Hawks after Cox

[PRANKSTER666]

For the record I would trade him for the right price but it just won't happen.

Get serious Eagle87 Dean Cox is a little different to Ian Downsborough and Chad Morrison.

Bunsen you're the moron if you are seriously entertaining the idea that Cox would ever be traded.

I'm not posting on this topic anymore, it's ridiculous.

 

[bunsen burner]

For the record I would trade him for the right price but it just won't happen.

I see. And a 22yo superstar who has already kick 100 in a season and won a coleman PLUS a 20yo superstar with 12 years ahead of him is not enough?

Bunsen you're the moron if you are seriously entertaining the idea that Cox would ever be traded.

Whilst I think it's highly unlikely, everyone has a price. A concept you seem to struggle with.

I'm not posting on this topic anymore, it's ridiculous.

Sure, go stick your head back in the sand.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Like others I doubt the club would even entertain trading Cox but as others have said at the right price anything is possible.

The Hawks wouldn't put up Franklin, maybe they would put up Williams and some other player and maybe a draft pick.

No point in them getting Cox and losing a Rioli and Franklin, does not help their cause at all.
Its just rumours, and this happens every year at this time.

 

[Underdog]

I see. And a 22yo superstar who has already kick 100 in a season and won a coleman PLUS a 20yo superstar with 12 years ahead of him is not enough?

That assumes Franklin and Rioli want to come to WA and Cox will want to leave and it's possible all will get acceptable contracts.

You can choose to trade any player under the sun...but that is not where it ends...

I doubt Rioli will want to come to Perth.

 

[Eagle87]

For the record I would trade him for the right price but it just won't happen.

You said you wouldnt trade him for Franklin and Rioli. What the heck would it take?

Get serious Eagle87 Dean Cox is a little different to Ian Downsborough and Chad Morrison.

My point was, and remains, that you said we wouldnt trade him because we "wouldnt ask him to leave the club" i.e. some sort of loyalty - but I dont believe thats true and we have some history of asking players to leave who didnt want to.

Again, is it your view that Cox isnt tradeable no matter what because of loyalty and if so why does our loyalty only stretch to really good players?

By the way, Chad was a two time Top 3 in our B&F and he played for Victoria in SOO football - not a complete spud by any means AND he wanted to stay - we traded him because it was best for our club. As would Cox for Franklin & Rioli..... why is Cox untradeable?

 

[PRANKSTER666]

I said 'we' wouldn't trade him for Franklin and Rioli meaning the club, not 'I'.

So yes, my point is that loyalty exists for somebody who has been so good for us, is still good and is a key leader at our club and therefore to suggest we would trade him is silly unless some bad blood occurred between Cox and the club.

The problem with trading him raises the question; how big an influence will he have on NicNat and how much more valuable does that make him over the next 3 years?

 

[Eagle87]

I said 'we' wouldn't trade him for Franklin and Rioli meaning the club, not 'I'.

So yes, my point is that loyalty exists for somebody who has been so good for us, is still good and is a key leader at our club and therefore to suggest we would trade him is silly unless some bad blood occurred between Cox and the club.

The problem with trading him raises the question; how big an influence will he have on NicNat and how much more valuable does that make him over the next 3 years?

The problem with NOT trading him, is how much of an impediment to NN's development will that be?

In 2 years, Cox will have zero trade value (aged 30) and Nick Nat will be at 50+ games - perhaps playing off the bench in 5 minute spurts ala Seaby - teams can only have 1 Alpha Dog ruckman and at some stage Cox will be in NN's way - just as Gardy was in Cox's - and remember we nearly traded Cox because of Gardy being in his way.

Not saying trade him - but for a gun player and a Top 7 pick we would need to think very carefully.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

The problem with NOT trading him, is how much of an impediment to NN's development will that be?

In 2 years, Cox will have zero trade value (aged 30) and Nick Nat will be at 50+ games - perhaps playing off the bench in 5 minute spurts ala Seaby - teams can only have 1 Alpha Dog ruckman and at some stage Cox will be in NN's way - just as Gardy was in Cox's - and remember we nearly traded Cox because of Gardy being in his way.

Not saying trade him - but for a gun player and a Top 7 pick we would need to think very carefully.

Disregarding the whole loyalty issue trading Seaby and Cox this year would leave us with NicNat, Sullivan (Rookie) and Lynch (part timer) which is a massive gamble.

NicNat is still a kid despite his size and another 2 years as the number 2 ruck isn't going to hold him back. It just means we can try him in other positions which may increase his education of the game.

He has a heap to learn to reach his full potential so I wouldn't worry about holding him back just yet, he has a long and successful career ahead...

 

[bunsen burner]

That assumes Franklin and Rioli want to come to WA and Cox will want to leave and it's possible all will get acceptable contracts.

Champ, Prankster stated that if hypothetically hawthorn offered us Buddy + Rioli in a straight swap he'd say no. They are the assumptions. Not sure why you're butting in with some new ones?

 

[bunsen burner]

I said 'we' wouldn't trade him for Franklin and Rioli meaning the club, not 'I'.

Do you really believe that? The board would get sacked if they didn't.

So yes, my point is that loyalty exists for somebody who has been so good for us,

He just gets more loyalty than others. Doesn't mean he's totally off limits. Everyone has a price.

The problem with trading him raises the question; how big an influence will he have on NicNat and how much more valuable does that make him over the next 3 years?

Answer: not as much influence as Buddy and Cyril would have on our next flag.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

I get it BB, if somebody offered you $500 million dollars to murder your wife/mum/brother etc you would do it, because like you say we humans will do anything for the right price.

That's where you and I differ, I have morals, such as loyalty and you're just a scumbag looking through your black and white glasses.

West Coast are a successful club built on such values and we won't be trading Cox to anyone until he wants to go.

 

[bunsen burner]

I get it BB, if somebody offered you $500 million dollars to murder your wife/mum/brother etc you would do it, because like you say we humans will do anything for the right price.

Most things and most people. Dean Cox has a price.

That's where you and I differ, I have morals,

I have morals too, they're just different from yours. Hasn't stopped you from thinking your set of morals are moral whilst mine are immoral though. Maybe you think you are God?

such as loyalty and you're just a scumbag

There's a balance between business and loyalty that is determined by logical analysis and takes into consedration emations etc. You can only use your heart and can only make such a decision emotionally. You are lacking in the ability to consider everything that is relevant. That hardly equates to me being a scumbag. You are fool maybe, but not me a scumbag.

West Coast are a successful club built on such values and we won't be trading Cox to anyone until he wants to go.

I see. So you're already aware about Morrison. But you claim it depends on ability. So Morrison is expendable for SFA whilst Cox wouldn't be traded for 2 superstars who have a lot more games in them. You obviously feel that you know where the line is drawn. It does indeed seem like you think you are God.

 

[Play by Numbers]

takes into consedration emations etc.

I am brimming with all kinds of strange emations reading this thread.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

Morrison was at the end of his career and was a Victorian so don't be naive as to draw comparisons between such events (not that this Cox trade is an event, rather a mad hypothetical what if the sky fell scenario).

If you honestly think we are a chance to trade Cox this year BB you are delusional as is this entire thread.

Imagine the member and fan backlash if we tried to trade him.

And don't come back with - but if we did a 5 way trade which netted us Franklin, Reidwoldt, Ablett, Brown & Cooney the fans would be happy and we would have to trade him because that is simply rubbish.

What is even more baffling is why I am wasting my time arguing about this with a halfwit.

 

[Underdog]

Champ, Prankster stated that if hypothetically hawthorn offered us Buddy + Rioli in a straight swap he'd say no. They are the assumptions. Not sure why you're butting in with some new ones?

sook much?

This whole idea is preposterous.

Hawthorn are not going to offer Franklin and Rioli
Cox does not want to leave West Coast
Rioli will not want to leave Hawthorn

So what's the point arguing a clearly absurd hypothetical?

Perhaps next we can debate the merit of me receiving the Nobel Peace prize when I develop a cure for cancer...

 

[bunsen burner]

If you honestly think we are a chance to trade Cox this year BB you are delusional as is this entire thread.

not what this thread is about. You said the Eagles wouldn't swap Cox for Buddy and Cyril. Not sure you're in a position to call someone else a halfwit, halfwit.

 

[bunsen burner]

Hawthorn are not going to offer Franklin and Rioli

I didn't bring it up. That F****ard prankster brought it up as a hypothetical and said the Eagles wouldn't do the trade.

If you're going to have a sook about this hypothetical then you should go talk to Wankster666 - he's the one who instigated it.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

I didn't start or instigate this thread nor was I the first person to use Franklin and Rioli as a hypothetical trade option, get your facts right.

 

[Keys]

Enough with the personal abuse.


Keep on topic.

 

[Patterz123]

Would the Eagles trade their squad for st kilda's squad?
(Would definetly solve our premiership problems) Lets put an offer in.
Don't worry if we lose the heart and soul of our club?

Too many hypotheticals and what if's ...
We have a good young team already to appreciate,
not these what if they offer Buddy, Roughy, Rioli ... it wont happen!
Trading Buddy, would be as stupid as trading Cox.
Lose seaby, Lose Cox we have Nic Nat as our main?
Besides some brilliant efforts and signs for the future,
we need to still compete now, not in 7 years time.
If next season we are aiming to finish close to the finals/push for the top 8 we keep the team we have now,
not trade off some of our best for unproven picks.
Sure there is every chance they will be great players, but as good as Coxy though, for our next big finals push?

 

[bunsen burner]

nor was I the first person to use Franklin and Rioli as a hypothetical trade option, get your facts right.

Pretty sure you were. You said "we" wouldn't trade Cox for Buddy and Cyril. No one before had mentioned that trade before as far as I know.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

Pretty sure you were. You said "we" wouldn't trade Cox for Buddy and Cyril. No one before had mentioned that trade before as far as I know.

As far as you know...lol

See post #14 and stop wasting my time.

 

[bunsen burner]

As far as you know...lol

See post #14 and stop wasting my time.

By some random who wasn't part of any discussion that lead to you volunteering that "we" wouldn't trade Cox for Buddy and Cyril.

At the end of the day, you did say it.

 

[larrikin]

not what this thread is about. You said the Eagles wouldn't swap Cox for Buddy and Cyril. Not sure you're in a position to call someone else a halfwit, halfwit.

Actually that was entirely what this thread was about, until it turned into some hypothetical argument.

 

[bunsen burner]

Actually that was entirely what this thread was about, until it turned into some hypothetical argument.

This thread is about hypotheticals. It evolved. The discussion halfwit entered into was one about hypotheticals. if he didn't want to disucuss then he shouldn't have quoted someone and entered into it.

This thread evolved into a hypothetical not because people were speculating on what trade might be done (it's generally agreed it won't happen), but because some people claimed that Cox would never be traded no matter what is offered. Some are so bold to claim he wouldn't be traded for Buddy and Cyril. That is what the thread has evolved into. If someone quotes and enters the discussion, then that is what is on the table.