Rumour GFC 2017 Player Trading, Drafting, FA, Rumours, and Wish lists - PT2

[Pure_Ownage]

Congratulations Herald-Sun for proposing the worst deal of all time - suggesting that if we get pick 19 for Motlop we package it and 21 up for Richmond's pick 15 and Sam Lloyd.

Yes, that's right - not using one of our picks for Watts/Stringer, not taking both picks to the draft, but getting rid of two decent picks for a slight upgrade in the draft and a 28 year old VFL player.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...k/news-story/29de2091f516c5be55c58473e23697f5

To be fair their idea is right they just havent done the points right as 19 and 21 for 15 is too much. If it was say 21 and 34 for 15/17 and lloyd (gives rich 300 extra points values lloyd around pick 50) it would be worth doing as getting a 1st rounder would put real pressure on bombers re stringer or give us a better position in the draft.

 

[Grimoz]

I'm going to get flamed for this again, but we should be trying to get Jarrad Waite.

Already getting the 30+ injury prone Ablett in a bid to win a flag, I don't see why we aren't offering this bloke a one year deal to play CHF.

Has just re-signed with North so wont happen.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Yeah, let's go and get Paul Salmon too while we're at it

About the response I was expecting.

 

[thegerman]

I get the feeling Port a trying to squeeze us out of any potential trade we might be able to do for Jack Watts.

If Motlop has accepted Port's offer (an offer that supposedly would reap us a pick around 35) and are telling him to hold off announcing it until as late as possible in the free agency period so it gives us little or no manouvering room, it gives them the upperhand as they hold pick 29 and us 33. Wells has pretty stated we aren't going to trade pick 20 straight up for Watts.

IMO we should be pro-active in this and tell Motlop that we will match Port's offer, but won't match Adelaide's or the Suns. Will reap us a better draft pick or force Port's hand into trading for him. Give us greater flexibility to trade for Watts if we get that pick 19 (potentially along the lines of pick 21 + swap of later picks). Or if they trade we would probably get their pick 29 which is what I'd imagine they would want to use for Watts. Or we could just hold onto picks 19 & 21.

Otherwise he goes to the GC and paves the way for Ablett to return home.

Risky play, but the gains out of it far outway any losses IMO. Motlop either stays or goes to Adelaide or GC. Alternative is into the draft were Port have little or no chance of getting him.

A much as I respect Wells and the list management team I'm not sure they have the balls to do it.

This was put up on trade radio in speaking with Wells. If this is the case, Motlop can go you know what.

That's an assh0le move to the club that gave him the opportunity to be in the position he's in now

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Sounds like to me that Essendon will get Stringer for 24 and 29 somehow. Saad for a future 2nd.

Dogs will probably take only 2 picks at draft (list spots) so they will only take 2nd rounders if they are 2018 picks. They will want one high first rounder 10-15 for stringer or they wont deal him to essendon.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I get the feeling Port a trying to squeeze us out of any potential trade we might be able to do for Jack Watts.

If Motlop has accepted Port's offer (an offer that supposedly would reap us a pick around 35) and are telling him to hold off announcing it until as late as possible in the free agency period so it gives us little or no manouvering room, it gives them the upperhand as they hold pick 29 and us 33. Wells has pretty stated we aren't going to trade pick 20 straight up for Watts.

IMO we should be pro-active in this and tell Motlop that we will match Port's offer, but won't match Adelaide's or the Suns. Will reap us a better draft pick or force Port's hand into trading for him. Give us greater flexibility to trade for Watts if we get that pick 19 (potentially along the lines of pick 21 + swap of later picks). Or if they trade we would probably get their pick 29 which is what I'd imagine they would want to use for Watts. Or we could just hold onto picks 19 & 21.

Otherwise he goes to the GC and paves the way for Ablett to return home.

Risky play, but the gains out of it far outway any losses IMO. Motlop either stays or goes to Adelaide or GC. Alternative is into the draft were Port have little or no chance of getting him.

A much as I respect Wells and the list management team I'm not sure they have the balls to do it.

Fair calls.

 

[bigblackboz]

Dogs will probably take only 2 picks at draft (list spots) so they will only take 2nd rounders if they are 2018 picks. They will want one high first rounder 10-15 for stringer or they wont deal him to essendon.

I'm looking at it now, they have 9 and 27. It's going to be hard to improve on that.

I think the best way to get Stringer is going to be a future first for the Bombers.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I said they wouldn't!

No team wants to help out ESADA.

Funny that.

If we could do a deal with richmond to get 15 it basically forces ess (because they then cant get 15) to trade their 2018 1st for stringer or not get him, would love to do that to them.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I'm looking at it now, they have 9 and 27. It's going to be hard to improve on that.

I think the best way to get Stringer is going to be a future first for the Bombers.

They will want a deal whereby they have 2 or 3 picks inside 20 then out of the draft. They will want to upgrade 26 or swap it for a 2018 2nd.

 

[Willo_]

I get the feeling Port a trying to squeeze us out of any potential trade we might be able to do for Jack Watts.

If Motlop has accepted Port's offer (an offer that supposedly would reap us a pick around 35) and are telling him to hold off announcing it until as late as possible in the free agency period so it gives us little or no manouvering room, it gives them the upperhand as they hold pick 29 and us 33. Wells has pretty much stated we aren't going to trade pick 20 straight up for Watts.

IMO we should be pro-active in this and tell Motlop that we will match Port's offer, but won't match Adelaide's or the Suns. Will reap us a better draft pick or force Port's hand into trading for him. Give us greater flexibility to trade for Watts if we get that pick 19 (potentially along the lines of pick 21 + swap of later picks). Or if they trade we would probably get their pick 29 which is what I'd imagine they would want to use for Watts. Or we could just hold onto picks 19 & 21.

Otherwise he goes to the GC and paves the way for Ablett to return home.

Risky play, but the gains out of it far outweigh any losses IMO. Motlop either stays or goes to Adelaide or GC. Alternative is into the draft were Port have little or no chance of getting him.

A much as I respect Wells and the list management team I'm not sure they have the balls to do it.

Even if that was the case... if Mots goes as a FA they have to do it this weekend, and we still have next week to sort Watts

 

[MarkCatsFan]

Anybody else puzzled by the Krozier trade? Other than depth I have no idea what he adds to the Dogs. I'm assuming Freo were shopping him around to get rid of him and somehow nobody in the press knew, or maybe nobody cared.

 

[iameviljez]

About the response I was expecting.

You make a fair point.

Well, on the "no Jarrad Waite" side, I'd put the following:
1) I don't want us to get Ablett anyway, so I'm the wrong person to ask.
2) Missed big chunks of last year through injury
3) Almost nobody is able to keep the wolves of age at the door for a whole year at the age of 35 - expect a significant drop-off on 2017's output.
4) I haven't seen a Geelong side be utterly terrible before and I have no wish to do so. If we keep Buzza in the twos next year, we are truly stuffed when Hawkins goes.
5) I don't think we're that close to a flag.

 

[iameviljez]

Anybody else puzzled by the Krozier trade? Other than depth I have no idea what he adds to the Dogs. I'm assuming Freo were shopping him around to get rid of him and somehow nobody in the press knew, or maybe nobody cared.

One half-forward out, one in.

 

[Rockford]

I don't think he will. I think Connors has overplayed his hand and the way he has spoken negatively about the Bulldogs publicly and Essendon's trade today will have made them pretty angry, unless Essendon can get a 1st rounder from elsewhere and offer it i think he will be stuck at the Bulldogs next year (which is fine with me).

I'm hoping that's the case to be honest... and then coupled with that the the Doggies and Stringer's relationship is untenable. I have a feeling Jake isn't opposed to a move to Geelong, just that the Bombers have offered him significant overs. If Jake's only options are to stay at the Doggies in an environment that doesn't want him there or otherwise move to the Cats then potentially he decides to come to Geelong and the Dogs take our offer. Supposedly we've offered more than the Bombers to date. With Connors' comments about not having "officially" ruled out other clubs I think that's what he's leaving the door open for. Could still happen.

 

[Danforged]

So the TradeShouter reckons Motlop is gonna nominate Adelaide and that the Ablett deal is wrapped up.
Hopefully it gets sorted today that gives us another week to land Watts and try and pinch Stringer.
If we can bag all three thats a Borat great success!

 

[Turbocat]

I get the feeling Port a trying to squeeze us out of any potential trade we might be able to do for Jack Watts.

If Motlop has accepted Port's offer (an offer that supposedly would reap us a pick around 35) and are telling him to hold off announcing it until as late as possible in the free agency period so it gives us little or no manouvering room, it gives them the upperhand as they hold pick 29 and us 33. Wells has pretty much stated we aren't going to trade pick 20 straight up for Watts.

IMO we should be pro-active in this and tell Motlop that we will match Port's offer, but won't match Adelaide's or the Suns. Will reap us a better draft pick or force Port's hand into trading for him. Give us greater flexibility to trade for Watts if we get that pick 19 (potentially along the lines of pick 21 + swap of later picks). Or if they trade we would probably get their pick 29 which is what I'd imagine they would want to use for Watts. Or we could just hold onto picks 19 & 21.

Otherwise he goes to the GC and paves the way for Ablett to return home.

Risky play, but the gains out of it far outweigh any losses IMO. Motlop either stays or goes to Adelaide or GC. Alternative is into the draft were Port have little or no chance of getting him.

A much as I respect Wells and the list management team I'm not sure they have the balls to do it.

Matching does not force a club into trading... they can walk and then we have to be happy to keep the player on that money.

 

[terry_bright]

Even if that was the case... if Mots goes as a FA they have to do it this weekend, and we still have next week to sort Watts

Aware of that. It's not about the time left to do a trade it's about what we can get out of it.

My point is it weakens Port in any further trades (particularly for Watts) and gives us the upper hand potentially by gaining a superior pick for any further trades.
Cant see Melbourne accepting either pick 33 or 36 for Watts. But if he had 19 & 21, I can see one of those potentially used in a trade for Watts or Stringer or whoever for that matter.

It's a game of chicken I propose. We win we get pick 19 or Watts (or someone else) or keep Motlop, if we lose it's pick 36 gone and Port will more than likely get Watts anyway.

 

[Grimoz]

If the rumors of us only offering pick 51 for Watts are true then surely that means that pick 34 is on the table for Ablett, why else wouldn't we offer that for Watts, unless there is someone else we are targeting with that pick?

 

[Sticksman]

If the rumors of us only offering pick 51 for Watts are true then surely that means that pick 34 is on the table for Ablett, why else wouldn't we offer that for Watts, unless there is someone else we are targeting with that pick?

If we only offer pick 51 for Watts we should apologise to him and his manager for wasting their time earlier this week.

 

[darrenmorgan]

If the rumors of us only offering pick 51 for Watts are true then surely that means that pick 34 is on the table for Ablett, why else wouldn't we offer that for Watts, unless there is someone else we are targeting with that pick?

i'd say we've made a commitment to Ablett and are keeping that as insurance to get it done in case we cant find a player to agree, which looks to be the case.

 

[Grimoz]

If we only offer pick 51 for Watts we should apologise to him and his manager for wasting their time earlier this week.

I believe that was the case and we weren't in a position to offer better than that so who knows.

 

[Rockford]

If we only offer pick 51 for Watts we should apologise to him and his manager for wasting their time earlier this week.

Agreed. I'd rather Ablett stay at the GC or retire and that we offer pick 34 for Watts.

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

Tippa

Would love him but he won’t leave maybe someone like Langford or lavearde.

 

[terry_bright]

Matching does not force a club into trading... they can walk and then we have to be happy to keep the player on that money.

I know that. Motlop either stays on the same money that Port offered him, joins Adelaide or the Suns or goes into the draft. Alternatively Port try and trade for him. They don't have to but they won't get him in the draft.

It's a risky move but the positives far outweigh the losses (which would be pick 36). And if by walking you mean he refuses to play for us and we are stuck paying out his contract, I just can't see that happening.

 

[TheYid]

I didn't mean to infer that happens during games, on here there was some casual racism earlier.
In the stands is more that he cops it for his mistakes far far more than any other player in the team.

I'm very disappointed we are losing him.

Fair call. I don't like losing him either, to be honest. But it seems that choice is now his to make.