Looking ahead

[CrippsonBlue]

Dont get me wrong, I rate Gibbs highly.

But you'd have to look long and hard at a deal that involved 2 first rounders.

Three 1st round picks at the end of the year (and a hell of a lot of pace to maneuver in the cap) we would be well set up to trade for an out of contract Key Forward type.

Bold trading really helped the Hawks IMO.

I'd say getting in Judd, Brock, Hendo & Lucas, while getting rid of Fev is bold trading.

Why trade Gibbs for picks and then on-trade them, when we can just trade Gibbs for the key forward directly.

If we can't on-trade those picks, we are stuck with two first rounders for Gibbs. Seriously, what is the point?

 

[Malifice]

I'd say getting in Judd, Brock, Hendo & Lucas, while getting rid of Fev is bold trading.

Two of those were trades in. Ill give you Fev though (even if he did force our hand)

Why trade Gibbs for picks and then on-trade them, when we can just trade Gibbs for the key forward directly.

Because aside from Buddy there probably isnt a key forward going around that I would do a straight swap for. Maybe J Brown but that one isnt going to happen.

Like I said, I rate Gibbs highly.

Perhaps if Adelaide were able to source a late 1st rounder from the GC for on of their young talls. Gives them pick 6 + 18 should get it done.

If we can't on-trade those picks, we are stuck with two first rounders for Gibbs. Seriously, what is the point?

Im sure we would have sorted something out well before trade week, including coming to an arrangement with the player involved. And Im equally sure if it was pick 6 + a player (Jacobs?) for Roughy, or lose him for nothing to GC17, I know which way the hawks would go.

Would lose Gibbs and Jacobs, pick up Roughead and retain 2 1st round picks in the 12-20 range.

Completely hypothetical and highly unlikely of course.

But I would consider it.

Or something similar at the end of the year.

 

[jono25]

You'd prefer to not have Judd? Sure we have seen some good improvement/development in Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer, Bower in recent years, & Yaz is off to a good start this season, but I think it is safe to say some of these players would not have experienced improvement at the same rate, if not for the presence of Judd.

I would prefer a team with Hendo at CHF, instead of Kennedy, if it means having Judd to lead the way. FWIW, who would you have captain the Judd-less team?

P.S. I didn't make reference to Fev, because his removal from the club was a no-brainer.

Well actually if we didn't have Judd, we would have finished lower than 10th in 08 and lets say we tanked one more year, we would have had a priority pick and another top 5 pick.

Add NicNat and Hurley/Yarran to our side and also likely wouldn't have played finals last year, but still would likely pick Lucas.

Also add JK back and pick 3 (apparently would have picked Palmer) and with NicNat no need for Warnock so would have picked Robbo with pick 24 and Banfield arguably with pick 40.

So no Judd, but as forwards JK, Henderson and Hurley/Yarran add mids Palmer and Banfield. Also our rucks for 10 years would be Kreuzer and NicNat.

You can argue without the Judd trade whilst our window may not have opened until 2014, it would be a 5-7 year window and we could have 3 flags in that time.

Though find me someone in 07 who said "nah we don't want Judd" and I would drive them to an asylum.

This hurts my head.

 

[HBF]

Id probably do that deal.

Must keep Gibbs.
Probable next captain of the club once Judd hangs up the boots.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Two of those were trades in. Ill give you Fev though (even if he did force our hand)

Well if you want to look at players going out, then I could have thrown up the names of the players taken with the various picks that we gave away, along with JK.

That wasn't the point though - bold trading isn't restricted to simply looking at players traded out. Any trade that nets you the best/one of the best players in the comp obviously requires bold trading. Brock was also bold trading.

Because aside from Buddy there probably isnt a key forward going around that I would do a straight swap for. Maybe J Brown but that one isnt going to happen

Who mentioned a straight swap? We would obviously get something extra if we thought a straight swap wasn't fair.

Besides, if we are talking specifically about Gibbs, none of this will happen regardless. We won't re-sign a player like Gibbs, to simply trade him out at the end of the year. If he doesn't re-sign, we certainly won't be getting two 1st rounders from the GC, or his true value with another club.

Of course, this all overlooks the fact that it would be foolish to trade a player like Gibbs at all.

 

[Malifice]

Must keep Gibbs.
Probable next captain of the club once Judd hangs up the boots.

Murphy? Kruezer? Jamo? Could all do the Captains job in the future.

Guess what Im trying to say is I dont mind us taking a bit of a gamble come trading time to cover a deficiency in the list.

The AFL gave GC those extra picks for just such a reason (facilitate trades).

There might be a few opportunities this year to organise a mutually benefical trade.

 

[Malifice]

You can argue without the Judd trade whilst our window may not have opened until 2014, it would be a 5-7 year window and we could have 3 flags in that time.

Our 'window' wont be opening untill 2012 at the earliest anyway IMO. Probably 2013ish due to the restructuring of the forward line.

 

[thylacine60]

Our 'window' wont be opening untill 2012 at the earliest anyway IMO. Probably 2013ish due to the restructuring of the forward line.

So what am I going to the footy this year for MalPal?

 

[Malifice]

So what am I going to the footy this year for MalPal?

The Hawks jagged one when thier window wasnt open, so you never know

 

[Malifice]

Well if you want to look at players going out, then I could have thrown up the names of the players taken with the various picks that we gave away, along with JK.

Thats my point. At Carlton we have a tendency to trade in players. WH hasnt had a second rounder to work with for ther past three years because we keep trading them away.

I look at the Hawks and the calls they made by trading Croad to Freo (1, 20 and 36 netting them Mitchell and Hodge) and Thompson to North (for 10 and 26 - Jordan Lewis). Both fantastic trades by Hawthorn.

The fact is (and I think we all agree on this) we are a Key Forward down at the moment.

Our Backline is solid and has developing talent (Jamison, Bower, Thornton, Waite, White with Austin and Browne as backup talls, Army, JR, Joseph, Davies as smalls).

What we do have is a plethora of talented Mids and a surplus Ruck.

I wouldnt be afraid to use one of them in a trade to get a Key Forward (Roughy is the most likely) to Carlton.

Besides, if we are talking specifically about Gibbs, none of this will happen regardless. We won't re-sign a player like Gibbs, to simply trade him out at the end of the year.

Actually if we were going to trade Gibbs, we would be smart to sign him up quick smart (on a contract that his new club could afford). Otherwise he could walk to GC17 for more $$$ and zero compensation to us.

If he doesn't re-sign, we certainly won't be getting two 1st rounders from the GC, or his true value with another club.

Exactly. If Gibbs is unsigned at the end of the year he could (and would) just catch the next flight to the Gold coast and nearly double his current salary.

And dont think he isnt currently weighing up this very option.

Of course, this all overlooks the fact that it would be foolish to trade a player like Gibbs at all.

Was it foolish for WCE to trade Judd (yes he walked but the point still stands). Was it foolish for Hawthorn to trade Croad?

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Actually if we were going to trade Gibbs, we would be smart to sign him up quick smart (on a contract that his new club could afford). Otherwise he could walk to GC17 for more $$$ and zero compensation to us

If you are going to throw around a hypothetical, common sense needs to be applied.

Gibbs has to agree to the trade. If he has any interest in going to the GC, he will not re-sign. Therefore, why would he agree when he had no interest in the first place?

After learning that we only re-signed him to put us in a better position to trade him (and saving us money, while subsequently costing him money), why on earth would Gibbs agree to anything that did us a favour, and screwed himself over? Won't happen.

He will say no, and then return the favour by screwing us over the next time we try to re-sign him.

Was it foolish for WCE to trade Judd (yes he walked but the point still stands). Was it foolish for Hawthorn to trade Croad?

Although the point doesn't really still stand, the Eagles haven't made the finals since Judd left, whereas he has helped take us there. Judd was the best player in the comp - of course it was foolish to 'trade' him.

Anyone that prefers picks/young players with potential to the best player in the comp has completely lost the concept of the game.

What if the Hawks picked Ball instead? Besides, the equivalent with your suggestion would be them then drafting a great number one in Hodge, and then trading him also after a couple of years - definitely foolish.

If you are lucky enough to get your hands on a number 1 pick, that nets you a player of the quality of Gibbs etc., you do everything you can to hold onto them - you do not trade them.

(I know a KPF would be great, and you need to give quality to get quality, but our number 1's are not the way)

 

[Malifice]

If you are going to throw around a hypothetical, common sense needs to be applied.

Gibbs has to agree to the trade. If he has any interest in going to the GC, he will not re-sign. Therefore, why would he agree when he had no interest in the first place?

Actually, in my hypothetical above, I was considering trading him to Adelaide.

He would be fully informed of our intentions first (and we would confirm Adelaides intrest... and they would have a LOT of intrest with Mcleod etc all retiring) before we signed him up.

Effectively Carlton and Adelaide work together to keep GC out of the deal.

Bryce is happy (gets to go home to SA), Carltons happy (gets salary cap room and a few 1st rounders to use to entice Roughy/ Buddy/ Hawkins/ whoever) and Adelaide are happy.

Anyone that prefers picks/young players with potential to the best player in the comp has completely lost the concept of the game.

Im not advocating simply loading up on young talent.

I AM advocating specifically targetting an acknowledged weak spot in our list by sacrificing a talented (but arguably surplus) player.

What if the Hawks picked Ball instead?

We would be ontrading these early pick(s) to secure the services of a talented young key forward. And still have a selection (or two) available in the first round.

Besides, the equivalent with your suggestion would be them then drafting a great number one in Hodge, and then trading him also after a couple of years - definitely foolish.

Trent Croad was originally pick 3.

If you are lucky enough to get your hands on a number 1 pick, that nets you a player of the quality of Gibbs etc., you do everything you can to hold onto them - you do not trade them.

Would you trade Gibbs for Buddy?

Straight swap?

 

[Malifice]

Like, what if Gibbs (who is still uncontracted) comes out and announces he is accepting a better offer from GC17 for an extra 200k a year?

We would lose him for virtually nada.

If Adelaide can match that offer $$ wise - with a few players set to retire this year (and Bryce is happier to go back to SA), we would be much better off dealing with the Crows now (and they will be in a strong position to trade this year) rather than letting GC get him for some unspecified 1st round draft pick to be taken some time from 2012 onwards (smack in the middle of our window).

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Actually, in my hypothetical above, I was considering trading him to Adelaide

Sorry, the suggestion of picks 6 and 18 for Gibbs? Why? That is a bad deal. We could have traded any of our number 1 picks for something like a pick 6 & 18 when we had them - teams don't do this because it is silly. You would do this now, knowing Gibbs has lived up to all our expectations...

We would be ontrading these early pick(s) to secure the services of a talented young key forward. And still have a selection (or two) available in the first round

It is easy to say this, but what key forwards are even worthy of considering giving Gibbs away for? Considering no team would give away their only talented young KPF, this narrows the options down to pretty much the Hawks, and a team like the Crows perhaps.

The Crows wouldn't give up Tippett, and the Hawks wouldn't give up Buddy - regardless of opinions whether we'd even do these trades, it is then pointless to discuss.

This basically leaves Roughead as the only player that may require Gibbs in a trade (unless you can come up with another)

Although it is tempting, it is not worth it. Setanta has kicked 10 goals already after having 2 bad games. We have Hendo coming through, and a few other long shots. We can trade for a lesser name and keep Gibbs.

Our forward line has not been the problem this year (apart from accuracy)

So again, I don't see how it is at all worth it.

If Adelaide can match that offer $$ wise - with a few players set to retire this year (and Bryce is happier to go back to SA), we would be much better off dealing with the Crows now

The Crows wouldn't be able to match the offer from the GC. We could give Gibbs a bit as it is, so if the GC increase this amount by a couple 100k, we are talking a fair few dollars, and it would be well out of the reach of what the Crows would be willing to pay Gibbs.

Sure if he goes, we would prefer to deal with the Crows. However keep in mind, they could also use the threat of the GC, and as such we would be getting less than his worth. No matter how you look at it with Gibbs, we are getting screwed over if he leaves, so why would we want this?

 

[Windhover]

Like, what if Gibbs (who is still uncontracted) comes out and announces he is accepting a better offer from GC17 for an extra 200k a year?

We would lose him for virtually nada.

If Adelaide can match that offer $$ wise - with a few players set to retire this year (and Bryce is happier to go back to SA), we would be much better off dealing with the Crows now (and they will be in a strong position to trade this year) rather than letting GC get him for some unspecified 1st round draft pick to be taken some time from 2012 onwards (smack in the middle of our window).

Henderson so far this year is comparable in stats to Riewoldt in season 2003 (he turned 21 two months earlier than Hendo does). Hendo has done all that could have been hoped for from a big strapping athletic 20 year old with a good grab and a fair kick for goal. Although O'H has not set the world on fire he is a menace to opposition planning. Waite is too good not to be damaging up forward when fully fit and confident if we can find a third tall down back (and I have hopes for White and Austin). Gibbs is far too good a player to trade for "hopes and dreams". And, anyway, we have Donaldson for that.

 

[Malifice]

Sorry, the suggestion of picks 6 and 18 for Gibbs? Why? That is a bad deal. We could have traded any of our number 1 picks for something like a pick 6 & 18 when we had them - teams don't do this because it is silly. You would do this now, knowing Gibbs has lived up to all our expectations...

Is it a bad deal:

• If he is going anyway?
• Or if we managed to ontrade pick 6 and Jacobs to the Hawks for Roughead? We are then left with Roughy plus two first rounders to shore up some talent for our assault at the flag from 2013 onwards.

FWIW if Gibbs doesnt sign soon, you can all but pen him in for GC17 next year. Like it or not that the reality of modern footy.

If thats the case then surely lets get something of value for him now.

Id rather let go of Gibbs and Jacobs and snare Roughy and a 1st rounder NOW than lose Gibbs for some unspecified 1st round pick circa 2012 onwards.

It is easy to say this, but what key forwards are even worthy of considering giving Gibbs away for? Considering no team would give away their only talented young KPF, this narrows the options down to pretty much the Hawks, and a team like the Crows perhaps.

Roughhead. Dont rule Buddy out - if we could work it. We worked Judd remember.

We have leverage with both players being uncontracted and GC17 almost definately making both players big offers.

If we can match GC17's $$$ offer, then its up to the Hawks to either lose the player for an unspecified 1st round pick that cant be used for two years and even then will likley be a late 1st round pick, or take our offer of an early 1st rounder that can be used now + a good player that fills a current major hole (such as a Ruckman).

Although it is tempting, it is not worth it.

Id want the club to consider it. Especially if Gibbs doesnt bloody sign soon.

Setanta has kicked 10 goals already after having 2 bad games. We have Hendo coming through, and a few other long shots. We can trade for a lesser name and keep Gibbs.

I dont want a lesser name. I want a star. Agree with Hendo but he cant do it alone. Setanta is only there for depth. Whos left after these two? Wiggins? Fisher? Its not exactly a premiership forward line.

The Crows wouldn't be able to match the offer from the GC.

The Crows will be having more than a few retirements this year I would assume. Plus GC arent made of money. They only have an extra million in the cap, and Ablett will be taking up a large portion of that you would assume.

The Crows may also need to trade a decent player to GC (Van berlo, Walker, Porplyzia, Bock) for one of GC's abundant late 1st round picks thus freeing up even more cap room.

As a complete hypothetical (and its way too early to discuss trade shit):

Adelaide trade one of Walker/ Van berlo/ Porplyzia/ Bock to GC for pick 15(ish).

Adelaide trade pick 15 + 6 to Carlton for Gibbs (plus maybe a fringer).

Carlton then match GC17's offer (that you KNOW these two players are going to recieve) for one of the Hawks key forwards (and are thus leaving the Hawks anyway with **** all compensation aside from an unspecified 1st rounder in 2 years time) and offer either:

• pick 6 + (Jacobs/ Hampson) to the Hawks for Roughead,
• or 6 + 15 + 16* + (Jacobs/ Hampson) for Buddy.

*pick 16 assumes we finish 10th this year.

You're the Hawks RM. Do you accept either of those deals now, or lose the above mentioned player for an unspcified draft pick in 2 years time?

We just have to convince the players (and match the $$$).

We could give Gibbs a bit as it is.

Would rather build up a big war chest to take advantage of the GC17 WSYD situation.

Sure if he goes, we would prefer to deal with the Crows. However keep in mind, they could also use the threat of the GC,

And we say fine. If they cant better the deal of a 1st round pick in 2 years time then they lose Gibbs to the GC forever, and we gain a 1st round pick in a few years time. He was going anyway remember.

No matter how you look at it with Gibbs, we are getting screwed over if he leaves, so why would we want this?

To avoid getting screwed over if he leaves.

 

[Malifice]

Henderson so far this year is comparable in stats to Riewoldt in season 2003 (he turned 21 two months earlier than Hendo does).

Im not bagging Hendo. Im just not prepared to rest all our future KPF hopes on him. Plus he is our only currently listed player with a real chance of developng into a KPF.

We have 4 'small' forwards (Betts, Yarran, Jeff, Kerr) 4 Rucks (Krueze, Hammer, Warnock, Jacobs) a shitload of tall defenders and a crapload of mids.

Setanta, Wiggins, Fisher are not the way forward.

Our window opens 2013. Key forwards take a few years to develop. Not good news.

IMO We need two things:

a) Another young and proven KPF (priority 1), and
b) Blistering leg speed and elite footskills (ala Stephen Hille from Freo) (priority 2)

There may just be an opportunity to get one or both of the above this year by playing the GC17 cards.

Gibbs is far too good a player to trade for "hopes and dreams". And, anyway, we have Donaldson for that.

Roughead and Franklin are not dreams. They are both bloody good players.

 

[Malifice]

Assuming im CFC list manager here is how I would play it:

• Contact the player manager (now) for the following two players at a minimum:
  
  
  • Roughead
    
    
  • Franklin
  
  
• Inform said manager that if a $$$ offer comes in from GC, CFC would be prepared to match the offer (+10%)
  
  
• We would also be prepared to trade a combination of 1st round pick(s) + good player(s) for the Forward in question to the Hawks.
  
  
• Instruct manager to put this option to the player.
  
  
• Hopefully player considers it as an option.
  
  
• When offer manifests from GC17 (and you know it will), players manager informs CFC about the details. Probably adds an extra 10 percent on top of the GC offer anyway. Thats his job after all.
  
  
• Convince player to accept our offer. Dinner at Raheen and a Visy sponsorship works wonders.
  
  
• Now nefotiate with Hawks. Inform them that they now have two options:
  
  
  • Lose the player for an unspecified 1st round pick (that cant even be used for two years) to GC17, or
    
    
  • Trade the player to Carlton for a better deal (2 first rounders now, or a first rounder plus player now or any combination of the above).
  
  
• Source means of aquiring an additional first round pick or two. If that means trading a superflous (but talented) player then so be it.

 

[HARKER]

Assuming im CFC list manager here is how I would play it:

• Contact the player manager for the following two players at a minimum:
  • Roughead
  • Franklin
• Inform said manager that if a $$$ offer comes in from GC, CFC would be prepared to match the offer (+10%)
• We would also be prepared to trade a combination of 1st round pick(s) + good player(s) for the Forward in question to the Hawks.
• Instruct manager to put this option to the player.
• Hopefully player considers it as an option.
• When offer manifests from GC17 (and you know it will), players manager informs CFC about the details. Probably adds an extra 10 percent on top of the GC offer anyway. Thats his job after all.
• Convince player to accept our offer. Dinner at Raheen and a Visy sponsorship works wonders.
• Now nefotiate with Hawks. Inform them that they now have two options:
  • Lose the player for an unspecified 1st round pick (that cant even be used for two years) to GC17, or
  • Trade the player to Carlton for a better deal (2 first rounders now, or a first rounder plus player now or any combination of the above).
• Source means of aquiring an additional first round pick or two. If that means trading a superflous (but talented) player then so be it.

Some things just look right and for all the talks pro and con any deal happening, a Roughead to Carlton trade for a ruckman + + just feels right and probably timely for both clubs.

Supporters by far and large hate the notion of losing players they have supported with their heart and soul, but if the right commercial and footballing deal is there to be struck we'd want to think that our boys, as would Hawthorns, would put a seal on it.

I have no substance to back it up other than to see a potential win/win for both parties, if the right talent is on the table.
With 18 weeks plus to go this season, who really knows what situation may just present itself to further negotiations.

 

[Malifice]

Some things just look right and for all the talks pro and con any deal happening, a Roughead to Carlton trade for a ruckman + + just feels right and probably timely for both clubs.

Agree.

My point is that despite all this paranoia about GC17, it actually presents itself as a golden opportunity to pick some otherwise untouchable players.

If we could snare Buddy for say... Gibbs + Hampson, Id be all over it.

And thats no disprespect to Gibbs or Hammer.

You offered that deal to the Hawks now and they would laugh at you.

But if it comes down to the Hawks losing Buddy for a random 1st round pick that they have to wait 2 years to use from the GC, or pick up those two players right now... I reckon they would take our offer.

Plus with no Fevola, no Stevens, Johnson delisted and Judds front loaded deal on the downhill slope, if we also offloaded Gibbs and Hammer in a trade we would have more than enough spare $$$ to throw a million at Frankin and match any GC offer.

Just gotta convince Buddy to come.

 

[Dramoth]

Agree.

My point is that despite all this paranoia about GC17, it actually presents itself as a golden opportunity to pick some otherwise untouchable players.

If we could snare Buddy for say... Gibbs + Hampson, Id be all over it.

And thats no disprespect to Gibbs or Hammer.

You offered that deal to the Hawks now and they would laugh at you.

But if it comes down to the Hawks losing Buddy for a random 1st round pick that they have to wait 2 years to use from the GC, or pick up those two players right now... I reckon they would take our offer.

Plus with no Fevola, no Stevens, Johnson delisted and Judds front loaded deal on the downhill slope, if we also offloaded Gibbs in a trade we would have more than enough spare $$$ to throw a million at Frankin and match any GC offer.

Just gotta convince Buddy to come.

I would prefer to keep Gibbs and throw Hampson/Jacobs + T-bird and our second rounder at getting Roughead to the club.

With the young players coming through into our defence and the growing maturity of the guys already there, T-bird, so long our general back in defence is going to find it harder to get a game there as the young guys grow in confidence and start working well together.

Plus T-bird finally gets his dream of going and playing for the Dawks...

 

[Malifice]

I would prefer to keep Gibbs and throw Hampson/Jacobs + T-bird and our second rounder at getting Roughead to the club.

If it was between:

Roughy for Hammer + Thornton

or

Franklin for Gibbs + Hammer

Id take option 2.

Check it out:

B: Army, Jamison, Russell
HB: Bower, Waite, Thornton
C: Simpson, Scotland, Mclean
HF: Lucas, Henderson, Walker
F: Yarran, Frankin, Betts

R: Kruezer, Judd, Murphy

Int: Warnock, Houlihan, Joseph, 1st rounder 2010*

Thats a spine of: Jamo, Waite, Scotland, Henderson, Franklin

With a starting onball brigade of: Kruezer, Judd, Murphy, Simpson, Mclean.

Plus T-bird finally gets his dream of going and playing for the Dawks...

He'll never live that down.

Would be a premiership player by now though if it hadve happened.

Ouch.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

And we say fine. If they cant better the deal of a 1st round pick in 2 years time then they lose Gibbs to the GC forever, and we gain a 1st round pick in a few years time. He was going anyway remember

Huh, we started with the suggestion of trading Gibbs by choice. Now you keep throwing up all these unrealistic suggestions of things that just won't happen.

The GC isn't leverage - you need to stop thinking that it is. Using the GC as a threat implies that we are not 100% committed to getting that player. If we are not 100% committed, we will not get a player like Roughead.

Players will not sit back, after we have pursued them, and let us suggest to their club at the trade table that we will happily walk away. This doesn't only screw the Hawks over, it screws Roughead over if we did this. It leaves him in an awkward situation, with another tough choice to make - he will not let himself get into this position, and therefore we would not let us use the threat (he would simply walk away from our offer)

Also, for the GC to even be a threat, the player would have to want to go there. If a player chose us over the GC, chances are their next preference would be to just stay at their current club. Not many players would want to leave their current club so bad, that they will have 2 club preferences in different states, over their current club.

None of this changes the fact that it would be foolish to trade Gibbs.

 

[Malifice]

Huh, we started with the suggestion of trading Gibbs by choice. Now you keep throwing up all these unrealistic suggestions of things that just won't happen.

If it wont happen, then why hasnt he signed yet?

The GC isn't leverage - you need to stop thinking that it is.

Oh it most definately is leverage.

The GC provides us with a golden opportunity to poach a few players that would ordinarily be untouchable.

Players will not sit back, after we have pursued them, and let us suggest to their club at the trade table that we will happily walk away. This doesn't only screw the Hawks over, it screws Roughead over if we did this.

We arent screwing anyone over.

The player is going anyway.

I.e. they have made thier minds up that they want the extra money and dont care if it ends up being GC17 that pays them, or CFC.

We are simply making a better offer to the parent club than GC17 ( more accurately we are making a better offer than the AFLs compensation pick).

It leaves him in an awkward situation, with another tough choice to make - he will not let himself get into this position, and therefore we would not let us use the threat (he would simply walk away from our offer)

Its not a threat!

We are helping out the club that the uncontracted player is walking out of.

Example 2:

Ablett decides he wants the $$$ and announces he is leaving Geelong at the end of the year.

We pipe up and (after convincing Garry to play for us, and beating GC17's $$$ offer) present a deal to Geelong that gives them 2 first rounders plus a player NOW. In this trade period.

You are Geelongs List manager. Do you take the unspecified 1st round pick in 2 years time from GC17, or the two first round picks from CFC + player NOW? Assuming Gary is happy to go to either CFC or GC 17.

You have a week (trade week) to decide. Either way, he is going for the bigger coin.

We would be doing Geelong a favour in this instance. And Ablett.

He was leaving anyway.

Also, for the GC to even be a threat, the player would have to want to go there. If a player chose us over the GC, chances are their next preference would be to just stay at their current club.

If a player chooses GC17 its almost certainly for the $$$. Pure and simple.

We can match or exceed that offer, we are a long way to convincing that player to play for us.

Ask Judd.

Its a buisiness now. Wish it want personally, but thats the sad truth.

None of this changes the fact that it would be foolish to trade Gibbs.

Not for Franklin it wouldnt be.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

^ Ok, I'll pretty much leave it at that.

Maybe it is just me, but your points and argument seem to be getting more and more unrealistic, while ignoring simple common sense.

We can say trading Gibbs for Buddy, or Gibbs for Selwood+Ablett, or Gibbs for Riewoldt+Goddard+Montagna are all good trades for us, but what is the point when none of these trades will eventuate (even with your naive trading techniques)

Any realistic trade involving Gibbs wouldn't be worth it.