Traded Lloyd Meek - [Traded with F2 (Dogs) to Hawthorn for Jaeger O'Meara and F4]

[TheLastCall]

Alternatively, if Hawks finish in the bottom few places we could potentially push Meek to the pre-season draft and get him for nothing

So we keep him this year and use him as a backup ruck, which is what we need him for and develop another player to replace him. Then trade him somewhere else.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Freo won't take a F3. He's contracted and he's a good ruck, the only reason he couldn't get a game is because Darcy and Lobb are in the team. Any team that doesn't have that caliber of player in their best 22 and he gets gametime.

We aren't talking about a ruck who can't get games infront of some average team mates.

Firstly, Lobb is not an A grader.

Secondly, good best 22 players don't go for top 25 picks, let alone depth players. So the "he would get a game at other teams" line doesn't really matter as only top liners fetch that kind of price.

Thirdly, Hawthorn traded for a ruck in almost exactly the same circumstances last year. Max Lynch was 23, stuck behind Grundy in a sole ruck set up and had played a handful of games and shown promise (including a game he beat Max Gawn). He wasn't just traded for an F3 but an F3 upgrade. Before you bother refuting this example, I can reel off LOTS of very similar deals.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Firstly, Lobb is not an A grader.

Secondly, good best 22 players don't go for top 25 picks, let alone depth players. So the "he would get a game at other teams" line doesn't really matter as only top liners fetch that kind of price.

Thirdly, Hawthorn traded for a ruck in almost exactly the same circumstances last year. Max Lynch was 23, stuck behind Grundy in a sole ruck set up and had played a handful of games and shown promise (including a game he beat Max Gawn). He wasn't just traded for an F3 but an F3 upgrade. Before you bother refuting this example, I can reel off LOTS of very similar deals.

All fine points, come back next year when he's cheaper and there may be more suitors.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

We're they required players by their clubs though?

Meek is clearly someone we want on our list. Let's assume Lobb gets traded as it looks more and more likely by the report, we are literally one Darcy or Jackson injury away from being pretty *ed.
Whether he is best 22 or not is not super important for us because he holds significant value even as a 2nd choice ruck.

Usually, yes. Most of the time clubs would prefer to keep the player but undertsnad the circumstances they find themselves in and allow them to be traded. Confident the same will happen here. Hawthorn, for example, wanted (and needed) to keep Pittonet (as our rucks were old) but he was behind McEvoy and Ceglar and struggling to get games so wanted to be traded. He ended up going for a pick in the 50's and has been Carlton's 1st ruck ever since. We are offering a pick in the (late) 30's and you're telling us it needs to be a pick around 20.

(P.S can't recall if Pittonet was contracted or not)

 

[Wabjub]

Firstly, Lobb is not an A grader.

Secondly, good best 22 players don't go for top 25 picks, let alone depth players. So the "he would get a game at other teams" line doesn't really matter as only top liners fetch that kind of price.

Thirdly, Hawthorn traded for a ruck in almost exactly the same circumstances last year. Max Lynch was 23, stuck behind Grundy in a sole ruck set up and had played a handful of games and shown promise (including a game he beat Max Gawn). He wasn't just traded for an F3 but an F3 upgrade. Before you bother refuting this example, I can reel off LOTS of very similar deals.

Firstly I never said Lobb was an A grader, he was a ruck forward and Darcy was the ruck. Meek along with many other rucks/pseudo rucks in the AFL wouldn't get a game past them.

Secondly Collingwood had another ruck in their system with Darcy Cameron, so Lynch wasn't the only competition to Grundy. So in a single ruck team you could argue that he wasn't even in the picture with Grundy being first and Cameron being second with 56 games in 2 years and finally Lynch third with a whopping 3 games in 4 years. Clearly Cameron was preferred as both Lynch and Cameron were at Collingwood at the same time yet Cameron racked up significantly more games.

I'm sure you have plenty of examples but please make sure you do research into each teams system and the players they have that fit into their setup because your Collingwood example was flawed.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

All fine points, come back next year when he's cheaper and there may be more suitors.

Aside from the fact that you and I are not actually negotiating the deal, that would be more than fine (and MUCH better than giving up a top 25 pick in a strong draft). He's not some essential highly sought after player/piece. We would have targetted him specifically because he is out of favour and not best 22 and would therefore not compromise our early draft picks. We are seeking greater ruck depth in the right age bracket, not chasing a top liner (but you guys (posters not club) seem to seeking a #1 ruck, top liner price).

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Aside from the fact that you and I are not actually negotiating the deal, that would be more than fine (and MUCH better than giving up a top 25 pick in a strong draft). He's not some essential highly sought after player/piece. We would have targetted him specifically because he is out of favour and not best 22 and would therefore not compromise our early draft picks. We are seeking greater ruck depth in the right age bracket, not chasing a top liner (but you guys (posters not club) seem to seeking a #1 ruck, top liner price).

Again, all fair points. I think 1 of Lobb and Meek gets traded and can't imagine its Meek for a future 3rd rounder. Think the club would rather hold him for 12 months rather than take that deal.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Firstly I never said Lobb was an A grader, he was a ruck forward and Darcy was the ruck. Meek along with many other rucks/pseudo rucks in the AFL wouldn't get a game past them.

Secondly Collingwood had another ruck in their system with Darcy Cameron, so Lynch wasn't the only competition to Grundy. So in a single ruck team you could argue that he wasn't even in the picture with Grundy being first and Cameron being second with 56 games in 2 years and finally Lynch third with a whopping 3 games in 4 years. Clearly Cameron was preferred as both Lynch and Cameron were at Collingwood at the same time yet Cameron racked up significantly more games.

I'm sure you have plenty of examples but please make sure you do research into each teams system and the players they have that fit into their setup because your Collingwood example was flawed.

But do you have a SINGLE counter example EVER (of a non best 22 depth ruck being traded for a top 25 pick)?

(and the point of Lobb not being an A grader is that if Meek was as awesome as you say, he should be able to earn a game ahead of Lobb. He is not at some unattainable high level that could not be expected to be dispaced)

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Again, all fair points. I think 1 of Lobb and Meek gets traded and can't imagine its Meek for a future 3rd rounder. Think the club would rather hold him for 12 months rather than take that deal.

Fair enough - you might be right. It's pretty uncommon for clubs to hold players to their contract when they want to leave, especially when they are not best 22 (but I understand the reasoning used by supporters). That doesn't make the arguments he is worth a top 25 pick any truer though. Obviously better for all that you keep him in those circumstances.

 

[Wabjub]

But do you have a SINGLE counter example EVER (of a non best 22 depth ruck being traded for a top 25 pick)?

(and the point of Lobb not being an A grader is that if Meek was as awesome as you say, he should be able to earn a game ahead of Lobb. He is not at some unattainable high level that could not be expected to be dispaced)

I mean you could go out and grab a pick that's 26 27 28 29, I understand you have pick 24 but believe it or not the second round doesn't end at pick 25.

Secondly I don't see why there has to be history of a trade for a ruckman who cannot break into a team that has a top genuine ruck and a very good ruck forward, there's a first time for everything. Past trades can be a guide but are not an absolute on what can and cannot be traded.

 

[Dewwwww]

I’m coming back in here for the LOLs when Meek gets traded for pick 48

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I mean you could go out and grab a pick that's 26 27 28 29, I understand you have pick 24 but believe it or not the second round doesn't end at pick 25.

Secondly I don't see why there has to be history of a trade for a ruckman who cannot break into a team that has a top genuine ruck and a very good ruck forward, there's a first time for everything. Past trades can be a guide but are not an absolute on what can and cannot be traded.

We were specifically discussing our F2 vs F3. That is, Hawthorn's future 2nd - which, with all of the experience we are losing, is VERY likely to be a late teens, early 20's pick.

Secondly, when we disagree on the trade value of a certain player, surely the best evidence for who is closer to the market value is to look at (literally any) other trade. Yes, it's possible this trade bucks the trend of every single trade before it in history but I am using evidence to support my view that his market value is not a top 25 pick. Not only is there no single other example ever but I would be shocked if you can find a single non Freo supporter who agrees he is worth that.

 

[Wabjub]

But do you have a SINGLE counter example EVER (of a non best 22 depth ruck being traded for a top 25 pick)?

(and the point of Lobb not being an A grader is that if Meek was as awesome as you say, he should be able to earn a game ahead of Lobb. He is not at some unattainable high level that could not be expected to be dispaced)

Also Ladhams was traded to Sydney with pick 16 for pick 12 and F3. He was behind Ryder, Westhoff and Dixon and in his final season as Port where he finally played 17 games he was still behind Lycett.

So you can argue that a player who in 4 years (drafted as a 20yr old) only got a breakthrough in his final season and was still second string and got a first round for him.

Theres your example for a player who was not best 22 for 3 of his 4 years, still second choice in his fourth year and was his trade included firsts.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Also Ladhams was traded to Sydney with pick 16 for pick 12 and F3. He was behind Ryder, Westhoff and Dixon and in his final season as Port where he finally played 17 games he was still behind Lycett.

So you can argue that a player who in 4 years (drafted as a 20yr old) only got a breakthrough in his final season and was still second string and got a first round for him.

Theres your example for a player who was not best 22 for 3 of his 4 years, still second choice in his fourth year and was his trade included firsts.

Is this serious? He was traded for a late 3rd rounder and a 4 pick upgrade (the exact kind of trade I am arguing will happen in this case). That is not even close to the same as being traded for a top 25 pick. If you are saying a "trade including second rounders (i.e. a minor pick upgrade)" then sure, I agree, he is worth that. Everyone I have been arguing with though has been arguing he is worth our f2 on its own.

 

[DanWA]

I’m coming back in here for the LOLs when Meek gets traded for pick 48

I think it relies on the Lobb trade whether you get him this year or next, not the price

 

[Wabjub]

Is this serious? He was traded for a late 3rd rounder and a 4 pick upgrade (the exact kind of trade I am arguing will happen in this case). That is not even close to the same as being traded for a top 25 pick. If you are saying a "trade including second rounders (i.e. a minor pick upgrade)" then sure, I agree, he is worth that. Everyone I have been arguing with though has been arguing he is worth our f2 on its own.

You asked for a fringe player who was traded for a top 25 pick. He was quite literally traded for a first round upgrade, that was the main part of that trade. You didn't specify rules or no upgrades you just wanted an example and I gave you one.

 

[Scrads]

You asked for a fringe player who was traded for a top 25 pick. He was quite literally traded for a first round upgrade, that was the main part of that trade. You didn't specify rules or no upgrades you just wanted an example and I gave you one.

Okay, in that case go and get yourself Pick 28. Then we'll do a Future 4th + Pick 24 for Meek + Pick 28 and you'll have yourself the deal for a second rounder like you want

 

[Wabjub]

Okay, in that case go and get yourself Pick 28. Then we'll do a Future 4th + Pick 24 for Meek + Pick 28 and you'll have yourself the deal for a second rounder like you want

Well that wont fit the narrative of no fringe rucks go for a top 25 pick, so while putting a F4 in kills the trade value the fact that pick 24 is included means they in fact do go for picks inside the top 25 .

 

[Scrads]

Well that wont fit the narrative of no fringe rucks go for a top 25 pick, so while putting a F4 in kills the trade value the fact that pick 24 is included means they in fact do go for picks inside the top 25 .

I'm happy to take the Future 4th out then?

 

[gungho]

Firstly, Lobb is not an A grader.

Secondly, good best 22 players don't go for top 25 picks, let alone depth players. So the "he would get a game at other teams" line doesn't really matter as only top liners fetch that kind of price.

Thirdly, Hawthorn traded for a ruck in almost exactly the same circumstances last year. Max Lynch was 23, stuck behind Grundy in a sole ruck set up and had played a handful of games and shown promise (including a game he beat Max Gawn). He wasn't just traded for an F3 but an F3 upgrade. Before you bother refuting this example, I can reel off LOTS of very similar deals.

What part of “he’s contracted” do you not understand? We do not have to trade Meek.

 

[gungho]

I’m coming back in here for the LOLs when Meek gets traded for pick 48

Sorry mate. Not going to happen. He’s contracted. Why get rid of him for a nothing pick when we can just hold him to his contract? The seller sets the price (in this case a 2nd or future 2nd). Don’t want to pay? We will see you next year.

 

[Wabjub]

I'm happy to take the Future 4th out then?

I mean I'm not the one who is stating that no fringe rucks go for top 25 picks. It was another hawthorn supporter stating that.

So if we do end up with pick 24 for meek and 28 then that proves that fringe rucks do in fact go for top 25 picks. I'm unsure as to what you're trying to point out here?

 

[Hawker399]

There are a lot of blowhards debating nothing in this thread.
Meeks worth is around pick 35 - 40. If Hawthorn don't have that to trade with then Meek will continue to be a back up ruckman at Freo.

 

[Scrads]

I mean I'm not the one who is stating that no fringe rucks go for top 25 picks. It was another hawthorn supporter stating that.

So if we do end up with pick 24 for meek and 28 then that proves that fringe rucks do in fact go for top 25 picks. I'm unsure as to what you're trying to point out here?

The point is that trading someone for a top 25 pick is not the same as trading someone and a top 30 pick for a top 25 pick as you have been implying.

 

[Coathanger]

What part of "HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE AT YOUR CLUB" are you having issues with?
He'll be worth a 6 pack of your Emu Cat P!ss and a packet of chewing gum by the end of next season.