Recommitted Andrew Gaff [re-signed]

[THE_GUN]

Fritsch + pick 31 + 44 for Gaff + pick 64 + pick 70.

So in effect two second rounders plus one late round upgrade.

Would rather allow Gaff to go as a FA.

Dees agree to trade Fritsch for our pick 34.

Dees land Gaff lose Fritsch. Dees retain picks 31 + 34 + 44 for the draft.

Expect Dees fans to be unhappy with losing Fritsch which is fair because to gain quality you have to lose something of value.

Rather than do this why wouldnt West Coast just take the Compo pick and trade pick #44 for Fritsch
In: Pick #17+Fritsch
Out: #44

 

[Obeanie1]

Rather than do this why wouldnt West Coast just take the Compo pick and trade pick #44 for Fritsch
In: Pick #17+Fritsch
Out: #44

We dont have 44 Dees do.

The other option is Eagles take the compo pick and then trade Eagles 34ish for Fritsch. Eagles dont have a 3rd rounder just two 4th rounders.

 

[THE_GUN]

We dont have 44 Dees do.

The other option is Eagles take the compo pick and then trade Eagles 34ish for Fritsch. Eagles dont have a 3rd rounder just two 4th rounders.

Was just going by the other post above , But similar situation

 

[Dez!]

Can't see us giving up Fritsch and I can't see Fritsch wanting to move to WA.

 

[Candiru]

Can't see us giving up Fritsch and I can't see Fritsch wanting to move to WA.

Can you imagine any trade for Gaff?

 

[Dez!]

Can you imagine any trade for Gaff?

Honestly no, I'm one of the people that doesn't see Gaff coming to Melbourne.

 

[Candiru]

Honestly no, I'm one of the people that doesn't see Gaff coming to Melbourne.

But you could do a better deal with picks that would be an improvement on the FA compensation.

 

[Scotland]

Fritsch + pick 31 + 44 for Gaff + pick 64 + pick 70.

Why would we do that?

Picks in the 30s and 40s really aren't that difficult to come by in trade week.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Won't happen unless you are offering him close to that deal.

Players and managers know what is being offered by each club. If WC were to match a deal just to get a trade out of it, the player manager, the AFLPA and the AFL would not take it. It defeats the whole purpose of free agency and there's a reason it's yet to happen.

No it doesn’t - it’s the whole reason we have restricted free agency

By matching we also run the risk of
* keeping him or
* losing him for nothing

I don’t think option 2 will happen - but the potential upside is much higher than downside

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What would we get out of Melbourne if we matched?

They’d be forced to trade if they want him

At the very least their first rounder this year is likely worth more than compo

Not to mentioned we’d probably get their 1st rounder this year and next.

If he’s not worth that - why would they offer over $1m

 

[Candiru]

At the very least their first rounder this year is likely worth more than compo

Not to mentioned we’d probably get their 1st rounder this year and next.

If he’s not worth that - why would they offer over $1m

They don't have a first-rounder this year.

 

[Obeanie1]

Why would we do that?

Picks in the 30s and 40s really aren't that difficult to come by in trade week.

Because its better than a single compo pick.16/18.

And pick 31 and 44 are much better than picks 65 and 70 especially in a deeper draft.

I hope that the AFL tick off on a deal allowing Gaff to sign as a fa but another deal balancing the ledger.

Teams in the past have swapped draft picks alone where one ends up better off late in trade periods. What was that about?

If a move can be made easier, amicably and with both parties slighty grumpy but liking what they have gained it should be allowed.

 

[Candiru]

Because its better than a single compo pick.16/18.

And pick 31 and 44 are much better than picks 65 and 70 especially in a deeper draft.

I hope that the AFL tick off on a deal allowing Gaff to sign as a fa but another deal balancing the ledger.

Teams in the past have swapped draft picks alone where one ends up better off late in trade periods. What was that about?

If a move can be made easier, amicably and with both parties slighty grumpy but liking what they have gained it should be allowed.

Melbourne's 2019 first-rounder for Mutimer. In return, we will grudgingly let Gaff walk as a FA without matching.

 

[ep2018]

My guess is we'll let him go, take the presumed first round compo pick and trade said pick to Geelong for Kelly.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

I’m not saying he’s not good , I’m just saying there is a reason why despite getting 30+ touches every week he rarely gets tagged anymore.
Maybe because there’s no taggers anymore but Ben Jacobs barely touched a finger on Gaff all game last week, and with no Shuey you think Gaff would’ve been the perfect option.

Lol....Jacobs didnt play

Edit. Beaten to it

Anyway, why would North have bothered tagging ANY of our mids. They destroyed us in the middle.

 

[pantskyle]

At his age the chances of him leaving his home town state are relatively slim.

And? You do know that the AFL pays a chunk of his wages for his ambassador role. He'll extend on a modest wage in our cap.

 

[RoversFC]

Lol....Jacobs didnt play

Edit. Beaten to it

Anyway, why would North have bothered tagging ANY of our mids. They destroyed us in the middle.

Yeah Burtman got me with it already. Haha would explain why I didn’t see a Ben Jacobs play on Andrew Gaff. Not that it really matters if he was playing or not, Gaff still overrated.

Well most teams don’t know how the game is going to play out so when teams go into a game they think who is the most dangerous and is there a way to stop it. North Melbourne despite flogging us all day had no idea that this was gonna happen but they still decided to not tag. I’m hindsight it’s obvious why they didn’t tag but if a player was so dangerous (like the media claim Gaff to be) to start off with then they’d make a tag and make adjustments in the game.

I dunno if that was a stab at how bad the eagles played (because it was weak) or genuinely questioning why I think any eagles would get tag, but I’ll answer it anyways.

 

[Obeanie1]

My guess is we'll let him go, take the presumed first round compo pick and trade said pick to Geelong for Kelly.

That would be quite neat.

And both sides not overly happy so fairish.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah we're not trading a first round pick for Tim Kelly.

 

[ep2018]

Yeah we're not trading a first round pick for Tim Kelly.

Maybe we can get away with Gold Coasts second rounder, but I imagine Geelong will go hard for our Gaff compo (if he leaves) and we'll have no choice but to use it as Kelly is still contracted. That is assuming he comes home.

 

[bird_man]

Yeah we're not trading a first round pick for Tim Kelly.

If it is pick 17 or 18 I don't see why that doesn't seem fair.

He's contracted and I think his value has risen slightly since being drafted.

 

[Scotland]

If it is pick 17 or 18 I don't see why that doesn't seem fair.

He's contracted and I think his value has risen slightly since being drafted.

He is probably Geelong's 5th or 6th best mid and is 24 having played one season at AFL level.

It's not that I think we'll get him for pick 50 or something, I just don't think it's the best use of our first round pick.

 

[bird_man]

He is probably Geelong's 5th or 6th best mid and is 24 having played one season at AFL level.

It's not that I think we'll get him for pick 50 or something, I just don't think it's the best use of our first round pick.

Fair enough, I understand his age means he was always going to come on quickly, but I think he's the kind of guy that you give up a late first for especially being contracted.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

That would be quite neat.

And both sides not overly happy so fairish.

Seriously? Geelong only lose Kelly for Gaff?

 

[Scotland]

Fair enough, I understand his age means he was always going to come on quickly, but I think he's the kind of guy that you give up a late first for especially being contracted.

Are West Coast plus Kelly really that much better than without?

Just strikes me as another Wellingham/Redden.