hawkman
Hall of Famer
It would be interesting if Geelong got to pick 6 and there is a draftee they wanted but didn't think they could get, would they really want to use that pick on Cameron
Traded Jeremy Cameron [traded w/ 2x 2021 R2 (ESS/GWS) to Geelong for #13, #15, #20 and 2021 R4]
- Thread starter Buzzasto DaSilva
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ok so if the Giants took the pick 9 and then 3 days later Geel and GWS did a similar trade in which you have said you have absolutely no issue with.
Cats give 13 & 15 for Giants Pick 9.
End result Giants get two first round picks for Cameron. How is that any different to what they did last year. Answer is it’s not.
In reiterating my point. With what has been allowed to occur the last three years with the draft there is no such thing as integrity. Clubs have actually been praised for being clever and ahead of the curve.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
I agree that he is the structurally hardest to replace player that we have lost in 10 years but we have lost a lot of great players (a huge amount) and transitioned while contending so it is proven we have the ability to culturally and on field wise do that.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Agreed...if their pick ended up being 16 this year no one would bat an eyelid.
One major difference being that 13 and 15 is not worth 9.
Arguably, 6 plus 17 (as the Giants were runners up) is worth 4.
The other issue with your proposed trade is that implicit in the trade is an agreement not to match the offer, in order to put the pick into play. There was no implicit behaviour on Adelaide’s part with GWS, no hidden Gentleman’s agreement. If Adelaide had, say, kept p4, won another deal with GWS and quietly agreed not to lodge an academy bid before p6, THAT would be corrupt.
Geelong wont trade for cameron. As they rightfully dont believe he is worth a lot more then pick 10.
this now will come down to camerons fortitude. Will he go to collingwood instead or dig in and say he will walk if gws play hardball.
gws would have to be stupid to give up pick 10. Although they have demanded our only young midfielder who is contracted and has no interest in leaving.
this now will come down to camerons fortitude. Will he go to collingwood instead or dig in and say he will walk if gws play hardball.
gws would have to be stupid to give up pick 10. Although they have demanded our only young midfielder who is contracted and has no interest in leaving.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,001
- 5,072
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
We will absolutely trade for him, if we have to. And we'll win the trade because we end up with Cameron! JC will be at the Cats next year.
It won't be for Parfitt though and it won't be for 3 1st round picks like Giant Pete thinks lol. Has he got anything right in this thread?
Elmer_Judd
Everyone's favourite grouch
- Jul 25, 2019
- 53,234
- 78,495
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Leeds United
- Banned
- #1,957
Parfitt has not shown enough to be regarded as an untouchable trade asset imo.
It's not as if you guys are loaded with young talent that the Giants would want either.
I Honestly Believe The Giants when they say they are prepared to lose Cameron for nothing and send him to the draft if Geelong are only going to make inadequate/low ball offers such as yourself are suggesting.
I totally support their stance, like I did with Jack Martin last year and The Suns. The Giants have nothing to lose at this point by calling Geelong's bluff, and you can be sure that the AFL will side with them if this saga goes to arbitration.
No Free Lunch for Cameron this time. Geelong must pay for his services or they won't get him. Simple
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,001
- 5,072
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
How about an account bet that you're wrong?
I agree with you on this so long as the matching is actually done in good faith. GWS have a salary cap crunch atm and shouldn’t be matching with money that they couldn’t really afford to pay.
Elmer_Judd
Everyone's favourite grouch
- Jul 25, 2019
- 53,234
- 78,495
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Leeds United
- Banned
- #1,960
Given they will/have also lost Zac Williams, Giants should have plenty of room/space in the cap (I assume)
There is a single precedent for trading for a RFA. RFA carry less value at the trade table than a non-fa because here is an understanding that player has given many years of service and this is the way the game has headed with the AFL PA.
Now, there is a single precedent. Danger. Danger was younger at the time and probably better and coming off a better year.
We traded a value in between the compensation pick (13) and market value. A trade was also done because our R1 was before crows compensation pick (9). Hence being the value of a trade for a RFA.
The trade was:
R1 + R2 + a speculative untried young player (gore) for Danger + R3
Ignoring danger was younger the equivalent is:
Pick 11 + 33 + someone untried but let’s say Constable who is better than gore for Cameron + 46
Gws can trade 33 for McDonald given their interest and giants get essentially the same first round pick + a player or two. And can fix their cap issues and move on whilst letting a servant go home.
There won’t be more given by Geelong. Talk of Parfitt or Clark or Sav is sheer lunacy. When you look scientifically at a precedent to form logic, it makes many posts above look like complete utter shite. There won’t be multiple R1s given.
Now, there is a single precedent. Danger. Danger was younger at the time and probably better and coming off a better year.
We traded a value in between the compensation pick (13) and market value. A trade was also done because our R1 was before crows compensation pick (9). Hence being the value of a trade for a RFA.
The trade was:
R1 + R2 + a speculative untried young player (gore) for Danger + R3
Ignoring danger was younger the equivalent is:
Pick 11 + 33 + someone untried but let’s say Constable who is better than gore for Cameron + 46
Gws can trade 33 for McDonald given their interest and giants get essentially the same first round pick + a player or two. And can fix their cap issues and move on whilst letting a servant go home.
There won’t be more given by Geelong. Talk of Parfitt or Clark or Sav is sheer lunacy. When you look scientifically at a precedent to form logic, it makes many posts above look like complete utter shite. There won’t be multiple R1s given.
- Jan 17, 2013
- 7,590
- 8,279
- AFL Club
- GWS
Yep... it appears I got right into your head.
- Thread starter
- #1,964
If we relocate to Darwin, will he re-sign?
- Banned
- #1,965
If we relocate to Darwin, will he re-sign?
100% haha
I dunno.
Seems like Gil is backing Geelongs' position.
Looking more like compo. to GWS for Jezza.
Free to a good home: McLachlan backs Cameron move
The AFL chief says it is up to clubs make themselves appealing to free agents. He's also looking at flexible fixturing next season.
You getting pick 10 is not a low ball offer. It stacks up with all high quality trades. He is 28 at the start of next season ffs. He aint a 23 year old treloer, 25 year old shiels or dangerfield. He is going to be 28. Pick 10 is pretty solid.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Last year you lot were bellyaching about how much better a top 10 pick was compared to two first round picks from WC.
To make 13 + 15 balance 9 on magic draft pick points you would need to include a pick in the 20s. If Geelong traded 13 + 15 for 9 I doubt the AFL would veto the trade. Last year you traded pick 27 for pick 11 and no one saw issue with that.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Hawkins is very good, but it's less about how good he is as opposed to the role he plays. Other players feed off him like Dixon at Port. Take Kennedy and Darling out of our team the last few years and we've be a borderline top 8 side at best. The only reason we aren't panicking about having a 33 year old Kennedy is having a 28 year old Darling and a 21 year old Allen showing a bit (he's no 21 year old Franklin but he looks like he will at least be AFL standard key forward). We know what #2 has to offer and we have a good idea about #3, so losing #1 isn't as bad.
Take Hawkins out and who steps up? Jenkins played one game, Rohan is unreliable and not a key forward, Ratagolea is exciting but doesn't kick many goals. Maybe Krueger or De Koning will be good one day, but there is no guarantee of that and both are a few years off anyway. Cameron is a perfect replacement and Hawkins might play another couple of years at FF with Cameron at CHF. The only teams with two AA key forwards in their 22 are WC and Richmond who have won the last 3 flags.
“You lot” - oh, sorry, I forgot that all Geelong supporters are a monolith.
13 + 15 for 9 would look very, very suss if GWS has just, surprisingly, chosen not to match. Very suss.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
A lot of things look suss in trade week.
AFL: 'If you trade your future first you can't trade your future second'
Everyone: 'Oh yeah that seems fair enough'
AFL: 'Hawthorn have traded their future first and future second in order to get Jaeger O'Meara'
Everyone: 'wat'
It's not in GWS' interest to take pick 9 as compo then trade it for picks 13 and 15 when they could just ask for picks Geelong have in a trade. They don't have pick 9, it only materialises if Cameron leaves as a free agent. The deal would have to be skewed in their favour to make it worthwhile. If they got pick 9 then traded it to Geelong for later picks with equivalent points value people would wonder why they didn't just keep 9 in the first place.
Besides the fact that we all know that points value really over-rates later picks... the "GWS takes 9 then swaps for 13 and 15" was proposed by some Geelong nuff as a way to make the Cameron deal work as a supposed "win-win". The idea that the GWS would not match the bid, but then have some gentleman's agree to do a later pick swap in their favour with Geelong.
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 25,911
- 41,526
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Jazz71286
Premium Gold
- May 18, 2010
- 575
- 862
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I would think some kind of mutually beneficial deal takes place after GWS don't match; there's too much value pick 9 to leave it off the table.
Similar threads
