Mega Thread Draft Day Supermegaultrathread - It's finally here

[dajesmac]

Sweet Jesus Do you advocate trading for coniglio?

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Do you think he'd get us a 2nd rounder? Has barely played for 3 years

Club champion will work in our favour.

Selwood is a restricted free agent meaning we can match any offer . If we offer selwood $500000 a season other clubs would know they have to at least beat that ensuring high compo

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Selwood is a restricted free agent meaning we can match any offer . If we offer selwood $500000 a season other clubs would know they have to at least beat that ensuring high compo

We're talking about what compensation we would receive if we chose not to match

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

We're talking about what compensation we would receive if we chose not to match

Its not a matching offer but the offer we give him before he exercises his FA rights and has everything to do with selwood compo . It sets a benchmark what we are willing to match . If our compo is not worth it we can match the other teams offer . Selwood then stays or a trade has to be done . Most teams offers would be enough for restricted free agents to leave .
Why would we let him go for poor compo

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Its not a matching offer but the offer we give him before he exercises his FA rights and has everything to do with selwood compo . It sets a benchmark what we are willing to match . If our compo is not worth it we can match the other teams offer . Selwood then stays or a trade has to be done . Most teams offers would be enough for restricted free agents to leave .
Why would we let him go for poor compo

Better let him go for poor compo than having him on our list and not wanting to be there.

Anyway I believe he's set in Perth so him leaving is highly unlikely

 

[Johnno22]

If we're thinking that our window is in 3+ years time, then surely Kennedy is the one to trade now. Would net something quite good i reckon.

Yes that's it , lets trade Kennedy and our second and third round draft picks for the best midfielder in the land. This will surely net us a premiership.

Hang on, didn't somebody already do that.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Yes that's it , lets trade Kennedy and our second and third round draft picks for the best midfielder in the land. This will surely net us a premiership.

Hang on, didn't somebody already do that.

#thegovisoursavior

 

[squashface]

#returnthenigs

eddiemcguire.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If The prospect of my 'scrutiny' isn't scary, then put up or shut up!

Do you even understand what "hypothetical" means? If so, your being vague is no excuse, and just makes for a cop-out.

No, you didn't say you'd offer 2x 2nd rounders with an addition of an exchange in first rounders. You made those suggestions in separate posts as thought hey were stand alone ideas. Also, you didn't back your suggestion with reason, so throwing out 2x 2nd rounders with no explanation, while stating that your being vague is due to not knowing "what bargaining chips each side will have" is sitting on the fence.

This has been addressed. You're just being shrill.

You asked for alternative suggestions and I've made them.

The lack of accompanying reason and your vagueness that makes for a sitting on the fence position.

No, it doesn't. Sitting on the fence would be refusing to take a position one way or the other.

WC can't lose something they don't have.

That is true in the most simplistic sense. But if WC spend all this time tapping up Coniglio and succeed in shaking him loose, that's a position which could then be squandered if they fail to capitalise.

If, at season's end, Coniglio says he wants to leave GWS to join WC, then, at that point, WC absolutely have something to lose. They have a strong position that can be blown if they don't get the deal done.

Your issuance of the suggestion of a third rounder is a strawman.

It's not. I'm just probing your rationale. If you think WC hold all the aces, I'm asking: 'Why not just offer them a third-rounder?'

That's not a strawman. I'm not saying you've said we should give them a third-rounder. You haven't.

I'm asking the question to highlight the shortcomings of your position. And your answer - that's it's about 'maintaining trading relations' - is nonsense.

So, it's not only disingenuous and a strawman, it's verging on trolling.

Don't strawman me and selectively quote me and you won't get labeled a troll.

Stop sooking, mate. It's ridiculous.

Finally! It wasn't so hard was it, princess? You're finally being more specific. Why didn't you specify this from the start of our conversation rather than drop 2x 2nd rounders in one post and an exchange of 1st rounders in another post?

It didn't need to take multiple posts to extract this from you.

In a hypothetical situation we don't need to know exactly where GWS and WC will finish, for we can discuss the many possible outcomes - all that's needed is to specifically state where we think GWS and WC will finish in order to have a basis for a proposed deal. It's not hard.

It's April. We don't know where they'll finish. If GWS finish lower than WC, then the exchange of first-rounders goes out the window. It's only feasible if GWS finish slightly higher than WC. This demonstrates why some vagueness is unavoidable and why your relentless demand for specifics is ill-conceived.

Just to clarify: my suggestion of exchanging first-rounders was in addition to our existing second-rounder.

I made a second, separate suggestion of two second-rounders - we'd obviously have to get one of these from elsewhere if we went down that path.

Your version of pragmatism seems to involve WC giving up their leverage in order to appease GWS and get the deal done before your "the deal may collapse" bogeyman appears.

My version of pragmatism is that if WC spend all season coaxing a player to switch clubs, they make sure the deal gets done.

We can now add assumption on top of vagueness to your repertoire.

It stands up pretty well against yours, which consists of unrealistic arguments buttressed by sooking and shrillness.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus Do you advocate trading for coniglio?

Sure. If he's keen on moving.

But I think we'd have to find a way to make it work without trading out of the first round.

I agree with our shrill friend tesseract on that point.

 

[Eric Mackenzie]

Quoting the above to strengthen my argument and please remember this is my dream overall and not what i think would happen.

So, say brown doesn't come back from his second knee recon very well (he was half the player after his first) It would then leave us 1 KPD short for my mind if we are wanting to Challenge in the near future. Then look at the above list and Mr 1987 Kennedy himself. Huge hole to fill. Getting rance via free agency would release Mcgovern forward thus providing us with much better list balance and 2 genuine star key forwards and 2 genuine star key defenders on top of our Star ruck line up. We would have the best spine in the league by a mile.

Get Suckling via free agency. This would allow us to release Yeo to the midfield full time thus giving us another guy who whilst raw in the midfield is amazing at the coalface. Just look at our clearance differential changes while he was in the guts last year. A huge boon for the midfield.

Project get coniglio. From what i have been told he is a very suitable target for our needs due to his skillset and is also probably the most likely top WA midfield prospect to be available. TBH even if we finish 12th and our first pick is pick 7 i would still trade it for coniglio if we could get GWS second rounder back.

2 Huge improvements overall to our midfield, an improvement to our defence and an improvement to our forward line.

Butler is semi forced to retire.
Hill is delisted.
Waters is already gone.

That would easily cover rance's salary and im sure we could find the money for the others rather easily as well. Get it done son!

If we went into next season with a best 22 like i've listed below with depth in all areas i think we would challenge for a flag in the next 1-3 years.

FB Ellis Emac Schofield
HB Suckling Rance Hurn
C Gaff Yeo Rosa
HF Coniglio Kennedy Darling
FF Cripps Mcgovern Lecras
R Nicnat Shuey Selwood
I Masten Sheppard Sheed Duggan

Emergencies / Depth
Priddis Nelson Wellingham Sinkers Colledge Brown Hutchings Waterman Lamb Newman Bennell

33 afl level players With depth all across the field imo. They say you need 30 who can play a genuine role at afl level to win a premiership. Yes it would require Yeo doing what we think he can do and Guys like Gaff, Shuey, Selwood, Conilio reaching their best but i see a genuine premiership contender there.

Still reading through the posts but This would be a dream result. Highly doubtful but fingers crossed.

I am very keen on Coniglio ever seen his GF against Claremont. I think he would be ideal for our side. Say we got pick 10 I would be asking our first for their second with out fingers crossed.

Throw a heaps at Rance who will give us the best back line in the comp and as Phil has said (wished) a Suckling then I believe we are close to a top 4 side.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's going to be a long season.

 

[tesseract]

This has been addressed. You're just being shrill.

You asked for alternative suggestions and I've made them.

Late in your last post was it when you finally decided to put all your half ideas into a concentrated and understandable trade deal. Praise the Lord! You have a knack for making the simple seem difficult.

No, it doesn't. Sitting on the fence would be refusing to take a position one way or the other.

Your sitting on the fence has been made manifest in your continual, until late in your last post, putting forward incomplete trade deals without accompanying reason. Such incoherent trade suggestions make for a neither here nor there position. Hence fence sitting.

That is true in the most simplistic sense. But if WC spend all this time tapping up Coniglio and succeed in shaking him loose, that's a position which could then be squandered if they fail to capitalise.

If, at season's end, Coniglio says he wants to leave GWS to join WC, then, at that point, WC absolutely have something to lose. They have a strong position that can be blown if they don't get the deal done.

I'm sure WC inquire of many players throughout the year and follow up on those calls which seek to bring opposition players to play at WC. Just because WC shake Coniglio loose that doesn't mean they have something tangible to lose, just like nothing is lost if their inquiries into other players comes to nothing. Your version of capitalizing basically advocates the squandering of WC's leverage unnecessarily and capitulating even though the likelihood is that GWS won't let Coniglio go for nothing into the draft, and that they will come to accept less than Coniglio's market value based on the difficult negotiating circumstance they find themselves in. Again, no one is saying or implying the throwing of a third rounder at them. Your position relies on GWS being stubborn to the point that WC have to give in to GWS' demands in order to get a deal done, and not GWS understanding their predicament and bending accordingly to accept less than his real worth.

If WC don't get Coniglio for a price befitting their leverage they should walk away. WC can't lose something they don't have. If anything is lost it's the opportunity for WC to pay more than they should've given their leverage by giving into their fear of "failing to capitalize". WC already have this problem and end up paying more than they should in, as shown in previous deals they've been involved in.

It's not. I'm just probing your rationale. If you think WC hold all the aces, I'm asking: 'Why not just offer them a third-rounder?'

That's not a strawman. I'm not saying you've said we should give them a third-rounder. You haven't.

I'm asking the question to highlight the shortcomings of your position. And your answer - that's it's about 'maintaining trading relations' - is nonsense.

It's a strawman through implication, for such is no one's rationale, as it hasn't been suggested or implied. Btw, it's the fourth time you've asked, and I've answered it on multiple occasions already. Again, do you have comprehension difficulties?

You don't like my answer so you continue to ask in order to get a different answer. I'm sticking with the answer I've already given you. If you think my answer is nonsense, then expand on that and explain.

Stop sooking, mate. It's ridiculous.

Says the sooky lala who said "Don't just call me a troll because I disagree with you." Hahahahaha!

It's April. We don't know where they'll finish. If GWS finish lower than WC, then the exchange of first-rounders goes out the window. It's only feasible if GWS finish slightly higher than WC. This demonstrates why some vagueness is unavoidable and why your relentless demand for specifics is ill-conceived.

Just to clarify: my suggestion of exchanging first-rounders was in addition to our existing second-rounder.

I made a second, separate suggestion of two second-rounders - we'd obviously have to get one of these from elsewhere if we went down that path.

"It's April" is irrelevant. We're discussing hypothetically. I asked you if you knew what hypothetical meant. That fact that you repeat the same nonsense shows that you don't.
Hypothetical situations don't require all the facts to be know at the time - that's why it's called a hypothetical. Such discussion allows for speculation and probabilities. That's why specifics are called for in hypothetical discussion and why they're not out of place.

Well, I'm glad you've clarified your position... finally. It only took you numerous posts to post that single sentence that could've and should've been done in your initial reply to me.

My version of pragmatism is that if WC spend all season coaxing a player to switch clubs, they make sure the deal gets done.

"Make sure a deal gets done" type of pragmatism seems to involve WC giving up their leverage in order to appease GWS and get the deal done before your "the deal may collapse" bogeyman appears. It would've been concise to just say that you agree with me.

It stands up pretty well against yours, which consists of unrealistic arguments buttressed by sooking and shrillness.

Projection much.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I really hope that Selwood gets an offer too good to refuse from over east now.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Late in your last post was it when you finally decided to put all your half ideas into a concentrated and understandable trade deal. Praise the Lord! You have a knack for making the simple seem difficult.

It's really not that abstract but I apologise if it was 'difficult' for you.

Your sitting on the fence has been made manifest in your continual, until late in your last post, putting forward incomplete trade deals without accompanying reason. Such incoherent trade suggestions make for a neither here nor there position. Hence fence sitting.

What kind of 'accompanying reason' do you need for a suggested trade?

The elements are self-explanatory.

Two 20-something picks for Coniglio? Oh, but you have to 'show your workings' or it doesn't count? Really?

Or our second-rounder, plus an exchange of first-rounders in the event GWS finish a few spots higher? Oh, but I need to explain 'the reasoning' in greater detail? Really?

Either way, that's still not what 'sitting on the fence' means. But carry on with this obviously bogus line if it tickles you. You can chase that turkey down the mineshaft all day long if you like, champ.

I'm sure WC inquire of many players throughout the year and follow up on those calls which seek to bring opposition players to play at WC. Just because WC shake Coniglio loose that doesn't mean they have something tangible to lose, just like nothing is lost if their inquiries into other players comes to nothing.

Well, whether it's tangible or not, it's the opportunity to poach a young midfielder they've targeted. Should WC succeed in shaking him loose, to the point he's ready to walk out on GWS, then WC absolutely have something to lose.

They would have a position that they've worked to establish and run the risk of blowing it. That is the risk for WC – that they get within reach of landing a player they want and then have it amount to nothing because they couldn't do the deal. That is quite clearly 'something to lose'.

Your version of capitalizing basically advocates the squandering of WC's leverage unnecessarily and capitulating even though the likelihood is that GWS won't let Coniglio go for nothing into the draft, and that they will come to accept less than Coniglio's market value based on the difficult negotiating circumstance they find themselves in.

Capitulating would be trading out of the first round. I'm not suggesting WC do that.

Again, no one is saying or implying the throwing of a third rounder at them. Your position relies on GWS being stubborn to the point that WC have to give in to GWS' demands in order to get a deal done, and not GWS understanding their predicament and bending accordingly to accept less than his real worth.

My position relies on something in the middle. That's pragmatism.

Your position relies on GWS getting the shaft. That's unrealistic.

If WC don't get Coniglio for a price befitting their leverage they should walk away. WC can't lose something they don't have.

But they will have something by that stage ie. they will have the chance to recruit a young midfielder they want. And they can lose that if they don't get the deal done.

If anything is lost it's the opportunity for WC to pay more than they should've given their leverage by giving into their fear of "failing to capitalize". WC already have this problem and end up paying more than they should in, as shown in previous deals they've been involved in.

I don't have too many complaints about the price we paid for Yeo. Do you?

In hindsight, we overpaid for Wellingham. But I don't begrudge the club for doing that deal. We could have tried to get something back in change from Collingwood but the bigger issue is that Wellingham has tailed off. The deal itself was reasonable at the time.

It's a strawman through implication, for such is no one's rationale, as it hasn't been suggested or implied. Btw, it's the fourth time you've asked, and I've answered it on multiple occasions already. Again, do you have comprehension difficulties?

Sorry, but the part in bold is just utter bullshit. You can't wheel that out and expect people to take you seriously.

A strawman would be if I distorted your position to make it easier to rebut. I haven't done that.

I have, however, asked you a very specific question.

If WC hold all the aces, as you suggest, why don't we just offer GWS a third-rounder? I know you haven't suggested that we should do that – so it's not a strawman, 'by implication' or otherwise.

You've answered that it's to 'maintain trading relations'. And that's nonsense. That's no reason to do anything. The real reason is that a pragmatic solution involves giving up something of value to acquire something of value. In other words, a third-rounder wouldn't get the deal done and would expose WC to a risk of the deal falling through.

Instead of acknowledging this, you hide behind the bullshit line that we have to 'maintain trading relations', which is laughable. And it's made all the more absurd by the fact you're the one arguing we should aggressively short-change GWS in the first place.

Says the sooky lala who said "Don't just call me a troll because I disagree with you." Hahahahaha!

Which part of that do you think reflects well on you?

A typed-out laugh is a pretty sure sign of desperation. And so it plays out here.

You over-committed to an unrealistic position and now you're trying to bulldog your way through it. It's OK. I get it. I don't take it personally but it's clear that's what's happening here. Bluster can't conceal it.

"It's April" is irrelevant. We're discussing hypothetically. I asked you if you knew what hypothetical meant. That fact that you repeat the same nonsense shows that you don't.

The point is that a degree of vagueness is unavoidable. I'm OK with that but you seem to have a problem with it.

Sometimes, it's perfectly sensible to say 'we don't know yet'.

"Make sure a deal gets done" type of pragmatism seems to involve WC giving up their leverage in order to appease GWS and get the deal done before your "the deal may collapse" bogeyman appears. It would've been concise to just say that you agree with me.

Well, if your argument is that we could give them pick 20-odd and be confident of getting Coniglio, then I don't agree. I think we'd need to add to that. And the approach we take to doing that would depend on what bargaining chips each side has on the table – which we don't know yet.

I have, however, made a couple of suggestions, which I think are more realistic and more pragmatic than yours.

 

[tesseract]

It's really not that abstract but I apologise if it was 'difficult' for you.

Ah! A cop-out. How fitting.

What kind of 'accompanying reason' do you need for a suggested trade?

The elements are self-explanatory.

Two second-rounders for Coniglio? Oh, but you have to 'show your workings' or it doesn't count?

Discuss the circumstance for the hypothetical you propose.

If the season has ended and we know exactly what picks the club have to use, as well as which players want to be traded out, the elements alone would be sufficient. But we're not there at present, so more information is required when offering a hypothetical.

I never said "Two second-rounders for Coniglio" doesn't count, it's just that it's insufficient.

And that's still not what 'sitting on the fence' means. But carry on with your little tap dance if you like.

Well, whether it's tangible or not, it's the opportunity to poach a young midfielder they've targeted. Should WC succeed in shaking him loose, to the point he's ready to walk out on GWS, then WC absolutely have something to lose.

They would have a position that they've worked to establish and run the risk of blowing it. That is quite clearly 'something to lose'. You have to be quite obtuse to argue otherwise.

That is the risk for WC – that they get within reach of landing a player they want and then have it amount to nothing because they couldn't do the deal.

Actually, it is part of the definition. I've previous pointed out your reluctance/hesitance in offering up reasoning and incomplete deals.

Can't lose something we never had.

Your version of "make sure a deal gets done" pragmatism means such an opportunity comes at a premium price, for you're willing to throw away leverage and even capitulate if need be under the reasoning "make sure a deal gets done", all under your looming fear of "failing to capitalize".

Having a position is, in practical terms, nothing. It's not tangible. If you want to use a context that has no context in this discussion, by all means, just try not to delude yourself as to its relevance.

You've put the onus on WC to make the deal happen without factoring in GWS likely acting pragmatically to avoid the situation where they lose Coniglio for nothing. If GWS don't bend accordingly, WC need to walk away and buck their recent trend of overpaying when it comes to trades.

Capitulating would be trading out of the first round. I'm not suggesting WC do that.

"Make sure a deal gets done" and "fail to capitalize" suggests otherwise.

My position relies on something in the middle. That's pragmatism.

Your position relies on GWS get ripped off.

Your pragmatism is shown with the statement "Make sure a deal gets done". It's saying: regardless of price let's go for it and cough up what we have to get it done before the trade period expires.

My position is if WC finish low enough on the table to make their 1st round selection an non-viable/unrealistic option, then their 2nd round pick, perhaps with change, as per the O'Rourke deal, is around the mark. What's considered ripping GWS off is subjective. WC have no obligation to be fair when they wield the leverage they have in this hypothetical.

But they will have something by that stage ie. they will have the chance to recruit a young midfielder they want. And they can lose that if they don't get the deal done.

Again, a "chance" isn't tangible. In practical terms it's nothing.

The situation may even turn out like the Polec trade where Polec up and moved back to his home state of SA and forced Brisbane to accept less than market value and a price many wouldn't consider fair. Port weren't pragmatic or fair, they rightfully wielded their leverage and made out like bandits. But that's what leverage brings about.

I don't have too many complaints about the price we paid for Yeo. Do you?

In hindsight, we overpaid for Wellingham. But I don't begrudge the club for doing that deal. We could have tried to get something back in change from Collingwood but the bigger issue is that Wellingham has tailed off. The deal itself was reasonable at the time.

I do have a problem with Yeo's price. Why pay more than we have to? It also cost WC opportunity.

I stated at the time that WC were overpaying for Wellingham. I could see WC's intent to top up, but knew he was overpriced given his stated intention. It was bad deal, and thus far hindsight has shown my stance to be correct.

Sorry, but the part in bold is just utter bullshit. You can't wheel that out and expect people to take you seriously.
A strawman would be if I exaggerated your position to make it easier to rebut. I haven't done that.

I have, however, asked you a very specific question.

If WC hold all the aces, as you suggest, why don't we just offer GWS a third-rounder? I know you haven't suggested that we should do – so it's not a strawman, 'by implication' or otherwise.

You've answered that it's to 'maintain trading relations'. And that's nonsense. That's no reason to do anything. The real reason is that a pragmatic solution involves giving up something of value to acquire something of value. In other words, a third-rounder wouldn't get the deal done and would expose WC to a risk of the deal falling through.

Instead of acknowledging this, you hide behind the bullshit line that we have to 'maintain trading relations', which is laughable.

A strawman would be if I exaggerated your position to make it easier to rebut" is what you've done by implication. Your continuous pointing to my supposed rationale as that of offering a 3rd rounder shows this to be the case. So, it's an exaggeration on your part that makes it easy for you to rebut. Your rebuttal to your own strawman is "Your position relies on GWS get ripped off."

Mainting future trading relation is a specific answer and a real concern. Your talk of pragmatism ignores the leverage WC wield. Again, no one has stated or implied that WC should throw a 3rd rounder at GWS. To state that's anyone's position goes beyond disingenuous and is trolling by means of strawmanning.

If you don't like my stated reasoning, well, stiff shit.

That's correct.

Which part of that do you think reflects well on you?

I've long felt a typed-out laugh is a pretty sure sign of desperation. And so it plays out here.

I exposed your do as I say not as I do double standard. I think that reflects well on me.

Meh is my response to what you do or don't consider desperation.

The point is that a degree of vagueness is unavoidable. I'm OK with that but you seem to have a problem with it.

Vagueness is avoidable and only occurs if you're not specific in stating your hypothetical situation.

Well, if your argument is that we could give them pick 20-odd and be confident of getting Coniglio, then I don't agree. I think we'd need to add to that. And the approach we take to doing that would depend on what bargaining chips each side has on the table – which we don't yet know.

I stated in this thread before you even got involved in discussing this issue with me that a 2nd pick plus change may be required as per the O'Rourke deal where the Hawks traded their first round pick, number 19 and pick 40 for O'Rourke and pick 43 from the Giants. The 2nd round pick is almost a given if WC finish low enough to take their 1st off the table; what may change is the additional something on top. Like the O'Rourke deal, a 3rd on top of the 2nd may be the deal if no WC players offer themselves up as an option for trade.

 

[eagle eyed]

Can we rename this thread "The never ending Coniglio hypothetical trade debate"?

 

[SpaceClef]

Can we rename this thread "The never ending Coniglio hypothetical trade debate"?

I'm getting RSI from all the scrolling that's required

 

[swannies]

Nobody's getting Coniglio for anything less than a first rounder. /debate

Do we want him, is the real question? Many on this board don't see value in him, which puzzles me, but we move on.

What other mids would/should we chase? O'Meara, with the injury concerns? Rich?

 

[SpaceClef]

Nobody's getting Coniglio for anything less than a first rounder. /debate

Do we want him, is the real question? Many on this board don't see value in him, which puzzles me, but we move on.

What other mids would/should we chase? O'Meara, with the injury concerns? Rich?

Rich would be nice but I haven't seen him for a while. O'Meara would cost too much surely. Then again given Brisbane's exodus they might try extra hard not to give him up.

 

[SpaceClef]

I think/hope we are in for a hefty clean out of players at the end of the season.

I would not bat an eyelid if the following players were delisted or retired at season's end:

Butler
Ellis
Hill
McGinnity
Tunbridge
Colledge
Carter

I think Ellis is becoming a list clogger. Butler and Hill are past it and McGinnity is awful, though he will likely become a life member and average 6 touches a game across his career.

Tunbridge doesn't seem up to AFL footy and I think we can pick up similar players cheap. Colledge is contracted for another year and is developing ok for a former undersized KPF but I wouldn't cry into my girlfriend's bosom if he were to be cut.

We seem to have picked well in the most recent draft and should that form continue it would be handy to have as many open spaces in the squad as possible.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Discuss the circumstance for the hypothetical you propose.

If the season has ended and we know exactly what picks the club have to use, as well as which players want to be traded out, the elements alone would be sufficient. But we're not there at present, so more information is required when offering a hypothetical.

More information about a hypothetical?

This is all unnecessary waffle.

Two-second rounders for Coniglio is surely pretty clear. Our existing 20-something pick plus one more acquired from elsewhere.

Your version of "make sure a deal gets done" pragmatism means such an opportunity comes at a premium price, for you're willing to throw away leverage and even capitulate if need be under the reasoning "make sure a deal gets done", all under your looming fear of "failing to capitalize".

That would be true if I was suggesting we should trade out of the first round. But I'm not.

Having a position is, in practical terms, nothing.

That's not true at all. If Coniglio has been persuaded to leave GWS and nominate WC, that's not nothing.

Your pragmatism is shown with the statement "Make sure a deal gets done". It's saying: regardless of price let's go for it and cough up what we have to get it done before the trade period expires.

I've been pretty clear about not trading out of the first round. So it's not "regardless of price".

A strawman would be if I exaggerated your position to make it easier to rebut" is what you've done by implication.

Your continuous pointing to my supposed rationale as that of offering a 3rd rounder shows this to be the case. So, it's an exaggeration on your part that makes it easy for you to rebut.

But I haven't said your rationale involves offering a third-rounder. That would be a strawman if I had.

I'm merely demonstrating that WC can't simply dictate the terms. And it's not because they need to 'maintain trading relations'.

I stated in this thread before you even got involved in discussing this issue with me that a 2nd pick plus change may be required as per the O'Rourke deal where the Hawks traded their first round pick, number 19 and pick 40 for O'Rourke and pick 43 from the Giants. The 2nd round pick is almost a given if WC finish low enough to take their 1st off the table; what may change is the additional something on top. Like the O'Rourke deal, a 3rd on top of the 2nd may be the deal if no WC players offer themselves up as an option for trade.

Well, that still strikes me as unrealistic.

You pivot back to the O'Rourke trade but the Hawks had pick 19. Our first-rounder will be much higher and, as we agree, shouldn't be on the table in a straight swap. So even using this example as a basis, I can't see how a pick in 20s and a pick in the 40s would suffice for a young player, like Coniglio, who is actually established.

I think it's more plausible we'd downgrade our first-rounder – either dealing directly with GWS if they finish a few spots higher, or with another club to get an extra second-rounder to add to the deal with GWS.

You've chosen the O'Rourke trade but the deal for Dom Tyson is equally relevant. That was Melbourne's picks 2, 20 and 79 for Tyson and GWS's pick 9 and 53. I'm not suggesting we'll have pick 2 but that exchange of first-rounders, added to our second-rounder, seems a more apt basis for a trade for Coniglio than the deal done for O'Rourke. It would hypothetically get us Coniglio while keeping us in the first round of the draft.

 

[Falco]

I think/hope we are in for a hefty clean out of players at the end of the season.

I would not bat an eyelid if the following players were delisted or retired at season's end:

Butler
Ellis
Hill
McGinnity
Tunbridge
Colledge
Carter

I think Ellis is becoming a list clogger. Butler and Hill are past it and McGinnity is awful, though he will likely become a life member and average 6 touches a game across his career.

Tunbridge doesn't seem up to AFL footy and I think we can pick up similar players cheap. Colledge is contracted for another year and is developing ok for a former undersized KPF but I wouldn't cry into my girlfriend's bosom if he were to be cut.

We seem to have picked well in the most recent draft and should that form continue it would be handy to have as many open spaces in the squad as possible.

You can strike this bloke off your list, he went last year!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Nobody's getting Coniglio for anything less than a first rounder. /debate

Do we want him, is the real question? Many on this board don't see value in him, which puzzles me, but we move on.

I think if we can engineer a trade while retaining a first-round pick, then it's worth a look.

 

[bodazoka]

Sure. If he's keen on moving.

But I think we'd have to find a way to make it work without trading out of the first round.

I agree with our shrill friend tesseract on that point.

This is the crux for me. Getting him and keeping our first rounder I think is imperative, and I wouldn't want him if it means giving them our first. His body is risky and if he breaks down we screw up yet another draft year trading out or first.