The only one I’m semi confident of at this stage is Brisbane.
They have a heap of injuries too and are s**t
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Mega Thread 2018 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread
- Thread starter Carnthedockers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
The only one I’m semi confident of at this stage is Brisbane.
They have a heap of injuries too and are s**t
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course he’s a massive bloody upgrade.
What are you smoking?
We have so many kids coming through the door and so few bonafide stars we’ll have salary cap coming out of our arse.
If he wants to come, get him
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. But in all likelihood as a RFA we would need to actually trade for him; what do you think he would cost us in picks and players? Perhaps our first plus Blakely?
No we wouldn't. It only happened once before because of goodwill between Adelaide & Geelong. If we are convincing McGovern to come here, it is because of an offer that West Coast don't want to get close to matching. Obviously if it comes to trading, we don't consider it.
Well yes, if they don't match then they have 2 options;
- accept the inadequate compensation of a pick which will end up being around 20 if I understand correctly
- negotiate a trade. But I am amused by the suggestion that we would pay a player in excess of a million bucks per year for a long contract, but would baulk at coughing up what would be realistic trade value. What was Lever's trade value and contract deal?
Dangerfield. Wasn’t formally matched but everyone knew it would be
- Apr 21, 2014
- 3,846
- 6,689
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Vancouver Canucks
Carlton are also pretty s**t.
Murphy out, Cripps looked absolutely toasted the other night.
Keep Charlie Curnow quiet and that's basically it.
Quite right, matched bids are not realistic because the Agent would already be informed by the club about that outcome prior to papers being lodged. The more likely outcome is a trade resolution. What do you think his trade value would be?
Why would McGovern go to Freo if the bid could be matched? He'd stay with WCE wouldn't he??
There will be no trading for McGovern.
Has the same feeling as the Trent Croad deal. Then playing Croad forward.
We gave up Hodge, Mitchell if my memory is correct.
Giving up Rankine, Hately, would go down in history as the above guys, McCloud.
Every year there are journalists who try and make out like they have a scoop on a player definitely moving clubs. Cloke, Goddard and plenty of other players were described as certainties of coming to Freo before signing with other clubs. Right now Jeremy would be crazy to leave West Coast, as much as it hurts me to write this.
But we wouldnt be trading a draft pick to get Jeremy if West Coast didn't match the offer. He is a restricted free agent (restricted free agents can only leave to a new club via trade if an offer is matched by the club the player played for the previous season, eg Dangerfield trade), which means the only way J>Mcgovern is a Freo player next year is an absurd offer that West Coast cant match. I cant see him leaving if West Coast did match the offer anyway, so talk of what would be required in trade is pretty much irrelevant. The only problem from West Coast's perspective is that if there is a massive offer from us they have to match our bid if Jeremy agrees to the amount in the deal to keep McGovern. Suddenly their salary cap would be under pressure, where as we could still make a giant offer if as expected quite a few senior players retire at the end of season.
Last edited:
Well we won't trade for McGovern. Surely not.
If we offer say $1million a season over 5 years then we force WCE to match. I have a feeling WCE offer is closer to $800k a season for 5 years and McGovern is wanting that 6th year.
If Eagles match he stays 100%. If they don't match and he decides to leave then we won't need to trade.
Are you saying that if WC said we will match the offer unless you come up with a better deal than the pick 20 compo we would knock it back? Yet we would be happy to make him one of the best paid players in the competition? Turn it up.
I think the reality is that it is all about the agent getting the biggest contract for Gov from WC. And I'm happy for that to happen.
Arcassius
Team Chaplain
Flipping the conversation a bit.
If you had an unlimited budget to fill gaps in our team, and wanted players 20-27 out of the current list of players coming out of contract.
Who would you target? what positions would they fill? and why?
If you had an unlimited budget to fill gaps in our team, and wanted players 20-27 out of the current list of players coming out of contract.
Who would you target? what positions would they fill? and why?
Yeah we'd be frikken crazy not to chase jez . Instantly makes us noticeably better (front or back)
And without a shadow of a doubt we get mitch in a few years too.
We have cap space like few others what's the ***** problem?
And without a shadow of a doubt we get mitch in a few years too.
We have cap space like few others what's the ***** problem?
Just on the idea that we're suddenly to top heavy down back (don't necessarily agree) but I'd actually look at maybe trialling logue forward for a decent stint.
Is almost identical physically to Jarrad Roughead. Obviously without the footy smarts, yet , tho probably never will to that extent but could still end up a very good option up there for us I think.
I remember Ross trialling him up there in his first year and for such a footy novice showed a bit and if remember correctly was matched up on a pretty decent defender at the time.
Is almost identical physically to Jarrad Roughead. Obviously without the footy smarts, yet , tho probably never will to that extent but could still end up a very good option up there for us I think.
I remember Ross trialling him up there in his first year and for such a footy novice showed a bit and if remember correctly was matched up on a pretty decent defender at the time.
Well I would never think your scenario would play out. Either they match and he stays or they don't and he leaves (if he wants to for more money).
I think the force of trade can only result if the offer is matched, so again he wouldn't leave.
Your scenario basically doesn't make sense unless the player truly wanted out... like Dangerfield. As far as I know threatening to match wouldn't work on a player who seems more then happy to remain in WA.
So no need to turn it up.
I stand by the fact there is no way in the world a trade for McGovern is ever going to eventuate EVER between our 2 clubs.
Your reality is exactly what is happening, but if the yearly difference is say $300k... well it would need to be looked at.
De Goey nimble, can kick a bag, good in the air and when the ball hits the ground .
Hogan - very agile key forward, good deep and up the ground.
Rioli - we need a small, either of the Riolis would be great .
Coniglio you always need more mids, and breaks lines with his run .
Those are my top 4, and a key defender is not in my top ten positions .
The Dangerfield trade happened because the money was below what he could realistically expect, not only from Adelaide, but also from any team with an early pick. In addition the player was showing some dignity and respect to the club he was leaving, which I personally would also expect from McGovern (i don't think he is even contemplating coming to be clear. I think it is agent blah blah).
In terms of WCs salary cap I would think they could easily accommodate one of McGovern or Gaff. Perhaps for both of them to stay they would need to accept less than the money available from other clubs, but many players already do that. I think the most likely one of those two to go FA is Gaff who will surely be a target for several Vic suitors, including some with premiership aspirations and others with large cardboard boxes full of cash.
Sure I think it is quite realistic that WC force a trade. If it was the opposite way around for Fyfe I would certainly be hoping the club would do the same.
I get that you typed EVER in capital letters, but I still don't find it a compelling argument. Maybe bold and underline would be required to get the deal done.
I don't think you get it still.
To force a trade WCE would have to match. Those are the rules. So if forced to match why would McGovern leave?
WCE can't threaten to match and force a trade. They MUST match for a trade to happen.
Again the Dangerfield deal is completely different in that Dangerfield wanted to leave. Adelaide would've matched any money but out of respect for all involved they struck a deal.
If there's 1% chance of McGovern coming to Freo there would be zero chance of it coming via a trade.
If he's a 90% chance of coming it would be .05% chance via a trade.
McGovern would have to essentially walk out on the club and say it's not about money when quite clearly all the noise is that it is exactly about that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
