Bluemour Discussion Thread VI (cont. in Part VII)

[ShanDog]

CONTINUED FROM PART V:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/bluemour-discussion-thread-v.1178436/

I'm not sure about 100% correct, but it just makes sense to me.

GWS may simply say, "This years first or you don't see Kelly" and that will likely be the end of that, but what interests me is, should the situation be that GWS are happy with either first, what would Bolton request?

Would he say, "Give me Rayner as we have no-one like him" or "Get me the best mid as we need further support there" or would he say, "I have time on my side and if you say that whoever we get next year will be considerably better than anyone we can take this year, then I'm fine with that........ You can guarantee me for this to be the case? You can, can't you? SOS?"

Assuming we believe we will land Lynch in 2018, I think the clear focus will be on mids. We won't trade out of whichever draft we see ourselves getting the highest quality midfielders from.

 

[TheKing101]

We won't Cameron...that discussion was months ago when a rumour came out. I just find it funny that a poster or two is strutting around here saying things like 'you were wrong' and 'think about what you propose next time'...like this is an opinion board and I have a different opinion about the potential of Cameron...

All your posts seem to be putting other posters down. There is a small chance that you are not always right.

 

[Foucault1989]

All your posts seem to be putting other posters down. There is a small chance that you are not always right.

Do you have a catalogue of all my posts? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...I just had an opinion about a footballer which another poster for some reason decided to raise again months later...calling out any one who had that view on Cameron so they could ridicule them...

 

[TheKing101]

J

Do you have a catalogue of all my posts? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...I just had an opinion about a footballer which another poster for some reason decided to raise again months later...calling out any one who had that view on Cameron so they could ridicule them...

Just an observation.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Agree with Mr. Plow. You give pick 1 for Kelly any day of the week.

Whilst Rayner is showing signs that he could be the next Dustin Martin, he is unproven at AFL level. Kelly is proven.

Ideally, lose Gibbs and Casboult, keep Pick 1 and still get Kelly and Hopper. Wishful thinking I know, but let's see how SOS the houdini works his magic.

I like the idea but there is no chance we're getting Kelly and Hopper without losing pick 1. We won't even get Kelly alone without losing that pick. If we do then the entire GWS admin need to be sacked.

Harker had the idea of trading Gibbs to the Crows to get pick #9 in return. Then trade #9+Murphy for Kelly. I would do that but I also don't see that happening either. Probably get 2 more years out of Murphy (who is injury prone) and then they're left with pick #9 for losing Kelly. It won't happen.

Pick #1 will be demanded for Kelly and we should trade it for him if we're serious about getting him to Carlton. But we won't be giving up anything else with it. Pick #2 and we may need to give them a late pick swap to move them up the order a little.

 

[SafeAsMilk]

If we trade next year's first rounder, GC probably won't match a Free Agency offer for Lynch because we won't have a pick to trade, leaving them with a rd 1 compo.

So trade that pick and get Lynch for free, use pick 2 this year and trade next year's first this year ......I need to stop.

 

[F_therest]

Assuming we believe we will land Lynch in 2018, I think the clear focus will be on mids. We won't trade out of whichever draft we see ourselves getting the highest quality midfielders from.

Yes but impossible to predict for next year accurately...SOS can have his thoughts on the 2018 draft crop, but as we see every year it always changes A LOT by the time next years draft comes around. We also cannot accurately predict where we will finish next year...could probably be anywhere from 17th (if we get injuries) - 10th.

In any case i reckon GWS would want this years pick from us so they get an immediate return and know exactly what they'll be getting back for Kelly in Rayner.

 

[ODNBlue]

Do you have a catalogue of all my posts? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...I just had an opinion about a footballer which another poster for some reason decided to raise again months later...calling out any one who had that view on Cameron so they could ridicule them...

Actually...

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/search/121735681/

 

[HARKER]

If we trade next year's first rounder, GC probably won't match a Free Agency offer for Lynch because we won't have a pick to trade, leaving them with a rd 1 compo.

Mmmm. Interesting observation, Sam

 

[kjr8]

This is heresy I know, but if Gibbs is going to stay and Kelly wants to come to us... I'm not sure I want him.

Unfortunate though it may be, we are looking at (again) having the number 1 pick. This would be a minimum starting point for the trade. That means giving up a 12-15 player (say, Rayner) for an 8-10 established star (Kelly). GWS will also want more than pick one.

Stay away from PSD threats. That won't happen. It ruins a club's negotiating stance if you even go down that path.

We cannot afford to give up multiple assets for one player. We need to continue to rebuild. The Messiah system is dead. Last year shows us the value of multiple picks and the courage it takes to play kids and properly develop them.

I rate Kelly highly but do not want him for (say) pick 1 plus a good player or another pick. That will only set us backwards. I don't even want him for pick 1 alone. TBH (delusional though others might think it), if we are giving up pick 1 for Kelly, I want something back. He is five years into an already stellar career. That is five years we won't have.

Maybe this is why there are rumours SOS is not that fussed if Gibbs leaves. It certainly makes the path to a trade easier. I want Gibbs to stay but if we are to get Kelly, it may be the only viable way.

The old "don't want a Messiah but will later expect a Rayner to part seas" logic.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[F_therest]

I like the idea but there is no chance we're getting Kelly and Hopper without losing pick 1. We won't even get Kelly alone without losing that pick. If we do then the entire GWS admin need to be sacked.

Harker had the idea of trading Gibbs to the Crows to get pick #9 in return. Then trade #9+Murphy for Kelly. I would do that but I also don't see that happening either. Probably get 2 more years out of Murphy (who is injury prone) and then they're left with pick #9 for losing Kelly. It won't happen.

Pick #1 will be demanded for Kelly and we should trade it for him if we're serious about getting him to Carlton. But we won't be giving up anything else with it. Pick #2 and we may need to give them a late pick swap to move them up the order a little.

Murphy AND Gibbs for Kelly? Hell no.
Definitely better ways to get him to Carlton. That actually puts us 1 quality midfielder LESS than this year.

Can't just look at it on paper and be like 'so what Murphy only has about 3 years left anyway'...have to consider if we lose our 2 best and most senior midfielders in the one off-season, including our current captain, it would leave a huge void in our midfield even if we got Kelly in. We'd be looking at another bottom 2 finish next year with extra pressure on kids like SPS & Fisher, not to mention Kelly himself to step up.

 

[F_therest]

If we trade next year's first rounder, GC probably won't match a Free Agency offer for Lynch because we won't have a pick to trade, leaving them with a rd 1 compo.

So trade that pick and get Lynch for free, use pick 2 this year and trade next year's first this year ......I need to stop.

They'd simply ask for our 2019 1st rounder + more. Or just say it's our problem to find a 2018 1st rounder to satisfy them somehow.

 

[Wickzki]

Here's where I sit if I'm GWS and Kelly nominates Carlton.

If Gibbs requests a trade then I'd be happy to take Carlton's 2018 first round draft pick because at most Kelly will be a push with Gibbs next year.

If Gibbs doesn't request a trade and Carlton doesn't trade him then I demand Carlton's 2017 1st round draft pick.

Reasoning:

• We've been extremely competitive in every game except for two
• We've taken it right up to the minor premier, we beat GWS (likely finish second)
• It's possible but unlikely that we'll lose two of our top midfielders for the second half of the year again (losing Cripps and Curnow ****ed us)
• You're adding an elite midfielder to a midfield that has Murphy, Gibbs, Cripps, Curnow, Kreuzer,
• Another summer of development into the likes of Weitering, McKay, C Curnow, Silvagni, Marchbank, Petrevski-Seton, Byrne, etc.

The truth is that we're not that far off becoming a very, very good team. It's plausible we convert half of those < 5 goal losses into victories (6 of 11) which would take us from being a 5 win wooden spooner (or second last placed team) into an 11+ win team that is right there knocking on the door of the finals. Even with a more top heavy and arguably deeper draft pick 1 or 2 trumps pick 8-10.

 

[SurreyBlue]

If we trade next year's first rounder, GC probably won't match a Free Agency offer for Lynch because we won't have a pick to trade, leaving them with a rd 1 compo.

So trade that pick and get Lynch for free, use pick 2 this year and trade next year's first this year ......I need to stop.

Next years pick will not be pick 1, other than that, good thinking.

 

[Wickzki]

They'd simply ask for our 2019 1st rounder + more. Or just say it's our problem to find a 2018 1st rounder to satisfy them somehow.

Done and done. If we got Lynch, got close to expected development from our 23 and unders, had a mildly successful draft/trading period otherwise this year and next and didn't make finals in 2019 then heads should be rolling.

You give that up in a heartbeat. That's the equivalent to the Henderson trade.

 

[F_therest]

Done and done. If we got Lynch, got close to expected development from our 23 and unders, had a mildly successful draft/trading period otherwise this year and next and didn't make finals in 2019 then heads should be rolling.

You give that up in a heartbeat. That's the equivalent to the Henderson trade.

Oh yeah for sure...though i'm sure GC would ask for more.

I was simply responding to the post that suggested if we trade away our 2018 1st pick GC would just accept compo for Lynch since we wouldn't have a first round pick anymore...which isn't necessarily true. As i said, they can ask for our 2019 1st + more.

 

[Azul]

We had the perfect example of talent that won't work hard in Menzel, would rather Kerridge any day.

If I had to rate my favourite midfielder of the past 15 years, it'd be...

Carrazzo.

Supreme work ethic.

 

[HBF]

If Cameron loves the Crows but wants to go to QLD for family reasons then I can't see any scenario that ends with him in Navy Blue.

We don't need him anyway. Pickett will get there with another preseason or two.

 

[SafeAsMilk]

They'd simply ask for our 2019 1st rounder + more. Or just say it's our problem to find a 2018 1st rounder to satisfy them somehow.

They can take our 2019 first but it will most likely be a lower pick than their compo, or our 2018 first. Given Lynch would be with us we'd be pushing for finals.

GC would take the compo.

 

[FoeverBlues]

Why are some people having problem with trading pick 1/2 for Kelley who is an elite in/out mid that we are desperately need in the team now or hope like hell in 4 years time that draft pick 1/2 may turn into a Kelley??

If Kelley nominate us, I hope we play fair/smart by hand over pick 1/2 and get it done in 1st day

 

[SafeAsMilk]

Why are some people having problem with trading pick 1/2 for Kelley who is an elite in/out mid that we are desperately need in the team now or hope like hell in 4 years time that draft pick 1/2 may turn into a Kelley??

If Kelley nominate us, I hope we play fair/smart by hand over pick 1/2 and get it done in 1st day

It's about maximizing top end talent coming in as soon as possible. Instead of one player at a time.

 

[therubbernub]

Assuming we believe we will land Lynch in 2018, I think the clear focus will be on mids. We won't trade out of whichever draft we see ourselves getting the highest quality midfielders from.

I am all for seeing Levi to another club if it is certain that we get Lynch as a replacement next year. We can use the Levi pick to get another quality mid and use our #1 on Kelly. That way when Tom arrives we have a midfield that hopefully can give him quality supply. It will mean that 2018 will be another struggle year without Levi, but at least our mids will be starting to fire in preparation.
If on the other hand there is no intent to bring in a Lynch or similar then I would rather keep Levi to help out the youngsters

 

[SterlingArcher]

I'd consider it a steal to give up pick 1 or 2 only for Kelly. Elite mid.

 

[Nostalgia]

Do you still want to trade the big H rog asked .

No I don't. I think I have previously withdrawn my comments about Big H.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Murphy AND Gibbs for Kelly? Hell no.
Definitely better ways to get him to Carlton. That actually puts us 1 quality midfielder LESS than this year.

Can't just look at it on paper and be like 'so what Murphy only has about 3 years left anyway'...have to consider if we lose our 2 best and most senior midfielders in the one off-season, including our current captain, it would leave a huge void in our midfield even if we got Kelly in. We'd be looking at another bottom 2 finish next year with extra pressure on kids like SPS & Fisher, not to mention Kelly himself to step up.

I hate to break the news to you, but we're finishing bottom 4 next year anyway mate.

But the point of Gibbs+Murphy is to get Kelly + Rayner. If we trade pick #1 we won't be getting him.

Rebuilding is about short term pain for long term gain. That's why I would do that trade. But don't worry, GWS aren't going to accept pick #9+Murphy for Kelly anyway so no point going into too much detail about it, it was just a suggestion from Harker.