Traded Chad Wingard [traded with future 3rd to Hawthorn for Burton, #15, #35 and future 4th]

[KermitJagger]

Just because a club is open to it doesn't mean they're open to being bent over. Case in point with the McCarthy trade, which is very much recent. I'm sure GWS would've been more than open to trading him after he sounded the idea of not playing next year, but he was contracted, and they weren't happy with any of Fremantle's offers.

"Cameron clings to 'one per cent chance' of keeping McCarthy"
"GWS Giants coach Leon Cameron says homesick forward Cam McCarthy will bounce back"
"Cam McCarthy ‘regaining the urge to play’ says GWS coach Leon Cameron"

Sounds from these headlines that Leon Cameron really wanted to keep him. They ended up losing him and 3 other picks for a 4 pick first round upgrade. They also lost a year of him playing for their troubles, smart move.

Only half? After such a massive paradigm shift? That doesn't really conclusively prove clubs are prepared to let themselves be bent over. Shiel and Wingard are both currently pivotal players for their sides, and GWS & Port know exactly how much they're worth. They're not going to accept unders to conform with alleged culture shift, especially while they're both contracted, and would be certainties to get them first rounders next year anyway.

Exactly, half. So half of your examples pre-date free-agency and the newfound power that players have to decide where they go and the other half fell through because the clubs that they played for fought tooth and nail to keep them. One isn't relevant at all.

Gibbs - Carlton adamant on keeping him
Ablett - Gold Coast adamant on keeping him
Andrew Walker - 2010
Nick Stevens - 2003
Luke Ball - 2009
Ryan O'Keefe - 2009
Cameron McCarthy - GWS Adamant on keeping him and got unders eventually
Tippett - A trade was going to happen but was blocked

Flop
Headcase
Dinosaur
Dinosaur
Expensive Dinosaur.

Deledio kind of proves my point. Even though he was injury prone and turning 30, he cost GWS a first rounder + mayonnaise. Then we have Dylan Shiel, who's durable, better than Deledio, turning 26 next year and somehow he's meant to be worth a similar amount? Please.

Your opinions on the players I mentioned mean absolutely nothing. Yes, you're right, Deledio was injury prone and 29 but Richmond paid a fair chunk of his contract to get a better deal on their end.

Just one of Wingard or Shiel will cost a lot, because both clubs would demand it.

I agree, they might - but the ability for any club (not just Hawthorn) to get them across depends entirely on what they'd be willing to give up. You said it was impossible, 0% chance - I'm saying it might be unlikely but it is possible and neither of us will know until trade period.

How open a club is to trading isn't as big of a game-changer as you think when a player is contracted.

Depends on the club; Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong have all been relatively good about letting contracted players go. GWS have proven themselves easy to deal with too. We'll see.

 

[Antares]

Lids was so expensive because the tigers were paying some of his contract still. Essentially trading picks for cap space.

The Bulldogs were also paying some of Griffen's contract after trading him, and they had to add their pick 6 or whatever it was to get Boyd.

You reality says that Brisbane is in a better position than Hawthorn. That is why people dont listen to you much. Even though you post anti Hawk guff in every thread you can find.

You mean aside from all those liking my posts or agreeing with me? Even some Hawthorn supporters in a certain thread understood where I was coming from and that I had some merit. Naturally they would know because like any intelligent person, they're prepared to read before passing judgement on a poster.

 

[KermitJagger]

The Bulldogs were also paying some of Griffen's contract after trading him, and they had to add their pick 6 or whatever it was to get Boyd.

Again, because Boyd was on GWS list of 'will not trade unless given a ridiculous deal'. They got their ridiculous deal in the end.

This was a unique trade and a unique situation as the Dogs were looking to make GWS bleed.

 

[Antares]

"Cameron clings to 'one per cent chance' of keeping McCarthy"
"GWS Giants coach Leon Cameron says homesick forward Cam McCarthy will bounce back"
"Cam McCarthy ‘regaining the urge to play’ says GWS coach Leon Cameron"

Sounds from these headlines that Leon Cameron really wanted to keep him. They ended up losing him and 3 other picks for a 4 pick first round upgrade. They also lost a year of him playing for their troubles, smart move.

I'm sure you'll find GWS and Port would be elated to keep Shiel and Wingard, but may be open to trading, should their demands are met. History would indicate their demands will be a lot higher than Hawthorn supporters are suggesting.

Exactly, half. So half of your examples pre-date free-agency and the newfound power that players have to decide where they go and the other half fell through because the clubs that they played for fought tooth and nail to keep them. One isn't relevant at all.

Gibbs - Carlton adamant on keeping him
Ablett - Gold Coast adamant on keeping him
Andrew Walker - 2010
Nick Stevens - 2003
Luke Ball - 2009
Ryan O'Keefe - 2009
Cameron McCarthy - GWS Adamant on keeping him and got unders eventually
Tippett - A trade was going to happen but was blocked

You're getting too deep into semantics here. Nobody even really knows GWS and Port's official stances on these players. Even if they were open to shipping them like you're trying to insinuate, you are dreaming if you think you'll get them for as little as some are suggesting, in an era where Bryce Gibbs gets traded for two firsts.

Your opinions on the players I mentioned mean absolutely nothing. Yes, you're right, Deledio was injury prone and 29 but Richmond paid a fair chunk of his contract to get a better deal on their end.

I'm just echoing the general consensus. Schache never really got going for us, Stringer had a ton of off-field issues and Lewis/Mitchell were old.

I agree, they might - but the ability for any club (not just Hawthorn) to get them across depends entirely on what they'd be willing to give up. You said it was impossible, 0% chance - I'm saying it might be unlikely but it is possible and neither of us will know until trade period.

Let me again remind you that you BARELY got the Mitchell/O'Meara deal done, and that was with all those draft picks AND Brad Hill. I don't understand how anyone could think the same is even conceivable for two contracted players, where the other club is in a far stronger position. Also let's be honest, you're not going to trade any of your gun players and Ceglar is a non-factor; he's worth a banana peel.

Depends on the club; Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong have all been relatively good about letting contracted players go. GWS have proven themselves easy to deal with too. We'll see.

Contracted players like who? You might be surprised to find out just how rare it is for contracted players to be traded.

 

[KermitJagger]

I'm sure you'll find GWS and Port would be elated to keep Shiel and Wingard, but may be open to trading, should their demands are met. History would indicate their demands will be a lot higher than Hawthorn supporters are suggesting.

I'm sure there'll be a lot more that goes into it but if a player nominated Hawthorn as their ideal destination, and we wanted them to be here, we'd more often than not get the deal done irrespective of contract. The only case in which we wouldn't is if the club we're trading with is completely against it and puts an unreasonably high price on the player's head.

You're getting too deep into semantics here. Nobody even really knows GWS and Port's official stances on these players. Even if they were open to shipping them like you're trying to insinuate, you are dreaming if you think you'll get them for as little as some are suggesting, in an era where Bryce Gibbs gets traded for two firsts.

Nobody does know, and I'm not saying that they're shipping them off I'm just saying that clearly they'd be open to losing them for the right price. You're reading too much into it.

I'm just echoing the general consensus. Schache never really got going for us, Stringer had a ton of off-field issues and Lewis/Mitchell were old.

Schache was a pick 2 from the 2 years prior and a promising KPP prospect, Stringer was inconsistent but showed the ability to play at a high level. The main point is that in both cases Brisbane and the Dogs were open to the trade.

Let me again remind you that you BARELY got the Mitchell/O'Meara deal done, and that was with all those draft picks AND Brad Hill. I don't understand how anyone could think the same is even conceivable for two contracted players, where the other club is in a far stronger position.

Brad was going to leave anyway and as I mentioned in a previous comment, Gold Coast's attitude towards trading O'Meara was what cost us. They would have gotten a better deal had they just taken the future 1st (2017 Pick 7 or 8) and the second rounder on offer. See my previous comment below:

Unfortunately with O'Meara, Gold Coast weren't really open to losing him and decided to make a stand after having lost a lot of players and we had to pay through the nose to get him, even though 50% of the value that went into getting him across didn't even end up with the Suns. Poor list management on both sides I'd think.

Contracted players like who? You might be surprised to find out just how rare it is for contracted players to be traded.

Getting less and less rare. Bradley Hill was contracted, for another year. Jarman Impey was contracted. Jordan Lewis, Sam Mitchell, Brad Hill, Cam McCarthy, Brett Deledio, Jack Watts, Jake Stringer, Josh Schache. These are just the past 2 years.

 

[SayerTheCreator]

id say whoever he nominates will get it done with late first / early second and maybe a fringe player....clubs are getting better at making these trades happen rather than dragging them out and stuffing up other moves for the sake of a few draft spots....

chances are port would use whatever picks they get to trade for someone else anyway

You clearly have no idea. A late first/early second (neither of which the Dogs have) will get laughed at by Port.

In a draft so stacked with SA top 10-12 talent, they'll want an early/mid 1st pick (which Hawthorn don't have)

Dogs is the logical destination. I hope.

 

[ManOfClay]

Again, because Boyd was on GWS list of 'will not trade unless given a ridiculous deal'. They got their ridiculous deal in the end.

This was a unique trade and a unique situation as the Dogs were looking to make GWS bleed.

All said and done that “ridiculous deal” was a failure for them and a success for us, go figure

 

[philthy05]

I'm sure there'll be a lot more that goes into it but if a player nominated Hawthorn as their ideal destination, and we wanted them to be here, we'd more often than not get the deal done irrespective of contract. The only case in which we wouldn't is if the club we're trading with is completely against it and puts an unreasonably high price on the player's head.



Nobody does know, and I'm not saying that they're shipping them off I'm just saying that clearly they'd be open to losing them for the right price. You're reading too much into it.



Schache was a pick 2 from the 2 years prior and a promising KPP prospect, Stringer was inconsistent but showed the ability to play at a high level. The main point is that in both cases Brisbane and the Dogs were open to the trade.



Brad was going to leave anyway and as I mentioned in a previous comment, Gold Coast's attitude towards trading O'Meara was what cost us. They would have gotten a better deal had they just taken the future 1st (2017 Pick 7 or 8) and the second rounder on offer. See my previous comment below:





Getting less and less rare. Bradley Hill was contracted, for another year. Jarman Impey was contracted. Jordan Lewis, Sam Mitchell, Brad Hill, Cam McCarthy, Brett Deledio, Jack Watts, Jake Stringer, Josh Schache. These are just the past 2 years.

Hogwash

Your basic theme seems to be hawks can get whatever player who nominates them because they’ve always gotten their player before (except when you haven’t.. O’Keefe?) If you could get anyone to the club you would have by now. Plenty of hawthorn trades have probably been aborted early in the piece because they couldn’t satisfy the team. Hawthorn have for the most part gone after very gettable players because they only needed to add to their core.

Also your claim that if a team isn’t willing to give you a contracted player for whatever you have available whether it’s fair or not are being unfair assholes is stupid.

 

[KermitJagger]

All said and done that “ridiculous deal” was a failure for them and a success for us, go figure

Exactly, funny how these things work out. I liked that it worked out in your favour.

Hogwash

Your basic theme seems to be hawks can get whatever player who nominates them because they’ve always gotten their player before (except when you haven’t.. O’Keefe?) If you could get anyone to the club you would have by now. Plenty of hawthorn trades have probably been aborted early in the piece because they couldn’t satisfy the team. Hawthorn have for the most part gone after very gettable players because they only needed to add to their core.

Also your claim that if a team isn’t willing to give you a contracted player for whatever you have available whether it’s fair or not are being unfair assholes is stupid.

No, my theme is that in 2018, any club (not just Hawthorn) can reel in players if that player nominates them as their desired destination almost irrespective of their contract status. I've also stipulated that this is only in the case that the player's current club is open to them leaving and not 100% committed to making them stay i.e. Bryce Gibbs and Cam McCarthy in 2016.

 

[KermitJagger]

You clearly have no idea. A late first/early second (neither of which the Dogs have) will get laughed at by Port.

In a draft so stacked with SA top 10-12 talent, they'll want an early/mid 1st pick (which Hawthorn don't have)

Dogs is the logical destination. I hope.

FWIW I think he'll end up at the Bulldogs, but based on recent history I don't think it matters what Hawthorn or the Bulldogs have. He'll get to who he nominates. It'll just work out better for Port if he nominates the Dogs.

 

[philthy05]

Exactly, funny how these things work out. I liked that it worked out in your favour.



No, my theme is that in 2018, any club (not just Hawthorn) can reel in players if that player nominates them as their desired destination almost irrespective of their contract status. I've also stipulated that this is only in the case that the player's current club is open to them leaving and not 100% committed to making them stay i.e. Bryce Gibbs and Cam McCarthy in 2016.

Sure teams can get players, but they can’t magically do it if they don’t have the currency to do it.

 

[KermitJagger]

Sure teams can get players, but they can’t magically do it if they don’t have the currency to do it.

As I've said a few times it depends on the other club's ability to sit down and do a deal. Both parties have to be agreeable to it.

I'm literally only arguing against the fact that bris0 said nope, can't happen, 0% chance and everyone's delusional. I'm not saying that Hawthorn are guaranteed to land both Shiel and Wingard. I'm not even convinced we'll be able to get one across.

It's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

 

[David C]

They should be targeting Gold Coasts pick 3 in a pick swap.

Out: Wingard & pick 11 (Polec).
In: Pick 3 & 29

Values Wingard at pick 8.

Port walk to the draft with 3, 9, 18, 22 and 28.

29 goes to North in the Polec trade.

Lukosious/Rankine and Rozee/Hately, come on down, and they will still have 3 good picks up their sleeve.

Port could bundle up a couple of those 3 picks (eg 18 & 28) to trade with Sydney for pick 13, and leap frog Adelaide for another of the elite home grown kids. All top shelf home grown boys.

3, 10, 13 and 22 = Bingo: Lukosious/Rankine plus Rozee and Hately, and maybe Valente.

Why would GC give up pick 3? Plenty of higher picks to get the deal done.

 

[David C]

I honestly think Wingard wants a million bucks a year.

I can't see Hawthorn trumping GC or StKilda for that coin.

GC actually has a salary cap squeeze so you can rule them out.

 

[GreatBradScott]

6 for Wingard and some chump change back feels right. Dogs bound makes sense.

 

[go you pups]

Gordon isnt the President though. He is President, CEO, Senior List Manager and Head of Media.

 

[go you pups]

"Cameron clings to 'one per cent chance' of keeping McCarthy"
"GWS Giants coach Leon Cameron says homesick forward Cam McCarthy will bounce back"
"Cam McCarthy ‘regaining the urge to play’ says GWS coach Leon Cameron"

Sounds from these headlines that Leon Cameron really wanted to keep him. They ended up losing him and 3 other picks for a 4 pick first round upgrade. They also lost a year of him playing for their troubles, smart move.



Exactly, half. So half of your examples pre-date free-agency and the newfound power that players have to decide where they go and the other half fell through because the clubs that they played for fought tooth and nail to keep them. One isn't relevant at all.

Gibbs - Carlton adamant on keeping him
Ablett - Gold Coast adamant on keeping him
Andrew Walker - 2010
Nick Stevens - 2003
Luke Ball - 2009
Ryan O'Keefe - 2009
Cameron McCarthy - GWS Adamant on keeping him and got unders eventually
Tippett - A trade was going to happen but was blocked



Your opinions on the players I mentioned mean absolutely nothing. Yes, you're right, Deledio was injury prone and 29 but Richmond paid a fair chunk of his contract to get a better deal on their end.



I agree, they might - but the ability for any club (not just Hawthorn) to get them across depends entirely on what they'd be willing to give up. You said it was impossible, 0% chance - I'm saying it might be unlikely but it is possible and neither of us will know until trade period.



Depends on the club; Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong have all been relatively good about letting contracted players go. GWS have proven themselves easy to deal with too. We'll see.

Agree with this aside from GWS being easy to trade with

McCarthy, Treloar, Adams etc they played hardball on and only for Treloar they got their way

 

[philthy05]

6 for Wingard and some chump change back feels right. Dogs bound makes sense.

Rubbish.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Rubbish.

Says the bloke who thinks North owe Port two first round picks, the Queen Mary, the Pyramids of Giza, half of Anne Frank's diary and 20 million in US bearer bonds for Polec.

 

[Dogsman16]

Pick 7 and pick 20 in a direct swap for Chad seems fair.

Been on a downward slope for 3 years.

He’s not worth 2 firsts in the same that Treloar was as a 22 year old or Kelly is now.

 

[foodles05]

id say whoever he nominates will get it done with late first / early second and maybe a fringe player....clubs are getting better at making these trades happen rather than dragging them out and stuffing up other moves for the sake of a few draft spots....

chances are port would use whatever picks they get to trade for someone else anyway

There is just absolutely no way they will accept anything less than a top ten pick and probably closer to top 5.

 

[kazzooka]

Gaff is a free agent so no issue there as I doubt West Coast would fight. He goes where he wants to go. Given they want him, he stays if he wants to stay.

Shiel comes down to how real the stories of salary cap squeeze are, and whether GWS would accept Ceglar as a part of the trade (McEvoy would give them the same $$$ issues).

Wingard, I think Clarko has been in his ear for years - much like he was with Lake. If Wingard wants to come it will happen. Possibly with Schoenmaker as a part of the deal.

I can easily see 2 of the 3 happening if that is what the players want. All 3 would be tough. But not impossible.



If we had pick 10 we would have paid pick 10 for Mitchell. We would offer pick 15 for Wingard. Port will ask for more. We will probably then offer a player or a future 2nd or both. Port will decide if that is enough.



Brad Hill still had 1 year left didnt he?

Shoenmakers will be part of no deal. He is an Unrestricted Free Agent, he will play for whoever he wants and all they have to do is offer a contract. I believe he will stay at Hawthorn if wanted.

 

[HairyO]

Shoenmakers will be part of no deal. He is an Unrestricted Free Agent, he will play for whoever he wants and all they have to do is offer a contract. I believe he will stay at Hawthorn if wanted.

I assume he can still go as a trade so as not to disrupt othe FA moves. Like Hodge did to Brisbane?

 

[Hawkie_McHawkHawk]

If Shiel to hawks is happening then there’s no way the hawks will get Wingard across. Can anyone tell me why he is seemingly out of favour at Port?

 

[philthy05]

Says the bloke who thinks North owe Port two first round picks, the Queen Mary, the Pyramids of Giza, half of Anne Frank's diary and 20 million in US bearer bonds for Polec.

I’ve never said any such thing. Nice try.