Rumour Jeremy Cameron

Remove this Banner Ad

I'd quite happily trade two first round picks for Cameron and give him a 6-year contract at $1.1M per year. The first round picks are still somewhat of a lottery, and one or both could still amount to nothing if taken to the draft. You know what you're getting with Cameron and we will have more trade currency with the likely departure of Kelly. If a player of Cameron's calibre is gettable, you throw the kitchen sink at him.
 
catempire said:
You can restructure the dollars in a longer term deal.
Click to expand...

Why would he agree to that? It short changes him dollars. If he is due 1.3... to reduce that and spread it... means he is getting less.
yes they can but why would he really. I cant see us trading for him and fitting in 1.3 ..it would affect the other players to a significant degree.
 
Turbocat said:
Why would he agree to that? It short changes him dollars. If he is due 1.3... to reduce that and spread it... means he is getting less.
yes they can but why would he really. I cant see us trading for him and fitting in 1.3 ..it would affect the other players to a significant degree.
Click to expand...
Because it can be net beneficial to the player.

Eg. Instead of staying at the Giants and getting 1.3/1/1/1/1 he might go elsewhere and get 1/1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4.

Trade off a bit in the short term for gain longer term. It’s why players agree to backend deals.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mad_Catter said:
I'd quite happily trade two first round picks for Cameron and give him a 6-year contract at $1.1M per year. The first round picks are still somewhat of a lottery, and one or both could still amount to nothing if taken to the draft. You know what you're getting with Cameron and we will have more trade currency with the likely departure of Kelly. If a player of Cameron's calibre is gettable, you throw the kitchen sink at him.
Click to expand...

Lets think for a moment..
..im not yet convinced we could trade our R1 2019 and our R1 2020 .. the only way it probably could be legal is if we gain picks , most likely if we lose Kelly.
.. Yes first round picks are not certain. Lottery is an exaggeration.. How certain , it depends on the picks you have ... but I conceed that to think any R1 pick automatically develops into a star is wrong.
... the 1.1 figure .. we have to pay 1.3 next year so .. does that mean 1.2 , 1.2 in y1 and y2? .. I think that article basically says we will NOT get into a bidding war.. so I really doubt we offer the money others will.
 
catempire said:
Because it can be net beneficial to the player.

Eg. Instead of staying at the Giants and getting 1.3/1/1/1/1 he might go elsewhere and get 1/1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4.

Trade off a bit in the short term for gain longer term. It’s why players agree to backend deals.
Click to expand...

Im not convinced on this one ce.. the Giants have him on a backended deal now.. I cant see him going to Geelong from the GWS for money..he will get more money from them ..especially if they let Patton go.
 
Turbocat said:
Im not convinced on this one ce.. the Giants have him on a backended deal now.. I cant see him going to Geelong from the GWS for money..he will get more money from them ..especially if they let Patton go.
Click to expand...
That may well be so (nobody outside the clubs really knows the TPP situation).

I’m just saying there are legitimate reasons to trade 1.3 for something less. It’s incorrect to say you must pay 1.3 in 2020 to get him.
 
catempire said:
That may well be so (nobody outside the clubs really knows the TPP situation).

I’m just saying there are legitimate reasons to trade 1.3 for something less. It’s incorrect to say you must pay 1.3 in 2020 to get him.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on the bold.. unlike some who are willinng to proclaim such knowlege that one make think they have some sort of red phone to Wells well..

Yes he could agree to take the money spread... and im not sure on SC implications of whether one has to absorb the 1.3 that was scheduled into GWS cap. The have been examples of the afl making the rules up to suit the situation. I think Lakes contract is one example that suits your pov. Perhaps we can pay him when ever but its the cap that is spread... as in a retiring player. I heard that the Swans still have Tipppet in their cap atm.

I will say this my underlying feeling is id prefer to go to the draft with our picks ... especially if we trade kelly and manage to get a top 10 pick.... or if I was going to trade id prefer a younger player but i also understand that the chance to get Cameron in way would relate to spending two picks for Ottens (even though Ottens was younger).. who we used 12 and 16 happily. To me it would be really leveraging our next few years , just like the Swans did with Buddy.. has their recruitment of him been a success? Did they have to win a flag for it to be so..? And even for them .. it sis not cost them anything but dollars.. as he was a FA.
 
Turbocat said:
Totally agree on the bold.. unlike some who are willinng to proclaim such knowlege that one make think they have some sort of red phone to Wells well..

Yes he could agree to take the money spread... and im not sure on SC implications of whether one has to absorb the 1.3 that was scheduled into GWS cap. The have been examples of the afl making the rules up to suit the situation. I think Lakes contract is one example that suits your pov. Perhaps we can pay him when ever but its the cap that is spread... as in a retiring player. I heard that the Swans still have Tipppet in their cap atm.

I will say this my underlying feeling is id prefer to go to the draft with our picks ... especially if we trade kelly and manage to get a top 10 pick.... or if I was going to trade id prefer a younger player but i also understand that the chance to get Cameron in way would relate to spending two picks for Ottens (even though Ottens was younger).. who we used 12 and 16 happily. To me it would be really leveraging our next few years , just like the Swans did with Buddy.. has their recruitment of him been a success? Did they have to win a flag for it to be so..? And even for them .. it sis not cost them anything but dollars.. as he was a FA.
Click to expand...
I think if JC wants to come to the club you happily give up two 1sts. It’s not even questionable.
 
Turbocat said:
Fair enough .. I would not give up two P1's for him but I would give up 2 R18's ... somewhere in there is a line for me.
Click to expand...
Well the means available is the ultimate line. We are not going to have two top 10s for instance. At best we might get a top 10 for Kelly and our own R1. That would do it.
 
catempire said:
Well the means available is the ultimate line. We are not going to have two top 10s for instance. At best we might get a top 10 for Kelly and our own R1. That would do it.
Click to expand...

As I said there is a line somewhere. Its not like I have a say in it. If R1's is as frail and ambit as some think , they may be happy to trade 3 R1's... id probably say too far for mine. In fact id certainly to much.
If we some how got a pick inside 8 , Id have trouble dealing that.. its been a long time since we have had one that early. I think its all probably theoretical anyway..I cant see GWS dealling him atm. which would suit me fine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gogeelong said:
I think that players who have performed on the great stage are more valuable than unknowns. How can Camaron or Kelly for that matter be worth less than 2 first round picks.
Click to expand...
How?... The number of picks is less important than the number. Put it this way ... would you be happy taking P17 and P18 for TKelly?..Yet Id gladly take 1 R1..if it was 1 or 2 ... and even then we don't get a replacement for Kelly.
 
I think Cameron would get a better combination of early first round picks than Kelly.
As an example Cameron 2 picks 5 to 10 and Kelly 2 picks 10 to 15.
I actually think Kelly is worth more than this and if he does leave we would get less.

He could be the best goal kicking midfielder in the comp at the moment so what is that worth?
 
catempire said:
I think if JC wants to come to the club you happily give up two 1sts. It’s not even questionable.
Click to expand...

I agree 2 x R1s and a fringe player or two or so i would give up for him in a heartbeat its fair and he fills a need and we have a 2-3 year flag window that we need to take advantage of. But i think the issue will be even if they are prepared to trade him which would be only if they think he will 100 % go as an FA next year they wont trade him for picks bc those dont help them win a flag in 2020 it will only be if they get an A grader in as part of the trade who can help them win a flag in 2020. Clubs who are rebuilding trade players for picks ones in flag windows only trade them for other A graders its the same reason we didnt trade TK last year. And i dont see anyone obvious from our side who is A grade that we would give up to GWS that would be willing to go so i think it would need a 3-4 club trade to get it done.
 
Last edited:
Turbocat said:
Totally agree on the bold.. unlike some who are willinng to proclaim such knowlege that one make think they have some sort of red phone to Wells well..

Yes he could agree to take the money spread... and im not sure on SC implications of whether one has to absorb the 1.3 that was scheduled into GWS cap. The have been examples of the afl making the rules up to suit the situation. I think Lakes contract is one example that suits your pov. Perhaps we can pay him when ever but its the cap that is spread... as in a retiring player. I heard that the Swans still have Tipppet in their cap atm.

I will say this my underlying feeling is id prefer to go to the draft with our picks ... especially if we trade kelly and manage to get a top 10 pick.... or if I was going to trade id prefer a younger player but i also understand that the chance to get Cameron in way would relate to spending two picks for Ottens (even though Ottens was younger).. who we used 12 and 16 happily. To me it would be really leveraging our next few years , just like the Swans did with Buddy.. has their recruitment of him been a success? Did they have to win a flag for it to be so..? And even for them .. it sis not cost them anything but dollars.. as he was a FA.
Click to expand...

Players particularly older ones will agree to less $ or to spread them for more years as they get security. I have no doubt when we extended Selwood to 2021 part of that would have been him allowing us to backend it so we had more money to chase people in 19-20 in exchange for more years contract security. Cameron would do the same for a 5-6 year deal which means his 2020 $ can be backended to later years. In any case we can fit him in next year SS and Smith would be on 450 each, so would Henderson, Bews is probably on 300 and while id like him to stay he may not. You could trade Parsons somewhere for pick 100 to get his salary off the books. Thats at least 1.5mil there without considering any money we have set aside for TK if he goes. Money is not the issue its if they are even willing to trade him.

The way i see it Sav is not giving much now but i think he will be good in time BUT...the comp is very open and weaker than it has been in years, we probably have a 2-3 year genuine flag window while we still have Ablett and Taylor and Haw and Danger and Sel at their best etc and guys like Duncan Menegola Blitz Tuohy etc in their peak performance years (bearing in mind they will be over 30 by then) can we afford to wait for Sav to become a quality KPF until after that window has passed? Probably not. For that reason if we can get an A grade KPF in this off season it is probably worth it to us to pay slight overs to do it.
 
Last edited:
Turbocat said:
Lets think for a moment..
..im not yet convinced we could trade our R1 2019 and our R1 2020 .. the only way it probably could be legal is if we gain picks , most likely if we lose Kelly.
.. Yes first round picks are not certain. Lottery is an exaggeration.. How certain , it depends on the picks you have ... but I conceed that to think any R1 pick automatically develops into a star is wrong.
... the 1.1 figure .. we have to pay 1.3 next year so .. does that mean 1.2 , 1.2 in y1 and y2? .. I think that article basically says we will NOT get into a bidding war.. so I really doubt we offer the money others will.
Click to expand...

I think Kelly is the key here. If he stays we are very unlikely to be able to trade for Cameron. But the chances of Kelly staying are slim at best imo. We will get at least one first round pick as a minimum from one of the WA clubs - possibly two round one picks with us sending a second round pick in return with Kelly.

As for the $1.3M he's on next year, I'm guessing that will have to be re-structured somehow in the new deal with us. Not sure of the specifics as to how it gets done, but all parties will have to agree to it. I personally don't think it's a massive issue as this kind of thing happens pretty regularly now, so there would be a way to sort something out which pleases all parties. I think it's pretty clear we'd heavily backend the Cameron contract given the likely departures of some of our key personnel in the next 2-3 years.

I guess it all comes down to how badly Cameron wants to return to VIC and how willing GWS are to release him from the last year of his contract.

FWIW, I think Cameron coming to us is probably a pipe-dream and all this is very unlikely, but where there is smoke there is fire I guess.
 
Mad_Catter said:
I think Kelly is the key here. If he stays we are very unlikely to be able to trade for Cameron. But the chances of Kelly staying are slim at best imo. We will get at least one first round pick as a minimum from one of the WA clubs - possibly two round one picks with us sending a second round pick in return with Kelly.

As for the $1.3M he's on next year, I'm guessing that will have to be re-structured somehow in the new deal with us. Not sure of the specifics as to how it gets done, but all parties will have to agree to it. I personally don't think it's a massive issue as this kind of thing happens pretty regularly now, so there would be a way to sort something out which pleases all parties. I think it's pretty clear we'd heavily backend the Cameron contract given the likely departures of some of our key personnel in the next 2-3 years.

I guess it all comes down to how badly Cameron wants to return to VIC and how willing GWS are to release him from the last year of his contract.

FWIW, I think Cameron coming to us is probably a pipe-dream and all this is very unlikely, but where there is smoke there is fire I guess.
Click to expand...

All fair... for me atm .. Im not even sure how much smoke there is, let alone fire ... all I want the club to do ..is put first things first. I want them to be loud and very upfront that they will be offering a very good deal to kelly ..and that we will not lose him cause we are the lowest offer.. if and when Kelly moves on.. and we get data on what we have in our hand ..and we have a clear indication that Cameron really does want to move then it becomes a something a little more than smoke. All that is a fair way down the track.. and as you say the two are linked.. it would seem if kelly stays then we just could not fit Cameron... and so I suspect thats why recently Cook said he would like an answer from kelly before the end of the season.

My pov is still slanted towards draft or trade for a talented kid...line a King or someone else. Do we get in the mix for Luciouscus? Im not as focused on ..lets leverage up the now..cause thats what Cameron is 27 or 28 . Id think we almost would have to win a flag for it to geta tick. It would be a Boyd trade .
 
Mad_Catter said:
I'd quite happily trade two first round picks for Cameron and give him a 6-year contract at $1.1M per year. The first round picks are still somewhat of a lottery, and one or both could still amount to nothing if taken to the draft. You know what you're getting with Cameron and we will have more trade currency with the likely departure of Kelly. If a player of Cameron's calibre is gettable, you throw the kitchen sink at him.
Click to expand...
And any other household whitegoods a birdbath and a gazebo
 
The problem of giving all that to get Cameron and with Selwood and Ablett finished and Kelly going, he will have Atkins and Parsons getting it to him. Or not getting it to him as the case will be.

I think if Kelly goes, we invest back in draft and wait for free agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jhye Clark 13
Toast Jeremy Cameron - 200 games
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
cats_09
cats_09
David the Cat
  • Locked
  • Sticky
MVP Cumulative MVP Votes for 2024 Season after Game v North : Cameron makes a move, but Miers leads.
Replies
1
Views
5K
David the Cat
David the Cat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top