few rounds and then has proceeded to stink it up. He would not have gotten a game in our midfield.

Also who did the playing silly buggers expecting a cave? All reports are SOS said 2 first rounders or heck off. That is an utterly ludicrous demand and you know it.

It is YOUR list management 'genius' who screwed up here, not ours. our list management have proven themselves over the past decade, yours hasn't proven he's capable of doing anything but getting in the fish John West rejects (GWS offcasts)

 

[Malifice]

You say you're not rushed. But if you don't get picks in for Gibbs, where are they coming from?

Who else have you got with trade value you're willing to lose?

No-one. Kruezer may leave this year as an unrestricted F/A and rucks come at a premium (he's having a good year). He may attract some decent F/A Compo. Levi Casboult too (presuming he continues his form and keeps kicking straight, I can see an offer coming in. While his kicking is dodgy, he's arguably the best contest mark in the comp).

Outside of that we have nothing else to trade out. Maybe a surplus key defender. Weve got them in spades.

Of course, we'll finish low this year and next year, and have a decent F/S coming through next year in Ben Silvagni. The backline is 100 percent sorted (Weitering, Marchbank, Docherty, Plowman, Byrne, Mcreadie). Midfield we have Cripps and SPS but need more around 3-4 more A grade mids and a ruck. Forwards there is McKay, Jack SOS, Ben Sos coming next year, C Curnow and J Pickett. Need one more KPF to be safe; too many question marks in that lot (why we asked for McGovern last year in the Gibbs trade negotiations).

We have money in spades so will be looking to grab a Cameron or Shiel as a free agent on a bit 5 year 7 million plus deal in 2 years time.

Im not sure why youre arguing this with me. I agree we should have traded him. My price would have been a 1st last year, and a second this year, with us paying his salary to make up the difference between your offer of a 1st and 3rd and our counter offer of a 1st and 2nd.

 

[Malifice]

Also have you seen Power Pepper recently? He had a good opening few rounds and then has proceeded to stink it up. He would not have gotten a game in our midfield.

Im not saying it with the benefit of hindsight. Im just saying I would have gone for mature bodies in the draft. The priority would not be 5+ years in the future if I'm Adelaide list manager. Its winning a flag now.

If you're happy with your youth, you can afford to throw a few drafts worth of 1st and 2nd round picks at mature or bigger bodies to get you a flag.

If we were close (finished top 4 or thereabouts) I would expect us to do the same, and I wouldnt be complaining at all.

Also who did the playing silly buggers expecting a cave?

You guys did. Roo was very clear on this:

The Crows emerged as one of the biggest losers of the AFL trade period after failing to strike a deal for Gibbs, having gone public with their desire to bring home the contracted midfielder.

Ricciuto... says the Blues were adamant they would only trade 27-year-old Gibbs for two first-round draft picks. "We thought that they might have been playing the game and then come back late and said 'okay... we'll take somewhere in between'.

Carlton football boss Andrew McKay said the Blues would have been willing to move Gibbs for the right price but weren't satisfied with the Crows' offer, which is believed to have included the No.13 draft pick and a future third-round selection. "They weren't close. We were very clear with them. It wasn't a matter of us mucking them around at all."

http://wwos.nine.com.au/2016/10/21/09/25/we-value-gibbs-more-than-crows-carlton#vHcrTbL7GBv7dhFf.99[/QUOTE]

Your blokes thought we were playing games. As it turns out, we weren't, and you were.

It is YOUR list management 'genius' who screwed up here, not ours. our list management have proven themselves over the past decade, yours hasn't proven he's capable of doing anything but getting in the fish John West rejects (GWS offcasts)

Again, you're talking out your proverbial mate. No need to be hostile and condescending. We were just starting to get along. We take batches of GWS players to get the one we do want for cheap. GWS needed to reduce their list size, and get within the salary cap. We got Marchbank and Pickett for a steal, because we agreed to take Palmer off their hands for pick 135 or whatever it was and pay his salary (so he can spud it up in the VFL).

We did the same thing to get Plowman the year before; we took a bunch of spuds with him so we could get a player originally taken at pick 3 for dirt cheap.

Cripps wasnt from GWS. Neither was SPS. Fisher, McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, McReadie, Docherty, Williamson, Polson, Cuningham etc.

 

[Niximus]

What do you define as 'playing games'

You seem to be using this term as a way to just slag off at the AFC without actually anything behind it.

If you guys were (as your quote says), very clear that our offer of 13 + future 3rd wasn't even close, what more is there to discuss? Even if we were prepared to up that to 13 + future 2nd, that is far closer to our original offer than your 2 x first asking price.

We thought you were playing games, because you were asking a ridiculous price and rubbishing a reasonable first offer.

What, in your opinion, would have been the correct response from the AFC, and how should Carlton have responded to that?

 

[Malifice]

You seem to be using this term as a way to just slag off at the AFC without actually anything behind it.

If you follow the thread you'll see Im not slagging the AFC off. I am saying I think you made a mistake with how you handled the trade negotiations with Gibbs last year (you'll notice Carlton are not blameless either - like I keep saying a 1st and a 2nd was enough for mine), and I agree with many of your own posters that the club could have handled the trade period better last year.

If any of this is wrong or disrespectful let me know:

1) My understanding was you went into trade week looking for more midfielders with a view that you thought you were close to a flag.
2) A quality (not elite, but A grade for sure - you don't win BnFs and place top 5 several times in a BnF if you're ordinary) 27 year old (contracted) South Australian midfielder puts his hand up and asked to be traded to you on the eve of trade week giving you a fortnight to negotiate a deal. His current club are rebuilding and hungry for draft picks.
3) His club told you what his value was (and it was overs). You put up a counter offer expecting the other side to be playing games, to cave and meet you in the middle. As it turns out, the other side didn't cave and weren't playing games.
4) By the close of trade week, where you were looking for midfielders, and one was available and wanted to come to you, you actually finished with one less midfielder than what you started with.

If you guys were (as your quote says), very clear that our offer of 13 + future 3rd wasn't even close, what more is there to discuss? What, in your opinion, would have been the correct response from the AFC, and how should Carlton have responded to that?

How about: 'We'll meet you in the middle with a 1st and our 2nd next year - but on the condition you pay the lions share of his salary going forward. You dont have a second rounder next year seeing as you gave it to Geelong, so this gets you back into the second round. Youre rebuilding and this will help your rebuild. Lets sit down at a table and talk this out and work out a mutually beneficial trade. The guy has family problems so we can make this a win/ win/ win.'

From Roo the negotiations on AFCs behalf seemed to instead boil down to 'Give a counter offer, and wait for them to fold.'

I'm not saying Carlton were blameless here mind you. But I was responding to an allegation that we were the ones 'playing games'. We most definitely were not paying any games. Inflating his price? Sure, but he was contracted, so we could afford to. I dont accept that we were playing games though.

 

[Bicks]

If you follow the thread you'll see Im not slagging the AFC off. I am saying I think you made a mistake with how you handled the trade negotiations with Gibbs last year (you'll notice Carlton are not blameless either - like I keep saying a 1st and a 2nd was enough for mine), and I agree with many of your own posters that the club could have handled the trade period better last year.

If any of this is wrong or disrespectful let me know:

1) My understanding was you went into trade week looking for more midfielders with a view that you thought you were close to a flag.
2) A quality (not elite, but A grade for sure - you don't win BnFs and place top 5 several times in a BnF if you're ordinary) 27 year old (contracted) South Australian midfielder puts his hand up and asked to be traded to you on the eve of trade week giving you a fortnight to negotiate a deal. His current club are rebuilding and hungry for draft picks.
3) His club told you what his value was (and it was overs). You put up a counter offer expecting the other side to be playing games, to cave and meet you in the middle. As it turns out, the other side didn't cave and weren't playing games.
4) By the close of trade week, where you were looking for midfielders, and one was available and wanted to come to you, you actually finished with one less midfielder than what you started with.



How about: 'We'll meet you in the middle with a 1st and our 2nd next year - but on the condition you pay the lions share of his salary going forward. You dont have a second rounder next year seeing as you gave it to Geelong, so this gets you back into the second round. Youre rebuilding and this will help your rebuild. Lets sit down at a table and talk this out and work out a mutually beneficial trade. The guy has family problems so we can make this a win/ win/ win.'

From Roo the negotiations on AFCs behalf seemed to instead boil down to 'Give a counter offer, and wait for them to fold.'

I'm not saying Carlton were blameless here mind you. But I was responding to an allegation that we were the ones 'playing games'. We most definitely were not paying any games. Inflating his price? Sure, but he was contracted, so we could afford to. I dont accept that we were playing games though.

Who cares, it's ancient history now!

 

[Malifice]

Who cares, it's ancient history now!

Possibly. There is an argument that refusal to draft midfielders last year (including Gibbs) is now possibly coming back to haunt you. Which is why its relevant.

 

[Bicks]

Possibly. There is an argument that refusal to draft midfielders last year (including Gibbs) is now possibly coming back to haunt you. Which is why its relevant.

Thanks for that Einstein.

And rehashing this again and again will change absolutely nothing in that regard!

 

[Shaz2012]

Possibly. There is an argument that refusal to draft midfielders last year (including Gibbs) is now possibly coming back to haunt you. Which is why its relevant.

Refusing to draft Gibbs is not making any impact. Refusing to draft Rockliff is hurting us badly. There is a massive difference between Gibbs and Rockliff. You are just putting your guy in with the actual guy that makes your point.

By the way, you are awfully keen to get rid of Gibbs. Are you getting commission on this? The fact that you want to get rid of him shows that you see that it was in Carlton's interest to offload him for his market worth, regardless of to which club. Its fair enough to want overs, which we offered by the way, but you would have been better off even taking market rate. Your lost more to your rebuild than we lost to our flag chance because you are 5 seasons away from competing for the flag. We are much further away than just Gibbs from a flag.

Carlton would probably not have taken Gallucci, but you most likely would have taken Berry as that is probably who we should have taken. You might have even taken Hayward, which in hindsight looks like the better option at that range. Putting 100 games into Berry or Hayward in the next 5 years would do much more for Carltons next flag chances than Gibbs will have done for ours.

 

[Niximus]

If you follow the thread you'll see Im not slagging the AFC off. I am saying I think you made a mistake with how you handled the trade negotiations with Gibbs last year (you'll notice Carlton are not blameless either - like I keep saying a 1st and a 2nd was enough for mine), and I agree with many of your own posters that the club could have handled the trade period better last year.

If any of this is wrong or disrespectful let me know:

1) My understanding was you went into trade week looking for more midfielders with a view that you thought you were close to a flag.
2) A quality (not elite, but A grade for sure - you don't win BnFs and place top 5 several times in a BnF if you're ordinary) 27 year old (contracted) South Australian midfielder puts his hand up and asked to be traded to you on the eve of trade week giving you a fortnight to negotiate a deal. His current club are rebuilding and hungry for draft picks.
3) His club told you what his value was (and it was overs). You put up a counter offer expecting the other side to be playing games, to cave and meet you in the middle. As it turns out, the other side didn't cave and weren't playing games.
4) By the close of trade week, where you were looking for midfielders, and one was available and wanted to come to you, you actually finished with one less midfielder than what you started with.

So you weren't ever budging from your asking price that we weren't ever going to pay. Conversation done there.

How about: 'We'll meet you in the middle with a 1st and our 2nd next year - but on the condition you pay the lions share of his salary going forward. You dont have a second rounder next year seeing as you gave it to Geelong, so this gets you back into the second round. Youre rebuilding and this will help your rebuild. Lets sit down at a table and talk this out and work out a mutually beneficial trade. The guy has family problems so we can make this a win/ win/ win.'

From Roo the negotiations on AFCs behalf seemed to instead boil down to 'Give a counter offer, and wait for them to fold.'

I'm not saying Carlton were blameless here mind you. But I was responding to an allegation that we were the ones 'playing games'. We most definitely were not paying any games. Inflating his price? Sure, but he was contracted, so we could afford to. I dont accept that we were playing games though.

Offering our first and future second, plus requiring that you pay a chunk of his salary isn't much more than our first and future third. A bit better future pick, but at the cost of more money. If we're to understand that Carlton had made it perfectly clear that two (mid-late) firsts was their serious asking price and our initial offer wasn't even close then how is a small upgrade on our initial offer any good?

If Carlton would have taken a first + future second + paid some salary then their "Two firsts, we're serious" ploy was indeed a game.

If we offered a first + future third and Carlton had instead said "Hmm, not really there, could you make that third a second there might have been further conversation. "Two firsts or GTFO" doesn't really allow any room for negotiation when you laugh at an offer actually within the ballpark.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Possibly. There is an argument that refusal to draft midfielders last year (including Gibbs) is now possibly coming back to haunt you. Which is why its relevant.

Maybe the club believes it's further away from flag than everybody else and didn't want to sell the farm for a mature ager. If Gibbs we're 2 or 3 years younger it might have been worth paying overs but 2 first rounders for a guy in his late 20's is just insane. I don't blame Carlton for setting the price high but also have no issues with the Crows not doing that deal.

We did draft midfielders last year btw. The year before as well. Frankly we have a good team of recruiters and I'd rather back them in and make sure they have some decent picks to work with than spend it all on a guy whose already at the back end of his career.

 

[Malifice]

So you weren't ever budging from your asking price that we weren't ever going to pay. Conversation done there.

We'll never know because you never negotiated. In the words of Roo, you put forward a counteroffer, then sat back and waited for us to fold.

 

[dogs105]

We'll never know because you never negotiated. In the words of Roo, you put forward a counteroffer, then sat back and waited for us to fold.

From reading the quote you posted, he put forward a counter offer then sat back and waited for Carlton to negotiate.

 

[Roovolution]

We'll never know because you never negotiated. In the words of Roo, you put forward a counteroffer, then sat back and waited for us to fold.

So you were negotiating? I don't think you know what that word means.

 

[Vhaluus]

We'll never know because you never negotiated. In the words of Roo, you put forward a counteroffer, then sat back and waited for us to fold.

That's not how negotiations work, you take turns.

You said 2 firsts
We said 1 first and 1 3rd

You never responded with another offer.

Yet somehow its us playing games?

 

[spenze]

So you were negotiating? I don't think you know what that word means.

Something something, storm out of the room, something something

 

[Malifice]

From reading the quote you posted, he put forward a counter offer then sat back and waited for Carlton to negotiate.

I think the word you're looking for is 'fold'. He waited for us to fold.

And we didnt have to negotiate. In case you didnt notice, we were happy to keep him, and he was contracted to us. The onus was on your club, who were the ones that wanted him, and needed mids I would have thought.

 

[dogs105]

I think the word you're looking for is 'fold'.

And we didnt have to negotiate. In case you didnt notice, we were happy to keep him, and he was contracted to us. The onus was on your club, who were the ones that wanted him, and needed mids I would have thought.

Yeah, that quote doesn't imply folding. Unless you mean moving away from a ridiculous demand of two firsts is "folding" - in which case a deal was never going to happen anway.
Carlton had every right to demand whatever they wanted, and not trade the player if they didn't, but the folding comment is nonsense.

 

[Niximus]

I think the word you're looking for is 'fold'. He waited for us to fold.

And we didnt have to negotiate. In case you didnt notice, we were happy to keep him, and he was contracted to us. The onus was on your club, who were the ones that wanted him, and needed mids I would have thought.

So the correct way for us to 'negotiate' was to keep upping our offer until we reached the 2 firsts that was your initial asking price?

 

[RePete]

You got Pickett for a steal because he is Jared Petrenko Version2. You also have wasted loads of list space getting recycled spuds. But as a Crows supporter I am fussy. Typically we get frustrated if we waste a list spot on an Angas Graham or a Tambling. We know we could be developing a young player with those list spots. Each to their own I guess. Hopefully you can delist most of them this year.

 

[dogs105]

So the correct way for us to 'negotiate' was to keep upping our offer until we reached the 2 firsts that was your initial asking price?

Seems like it. Lol. Negotiating is folding.



Probably best to storm out of the room so you don't start negotiating in a moment of weakness.

 

[Vhaluus]

I think the word you're looking for is 'fold'. He waited for us to fold.

And we didnt have to negotiate. In case you didnt notice, we were happy to keep him, and he was contracted to us. The onus was on your club, who were the ones that wanted him, and needed mids I would have thought.

You were SO happy with not losing him that you're still in here arguing about it over 6 months later.

 

[Malifice]

You got Pickett for a steal because he is Jared Petrenko Version2. You also have wasted loads of list space getting recycled spuds. But as a Crows supporter I am fussy. Typically we get frustrated if we waste a list spot on an Angas Graham or a Tambling. We know we could be developing a young player with those list spots. Each to their own I guess. Hopefully you can delist most of them this year.

I dont really want to discuss this with you because my gut tells me you're just trolling.

Seeing as you brought it up, last year we traded our future second rounder (this years 2nd) and Tuohy for Geelongs 1st rounder this year and Smedts (who I think they wanted to get rid of for a SC dump). That 1st rounder (plus 45 and 58) went to GWS for Marchbank, Pickett and GWS' second rounder. this year

End result is we shifted our second rounder this year down a few spots, and handed over [Tuohy, 45 and 58] for [Marchbank (originally 6), Pickett (originally 4) and Smedts]. We also did a handshake deal to take Palmer off their hands as a salary cap dump for pick 135.

Worth it in every conceivable way. Marchbank for Tuohy makes it worth it (and I rate Tuohy).

In 2015 we got Plowman, pick 8, and (a bunch of spuds) for Geelongs 1st rounder in 2016 (obtained in swap for Lachie Henderson - wound up being pick 17) 28, 77 and 95 (the latter two picks were not used).

In effect it was [Plowman and pick 8 - used on Harry Mckay] for [Lachie Henderson and pick 28].

How are those deals bad for us?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think the word you're looking for is 'fold'. He waited for us to fold.

And we didnt have to negotiate. In case you didnt notice, we were happy to keep him, and he was contracted to us. The onus was on your club, who were the ones that wanted him, and needed mids I would have thought.

Sure the Crows were interested in Gibbs after he approached us, but only if we could arrange a trade at a reasonable price.

Our list management staff have openly said our plan A was to use our draft picks, so we were not desperate for plan B which was Gibbs.

You seem to be under the impression we were desperate to land Gibbs, probably SOS was too, which is why he jacked up to a ridiculous asking value... & now Carlton & supporters such as yourselves are pissed off that you didn't get an unbelievable deal for Gibbs.

Hopefully now you realise the Crows are not desperate traders & you need to negotiate reasonably if you want a trade to be done.