Recommitted Andrew Gaff [re-signed]

[bird_man]

1) Not interested in any bullshit like that, I am just not that invested in it.
2) My posting is elite considering what passes for comment on this website (43 thousand likes).

Not interested in any further off topic extrapolations from you either. Jog along.

To be fair, 42,000 of those likes came from North supporters after you told them all Josh Kelly was a done deal.

 

[Snake_Baker]

To be fair, 42,000 of those likes came from North supporters after you told them all Josh Kelly was a done deal.

Yeah, and I was bang on the money at that time before anyone here made a peep.

Lifes spectators get off on throwing shit from the cheap seats as an afterthought, but always remember, they're just petty minded spectators.

 

[perplexed]

It all depends on whether

a) Gaff wants to come to us.
b) Gaff & management expect North to pay a fair price for him
c) West Coast would throw us some late pick points by way of compensation.

The two clubs have good relations, and since North tabled the notion that the 1st pick was on the table for a trade, I can't see North being playing hard ball with them.

Gaff is a good player but he isn't Josh Kelly. We weren't prepared to trade for Dusty, why trade for Gaff?
I don't think we'll give up draft points this year if we don't have to. I'd rather not land him.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Gaff is a good player but he isn't Josh Kelly.

I agree.

We weren't prepared to trade for Dusty, why trade for Gaff?

Tarryn Thomas wasn't in last years draft.

I don't think we'll give up draft points this year if we don't have to. I'd rather not land him.

What do we really lose, if it facilitates getting a good midfielder?

Answer: a pick in the 30's.

So ask yourself this, are we better off using the pick if it assists us to get an established quality player, or on a kid in the pick 30 range?

IMO, there is no choice to be made.

 

[perplexed]

I agree.



Tarryn Thomas wasn't in last years draft.



What do we really lose, if it facilitates getting a good midfielder?

Answer: a pick in the 30's.

So ask yourself this, are we better off using the pick if it assists us to get an established quality player, or on a kid in the pick 30 range?

IMO, there is no choice to be made.

If we trade out our first I suspect we will struggle to scrape together enough points for Thomas and Scott. We will likely have to go into deficit and have little left next year to make a play for Kelly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If we trade out our first I suspect we will struggle to scrape together enough points for Thomas and Scott. We will likely have to go into deficit and have little left next year to make a play for Kelly.

It only becomes an issue if Bailey nominates us and gets a bid in the 1st round.

An unlikely scenario according to the draft experts.

Otherwise, we will have plenty of the necessary points.

 

[Obeanie1]

I didn't forget them at all, they're going after Tom Lynch.

So is Richmond and Hawthorn.

 

[Dez!]

So is Richmond and Hawthorn.

And? I fail to see the point you're trying to make?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Dude what is this obsession you have with him following him around and trying to turn everything into an argument?

I don't follow him around. But I point out in this thread that he has completely reversed himself.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I could address it, but would that be the end of it? Could he then move on with his life? Sadly no, he is 100% committed to derailing a thread simply because he is triggered by the idea of losing a good player.

He'd be back again, then back again, then back again......ad infinitum. Not just me, others as well.

I called his mania early in the piece. 3 months ago. March 15th actually:

I feel for the man's health if this drags out in to October.

It's got nothing to do with me being "triggered". What a lazy deflection this is.

Rather, it's about you completely reversing yourself on the topic at hand while pretending you've been on the money the whole time.

Tell me again how Gaff would only fetch pick 19-21 in a trade.

It all depends on whether

a) Gaff wants to come to us.
b) Gaff & management expect North to pay a fair price for him
c) West Coast would throw us some late pick points by way of compensation.

The two clubs have good relations, and since North tabled the notion that the 1st pick was on the table for a trade, I can't see North being playing hard ball with them.

Look at you pretending you've got it all figured out, having said the complete opposite previously. It's laughable.

Basically, you had NFI but want to pretend otherwise. #SnakeAndBake

2) My posting is elite

Elite bullshit? Funny stuff.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why would North trade for him?
With our cap position we can just offer a heavily front ended contract that WC can't afford to match.

WC could match the overall terms of the contract, which would suffice, no?

Gaff is a good player but he isn't Josh Kelly.

This would be a valid point if someone had claimed Gaff was as good as Kelly. They haven't. So what are you talking about?

We weren't prepared to trade for Dusty, why trade for Gaff?

I suggest you would have traded for Martin if you thought you could get him.

That aside, Gaff won't require as much to acquire via a trade, so I'm not sure your equivalency holds water.

 

[Obeanie1]

It all depends on whether

a) Gaff wants to come to us.
b) Gaff & management expect North to pay a fair price for him
c) West Coast would throw us some late pick points by way of compensation.

The two clubs have good relations, and since North tabled the notion that the 1st pick was on the table for a trade, I can't see North being playing hard ball with them.

Eagles have two 4th rounders and two 2nd rounders. The 4th only net something like 200 points.

If it was just chasing points you could play around with future 3rd and 4th rounders to make up the deficit. Its not like you get charged interest for paying the points next year.

 

[Obeanie1]

If we trade out our first I suspect we will struggle to scrape together enough points for Thomas and Scott. We will likely have to go into deficit and have little left next year to make a play for Kelly.

Any idea what points those players will cost?

25% discount applies.

They wont be bid on with top 10 picks and if you do a deal with the Eagles they wont bid with any of their picks. Same with Brisbane and rhe Suns as the go home to Norths factor would be pretty high.

 

[perplexed]

WC could match the overall terms of the contract, which would suffice, no?

This would be a valid point if someone had claimed Gaff was as good as Kelly. They haven't. So what are you talking about?

I suggest you would have traded for Martin if you thought you could get him.

That aside, Gaff won't require as much to acquire via a trade, so I'm not sure your equivalency holds water.

Yes, West Coast could match and good luck to them if this happens.
Of course nobody is saying Gaff is as good as Kelly. I mentioned Kelly because he is the only player in the last couple of years we've contemplated giving up a high draft pick for. I doubt we would do it for Gaff.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Eagles have two 4th rounders and two 2nd rounders. The 4th only net something like 200 points.

If it was just chasing points you could play around with future 3rd and 4th rounders to make up the deficit. Its not like you get charged interest for paying the points next year.

I don't think we can utilise future picks to make up for trade points this season mate.

Happy to be corrected if that's not the case.

If, for example, Gaff chose North and both clubs were happy to trade some picks with each other, combined with North picking up players attracting bids, then I think it would hypothetically work like this.

North: Gaff & 2019 3rd round pick
WCE: pick 9-12 2018

North are left with (current) 30, 39, 54, 66 = 1375.

Tarryn Thomas nominates North, attracts a bid at pick 8 (1st round) + Bailey Scott nominates North, attracts a bid at pick 22 (2nd round) = 2396 - 20% = 1917 points.

1917 - 1375 = 542 still required

My understanding is that North have to give up our 2019 2nd round pick (502 fixed) and downgrade our 2019 3rd round pick (220-40) to grab Bailey Scott. We can't use the pick from WCE in this years draft.

Whereas if we picked up a couple of hundred points this season, we would upgrade our 2013 3rd round pick in the process.

I reckon the fact that WCE are currently a top rated side would work against that proposal.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, West Coast could match and good luck to them if this happens.

So that answers your question.

Of course nobody is saying Gaff is as good as Kelly. I mentioned Kelly because he is the only player in the last couple of years we've contemplated giving up a high draft pick for. I doubt we would do it for Gaff.

But your first-rounder is likely to be significantly later this year. Maybe not even be top 10.

Or are we operating in a parallel universe where all first-rounders are of equal value?

 

[Dez!]

I don't follow him around. But I point out in this thread that he has completely reversed himself.

You follow him from thread to thread, starting arguments for the sake of being a tool.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If, for example, Gaff chose North and both clubs were happy to trade some picks with each other, combined with North picking up players attracting bids, then I think it would hypothetically work like this.

North: Gaff & 2019 3rd round pick
WCE: pick 9-12 2018

But you said North wouldn't consider trading for Gaff.

You also said WC would only get pick 19-21 in a trade.

Trading's not going to come in to it mate.

If we weren't prepared to dangle pick four for Dustin Martin, then I can't see how in any universe we are going to do it in a superdraft year with Andrew Gaff . It's an hilarious proposition. In the event he was traded you would probably get pick 19-21 as compensation, which will be around the ball park of our 2nd round pick anyway. A trade with us makes absolutely no sense at all. It won't happen unless a club in the 10-15 range gets involved, and then WCE could deal with them.

These are straight-up contradictions. #SnakeAndBake

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You follow him from thread to thread

That is incorrect.

What do you make of his obvious contradictions? See above.

Do you agree with him that his posting is "elite"?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Even though I have him on ignore i can always tell when sj is ruining another thread

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Even though I have him on ignore i can always tell when sj is ruining another thread

Pointing out bullshit = ruining.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Lifes spectators get off on throwing shit from the cheap seats as an afterthought, but always remember, they're just petty minded spectators.

And what are you? Some kind of heavy-hitting prime mover whose posting is elite?

There is a condition known as body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), where sufferers imagine a body part is flawed, warranting drastic measures to correct or conceal it. You seem to have a kind of inverse BDD about your online assertions that leads you to imagine your posting is "elite" when you've clearly got NFI.

 

[Dez!]

That is incorrect.

What do you make of his obvious contradictions? See above.

Do you agree with him that his posting is "elite"?

It's actually correct.

I don't give a flying monkey's anus about his "contradictions" because I'm not insane.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's actually correct.

Prove it with examples.

You'll find my prosecution of his bullshit occurs overwhelmingly in this thread. The suggestion that I'm following him into other threads is not correct.

I don't give a flying monkey's anus about his "contradictions" because I'm not insane.

But you acknowledge them.

 

[perplexed]

Prove it with examples.

But you acknowledge them.

Lol. You seem to actually aspire to being a Gotcha journalist?