List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion
- Thread starter Anzacday
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Auction timeRichmond is keen to trade for Collingwood’s No.27 pick in next month’s draft – which would give the club five selections inside the top 30 – with 38 and 40 in play now it has parted with 42 and 47.
Those selections could help the Pies complete the Patrick Lipinski deal with the Western Bulldogs. Essendon is also showing interest in Collingwood’s top pick.
if Pies feel confident Norf don't pick up Lipi in PSD (and I'm sure they are talking) then we call their bluff (Dogs) and they can F off with a pick in the 40's or nothing
Agreed. 95% of the risk sits with the Bulldogs. So why should we be the ones jumping through hoops when the Bulldogs can get creative. I'd hope that Wright would be clear to Sam Power that he's willing to accept the 5% risk that North jumps on Lipinski.
But I'm coming from the position that 55 + 58 is more than what I want to offer anyway.
The smartest post I've read today.
Daicos points are in, young key forward to develop, nice work. If Lipinski gets on board then that’d be nice as well but a lot of people working themselves into a lather about ‘getting one back on the Dogs’. Seriously who should give a *? As long as it doesn’t impact on Daics Jr II then it doesn’t matter what pick from 40 to 60 we use to get him with.
Pretty sure Wrighty is not staying awake at night because the Bullies took our dump off last year like bandits.
Pretty sure Wrighty is not staying awake at night because the Bullies took our dump off last year like bandits.
Everybody Panic
All Australian
- Oct 30, 2020
- 902
- 1,752
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
If we trade with Richmond, would it mean we've essentially got Krueger, Lipinski and Daicos points for a future 2nd? That's a steal.
TradeDraft
Premium Platinum
As they saw what Happened in last years Trade Period
- Nov 30, 2006
- 4,580
- 5,454
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Is there any other teams?
So pick 27 = 703 points, pick 38 (465) + pick 40(429) = 894
Seems like good business. If we lose 43 (378) our Daicos points position is still strong.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
sr36
Hall of Famer
I think we did that because it made sure Reef went a couple of places lower than he could have gone.
I hope we do this but with Richmond's future second thrown in. Make them pay.
TradeDraft
Premium Platinum
and we Rated Jones as a Top 10 Pick
- Nov 26, 2013
- 7,250
- 8,812
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls, Green Bay Packers
Because ultimately the outcome will have been that we essentially traded out our future second just to match the bid on Daicos and not much else? Or, if you prefer, we're strengthening everyone else's draft hand except our own with these repeated downgrades.
It would be a bloody terrible outcome if that's the case, given the value our future second may have held and the value that pick 22 this year actually did hold which, as hard as it may be to see in this points-trading frenzy, is far more than their underlying DVI points value.
Last edited:
Understand but this isn't Ned with his hands on the reins this is GW.
- Jul 2, 2017
- 8,083
- 15,245
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
With 5 senior list spots available, we could currently use 27, 36, 43, 46 and 48 to match for Daicos. This is 2216 points.
Doing that trade with Richmond would mean picks 36, 38, 40, 43 and 46 can be used to match. This is 2105 points.
On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Agreed it destroys the credibility we have built up already in this draft I WON'T be happy and we fold to their demands.
magpiemaniac44
Club Legend
- Aug 19, 2020
- 2,374
- 2,381
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- San Antonio, Melbourne Stars
Does anyone think we'll be able to nab a future second and a few later points for Daicos this year for pick 27.
- Apr 18, 2015
- 21,055
- 25,576
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
Now that Vossy's at the helm of the Carltanic.. we've got the opportunity to get all parsimonious about the Madge I reckon.. oh he's so precious to us.. oh he's such a good player.. wouldn't trade him in a million years.. get all sentimental about it and that re.. I reckon that s**t talk will be enough to earn us a pick in the 30s.. and Bob's your uncle mate.. that's how it's done.
You assume Lipinski is prepared to go to the pre season draft and North will not pick him up.
You clearly have never negotiated in a professional capacity if you don’t think their points issues are not ours to some extent in these negotiations. It is part of the art of negotiation to understand the other parties needs and negotiate an outcome that meets both parties needs.
Yes we may consider the PSD the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, but we may not therefore we do a deal based on their points needs.
Last edited:
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
Think you’re giving seasons 5 - 7 too much credit. If the clubs trade period was up to there I’d be already calling for Wright’s head.
7 was a borderline abomination.
If Daicos gets to pick 3 we don't need 27 so we can trade it for a future second + change.
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
This season we had 37 players on the senior list. Permitted list size is 36 .. 38
We’ve had 2 retirements from the senior list (Greenwood, Mayne)
We’ve got 7 out of contract (Cameron, Cox, Lynch, Madgen, Sier, Thomas and Rantell)
We’ve added 1 to date (Kreuger), let’s say he takes Greenwood’s list spot.
Let’s assume we get Lipinski one way or the other, so we need a list spot for him, let’s say he takes Mayne’s spot.
Assuming we spend 6 picks on Daicos.
So that means we need 6 list spots.
We already have 1 list spot available (the currently unused 38th list spot - we’d need to reduce our rookie list to use it - Goodbye Chugg?)
That means we need to free up five list spots:
I’m guessing the five most likely on the chopping block would be Cox, Madgen, Rantell, Sier and Thomas?
We’ve had 2 retirements from the senior list (Greenwood, Mayne)
We’ve got 7 out of contract (Cameron, Cox, Lynch, Madgen, Sier, Thomas and Rantell)
We’ve added 1 to date (Kreuger), let’s say he takes Greenwood’s list spot.
Let’s assume we get Lipinski one way or the other, so we need a list spot for him, let’s say he takes Mayne’s spot.
Assuming we spend 6 picks on Daicos.
So that means we need 6 list spots.
We already have 1 list spot available (the currently unused 38th list spot - we’d need to reduce our rookie list to use it - Goodbye Chugg?)
That means we need to free up five list spots:
I’m guessing the five most likely on the chopping block would be Cox, Madgen, Rantell, Sier and Thomas?
Last edited:
The Royal Sampler
Floreat Pica, Bitch!
It’s only good business if we have enough list spots to accommodate them all. There’s nothing smart about splitting picks to gain 130 points if you then can’t use a later pick worth 150. That’s just downgrading an early-ish pick for no reason.
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
More likely to get a future back from Bulldogs.
- Status
Similar threads
