- Banned
- #2,751
And I'm sure it won't be the last. I'm only new here so I'm not familiar with what you said at the time, but if you predicted that Freo were going to slide that bad, can you come to the races with me on Saturday hahahaha
Traded Cameron McCarthy [traded to Fremantle with picks 7, 33 and 71 for pick 3]
- Thread starter Off Tap
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No I'm pretty sure I predicted that not trading McCarthy was a dumb idea and that GWS would get a far worse trade 12 months later (or at best similar but with a wasted year....same same) . Freos ladder position has nothing to do with it
- Banned
- #2,753
We have to disagree there, because the Giants would have traded him last year if we knew we were getting pick 3, I don't doubt that for a second.From GWS point of view Freo's ladder position has everything to do with it.
I'd trade 3 to get 7 34 and 72 in an instant. Thats a fair pick switch.
And thats without getting McCarthy. Hes a freebie. Please dont try and invent a lie that McCarthy was worth pick 3...
Noted.
It was a perfectly good offer regardless. Freo always likely to slide a bit (predicted to be just in or out of the eight ) and a top 12 pick likely.
Our depth will be pretty average with all the delistings we've made, especially around the defence line. We'll rise but top8 will be a bit lucky I think.
- Banned
- #2,758
From a Collingwood perspective, yeah, of course you would.
However, from a GWS point of view, Pick 72 is an arbitrary number. To be honest, neither side really has a use for it. It has intrinsic value, sure, but at the end of the day it is pretty much worthless.
It's really McCarthy, 7 & 34 for Pick 3, which is better for our list as it gets us into the upper echelon of the draft in order to get a free swing at the high-end talent that is going to be available at 3, that wouldn't be there at 7, as well as our Academy kids.
Its a laughable stretch to say you wouldnt have landed high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.
If the McCarthy non-trade last year goes down as GW's worst trading blunder then as far as blunders go, I bet there are a lot of clubs that wish they could replace some of their howlers with this terrible result.
Upside was that it showed GWS wasn't going to be bent over, much to the chagrin of the established footy world.
We'll use 72. We've hacked away almost a quarter of our list, and will probably lose a couple more, We'll bat deep into this years draft.
Yet they just got bent over....
Just like StKilda tried to prove they woudlt be bent over in 2009.
- Banned
- #2,763
We wouldn't get a free hit at a high-end talent outside of our academy if we didn't trade up from 7 to 3. Setterfield sits around the 8-12 mark, and we would match a bid if one came for him at 6 and beyond (Essendon aren't stupid enough to bid on him at Pick 1) so we wouldn't have really "gained much" this draft / trade time.
But now we can get our hands on a McLuggage or a McGrath or an Ainsworth as well as Setterfield and Perryman and the other academy kids along with clearing cap space. It could have been a disaster for us, but I think we've come out alright.
DaTBird187
What D Farke?
- Feb 9, 2014
- 16,439
- 44,129
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Boston Celtics
I'm sure they will cry into their soup, while they pick three more top ten talents this year, after making a prelim.
The AFL has created a monster and it will get worse and worse.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 2,218
- 4,717
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
But clubs do trade players for the players sake - and not the clubs sake. Dylan Roberton asked to be traded back to Victoria for personal reasons. We shopped him around to no effect, would happily have kept him for our best 22, but delisted him so he could be picked up as a delisted free agent.
Would have preferred that the Saints who had their eye on him, trade for him rather than get a freebie, but for Dylan's sake, was happy to see him run around in the Saints colours and that we weren't campaigners.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 10,424
- 12,325
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Wimbledon AFC
Dylan is a classic example. We have needed him the last 3 years. We got burnt. campaigners we are not.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 10,424
- 12,325
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Wimbledon AFC
It was just odd that gws decided to make a stand on cam. But anyway. Move on. Nothing more to be said.
Between cams manager young, and gubby it was always going to get uncivilized
Between cams manager young, and gubby it was always going to get uncivilized
I'd doubt it. GWS were looking to make a stand last year.
If they weren't happy with Freo's offer they could've told Freo what would've made them happy, whether that be a player or to go find a lower pick from someone else. But GWS' actions were consistent from what they said as soon as McCarthy requested a trade, 'We will not trade Cameron McCarthy under any circumstances".
No, we approached him once in 2013 and asked the question since then Black has been approaching Freo, we don't want him...
we dodged a bullet, listen to his manager from trade radio on Monday
Those comments brought back terrible trading / drafting memories from 20 years ago ...............
" with hindsight "
Off topic but couldnt find a thread on Patful.
Has retired and will be re rookied as a non playing player.
The only "valid" reason I can think for this is if he is still contracted and the Giants are at/over their salary cap and cant afford an extra rookie as they would have to carry Patful in the cap anyway.
Not sure if anybody in the know can shed any light on this?
Has retired and will be re rookied as a non playing player.
The only "valid" reason I can think for this is if he is still contracted and the Giants are at/over their salary cap and cant afford an extra rookie as they would have to carry Patful in the cap anyway.
Not sure if anybody in the know can shed any light on this?
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #2,774
That's roughly my interpretation of it, though I don't think can/can't afford extra rookies came into it.
Patfull triggered an automatic contract extension during the year, so was under contract in 2017. GWS presumably couldn't afford his retirement payout under the 2016 cap, so was going to have to include it in the 2017 cap. Given that was going to be the case anyway, moving him to the rookie list lets them save 50% off the salary for a team that has a lot of spare rookie spots.
