Mitch Clark - The SQL

[Duritz]

Yoo hoo.... Duritz, are you there????

Duritz??


Duritz????



Nah.... didn't think so.

Hey man I am busy, it's Caulfield Cup day. I have only just picked myself up off the floor from Niagara being a tragedy beaten.

RE the pick 16 - fair enough, I didn't realise that. I'm man enough to admit when I was wr.... wr.... wr.... when I was wr..... wr.... when I was uninformed.

You blokes shouldn't be worrying about trading today anyway... you've got a freakish horse going around in R5 at Ascot today - Barakey. Future champion.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Pav as a stay at home forward has previously kicked 60-70 goals, if he plays the entire season as a stay at home forward - what are we looking at? 50 goals....40 goals?

Clark kicked 27 last year in what was basically his first full year as a forward.

Subi will suit him, he basically kicked a goal in every game he played, he will be a year older (in his case a good thing).

Pav kicks 50, Clark kicks 30 ...or are you expecting Pav's output as a forward to drop?

if Pav/Clark play 22 games, the major threat will be game plan.

Have you actually expressed an opinion Clay, you appear well placed to be right regardless of whether he plays well or poorly or not at all.

Just following on from that, I reckon we can get 50 and 30 goals for the season from the combination of either Pavlich/Bradley or Pavlich/Anthony as the two tall forwards. Clark might be a handy pickup to push the 30 a little bit higher, but Bradley or Anthony are a half decent backup plan if we don't get Clark. This is why I don't want us to play overs for him.

 

[apuchar]

I would suggest that Clark and his management had been working towards this since well before Brisbane and Fremantle had even discussed a trade.

I'm not sure what this 'ridiculous price' is that we'd asked. We'd have been perfectly within our rights to simply refuse to trade him.

In case anyone cares, I just flat out don't believe that Freo have offered pick 16 at this point. I reckon that AAP article is wrong. Notice the lack of a source.

Anyway, Rob Kerr is on the record as saying that he doesn't believe pick 16 is enough, so I suppose its academic.

Frankly, I'm not sure Clark is worth any more, but if Melbourne are prepared to pay him $500-$600k a year obviously he is for somebody. I expect the Dockers are willing to pay him pretty generously, as well.

It seems silly to say 12 is enough but 16 isn't.

While I am sick of this garbage and i just wish it would end, I am not sure that the plan from Clark and his management was to threaten Brisbane It was only a few days ago that Paul Connors said that they will probably go with the trade. In the end, Clark said no, he will go back to his original plan.

The ridiculous price I am talking about is that every offer we were going to make was going to be trumped by Melbourne. They made it quite clear that they had pick 12 AND COMPENSATION PICKS they were happy to trade.

 

[theGav56]

And how exactly has your club done that, given that they have made NO OFFER for him?



No, and that's fine, but you've made NO OFFER.



Why? They are. Making NO OFFER for a bloke you're chasing is poor practice. If GWS nab him in the PSD, we get compensated, and you'd not get the player you actively chased, but for some bizarre reason made NO OFFER for.

I agree re trading firmly, etc... but this is beyond that. Not sure if you got it, but guys your club has made NO OFFER for him. That is NOT being firm, that's poor business practice.

Only if we do not get what we want for a price we are happy with. Everything that has actually happened so far, including getting close to a deadline, imo makes us stronger in the negotiations, and also suggests that the offers that Brisbane wants from us make the deal line ball in terms of value to us = don't make an offer. Nothing in our recent past to suggest that Bond is anything but good at what he does at the trade table. Plus, none of us actually know what has been happening.

 

[Ironmonger]

It seems silly to say 12 is enough but 16 isn't.

I don't remember anyone saying that, either!

Not that it would be silly, in any case. There might well be a player the Lions are keen on who's likely to be around at pick 12, but not at 16.

Remember that Clark's management put out an article weeks ago saying he wanted to be traded to Freo. They've been trying to manipulate this deal through the media since at least then.

 

[theGav56]

Just following on from that, I reckon we can get 50 and 30 goals for the season from the combination of either Pavlich/Bradley or Pavlich/Anthony as the two tall forwards. Clark might be a handy pickup to push the 30 a little bit higher, but Bradley or Anthony are a half decent backup plan if we don't get Clark. This is why I don't want us to play overs for him.

Byng, I agree with what you are saying. But another part of that equation is that I think Clark is more likely of those three to dominate a game if the opportunity arises. I also think that in a finals atmosphere I would rather his physical presence than Bradleys or JA. And the other huge thing is that he can step fluently into a ruck role if that is required. I don't think the Magpies would have minded if Dawes had that ability in the last GF.

 

[free at last]

Hey man I am busy, it's Caulfield Cup day. I have only just picked myself up off the floor from Niagara being a tragedy beaten.

RE the pick 16 - fair enough, I didn't realise that. I'm man enough to admit when I was wr.... wr.... wr.... when I was wr..... wr.... when I was uninformed.

You blokes shouldn't be worrying about trading today anyway... you've got a freakish horse going around in R5 at Ascot today - Barakey. Future champion.

Yep heard ' barakey ' could be a freak.
Trainer is calling could be better than 'Hay list'.

 

[apuchar]

I don't remember anyone saying that, either!

Not that it would be silly, in any case. There might well be a player the Lions are keen on who's likely to be around at pick 12, but not at 16.

Remember that Clark's management put out an article weeks ago saying he wanted to be traded to Freo. They've been trying to manipulate this deal through the media since at least then.

That is because Clark didn't want to go to West Coast. The Melbourne thing came out of the blue. Connors then said that they will probably go with the trade because they wanted Brisbane to get the best deal possible. Then Clark reverted to his original decision.

Simple fact is we don't have pick 12 so you will have to hope the guy you want slips or you pick up another guy you are hoping to draft. If Melbourne and Freo were both in Perth you would have gotten pick 12+ but they are not.
The reality is that pick 8 and 12 would probably of gotten you Tippett. Your problem not ours. Offer something else to sweeten the deal.

 

[Duritz]

Yep heard ' barakey ' could be a freak.
Trainer is calling could be better than 'Hay list'.

If it continues improving it'll definitely be better than Hay List... it's better than he was at the same stage of his career.

Of course, it is lengths and lengths away from the great mare, but she won't improve, he will.

 

[Angelus]

I would suggest that Clark and his management had been working towards this since well before Brisbane and Fremantle had even discussed a trade.

No!!! Really? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Mate, this has been going on for more than a year. Remember when we tried to get him last year but you guys asked for too much so we decided to leave it to this year?

Maybe this is a tactic you should take notice of and use to get Tippet to you next year. Butter him up this year, then get him next year when he is un-contracted.

 

[Hollow Knight]

No!!! Really? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Mate, this has been going on for more than a year. Remember when we tried to get him last year but you guys asked for too much so we decided to leave it to this year?

Maybe this is a tactic you should take notice of and use to get Tippet to you next year. Butter him up this year, then get him next year when he is un-contracted.

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

The Gordon Gecko style recruiters start off as heroes, but they run the risk of burning bridges pretty quickly. The Bulldogs recruiters refused to deal with Hawthorn last year because they found Chris Pelchen to be an insufferable w***er. Not for a second suggesting that Bond is in the same category as Pelchen. No evidence to draw conclusions at this stage.

 

[tacopavlich]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

In that theory you are only "hoping" what goes around, comes around. Would be nice but that's not the reality.

 

[93567]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

Remind me not to buy shares in the company you work for.

Some people have been suggesting a forward line that includes Clark, Pav and Kep/Anthony. Too top-heavy, we need more crumbers. I don't necessarily see Mitch Clark as kicking bags and bags of goals, but I think that he will prove invaluable in bringing the ball down to Ballantyne, Walters, Mellington etc. If we get Clark, we need to have Walters at his feet.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Remind me not to buy shares in the company you work for.

Remind me not to employ you either. Relationship building and long term thinking is valued in my line of work.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

the problem is the subjective nature of 'fair compensation'.

tippett and clark are probably on par with regards to talent, but neither of them are worth two first round picks. the trouble for the lions is that tippett is still contracted, so you have to go overs to get him, which makes sense on a business level. we don't have to go overs to get clark.

a first rounder for clark is gentlemanly and fair in that it acknowledges his importance to you and is already more than we need to offer to get him. in reality, we can shaft you via the PSD, running the risk of the unlikely event of another team picking him up (unless brisbane do out of spite, which would be pointless). offering two first round picks is going overs unnecessarily, so we are unlikely to do it (i would be really disappointed in the club if, indeed, we did do it). anyhoo, can't wait for this shit to be over.

 

[Freo4life]

Heres the thing, its called trading - or an exchange. We decide what we want to give/receive as do you. We dont make the call on what you want for Clark and you dont make the call on what we offer - hence a trade.

So dont come on this board telling us that our business practices are poor, that no-one will want to trade with us in the future, that we are dreaming etc,etc, its a trade - we are not holding a gun to your head and you aren't holding one to ours. What happens, happens, everyone is out for themselves - you - us - conners - clarke. For ####'s sake, you brissie supporters....just stop whining.

 

[Angelus]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

The only reason Melbourne have Pick 12 instead of pick 16 like us is because they tanked against Port Adelaide in the last game of the season. Had they beaten the team that only won 2 games prior to that then we would have had pick 14 and they would have pick 16 and this whoel shebang would have been over on day 1.

Heck if Richmond beat North Melbourne then we would have had pick 12.

Are you now saying that this type of tanking behavior that Melbourne have employed for the last 3 years should be rewarded?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Are you now saying that this type of tanking behavior that Melbourne have employed for the last 3 years should be rewarded?

No, but they've already been rewarded by receiving pick 12. What they do with it won't change that.

Although, based on comments here, it sounds like using pick 12 on Clark would be really stupid. In that case, wouldn't they have ended up punishing themselves?

 

[apuchar]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

The Gordon Gecko style recruiters start off as heroes, but they run the risk of burning bridges pretty quickly. The Bulldogs recruiters refused to deal with Hawthorn last year because they found Chris Pelchen to be an insufferable w***er. Not for a second suggesting that Bond is in the same category as Pelchen. No evidence to draw conclusions at this stage.

Your asking us to pay overs for Clark so you can pay overs for Tippett. If you want to pay extra for him take it out of your own pocket.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Your asking us to pay overs for Clark so you can pay overs for Tippett. If you want to pay extra for him take it out of your own pocket.

Good post - sums it up nicely.

.. and we won't pay overs for Clark because at the end of the day we don't need him.

 

[apuchar]

Good post - sums it up nicely.

.. and we won't pay overs for Clark because at the end of the day we don't need him.

Agree, we don't need him yet. He is an nice extra. There are other areas we need to fix up first.

 

[Angelus]

No, but they've already been rewarded by receiving pick 12. What they do with it won't change that.

Although, based on comments here, it sounds like using pick 12 on Clark would be really stupid. In that case, wouldn't they have ended up punishing themselves?

To truly punish Melbourne for their tanking, all you (and I mean this in general, not in a Brisbane only sense) have to do is allow them to pick their own players in the draft.

Scully and Watts are 2 recent number 1 picks. They will punish themselves given the chance. Hence why Schwabboly has resorted to their old trick of using number 1 picks and players to pay overs for a player that doesn't want to be there in the first place.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Your asking us to pay overs for Clark so you can pay overs for Tippett.

No I'm not. As mentioned above, this is where the subjectivity of value comes into it.

We're never going to agree on that, so there is no point in us going over old ground there.

 

[PapaJ]

Would rather get fairly compensated by Freo and fairly compensate Adelaide in return. Isn't that a much nicer interpretation of "what goes around, comes around"?

The question is not what is fair compensation. It's a trading market not a social security forum. There is a product (Clark) that is going to be 'worth' what an essentially only buyer is willing to pay for your only product with what is a very limited currency (picks 16+20 plus change). It's basic economics, his worth is what any customer is willing to pay not what any 'intrisic' worth may be. I'm fairly certain Bond sees hanging on to at least one 1st rnd pick worth more than getting Clark. Bond will offer 16 or 20 and let the chips fall where they may.

The simple equation at the end of the day (if this is Bond's thinking) does Bris want a first round pick out of this mess or be happy to almost certainly get nothing and write Clark off as a capital loss - leaving somebody else (maybe us) to pick him up out of the trash.

 

[Rob]

Trade week is now all about relationship building.

LOL, that's a good one. Vossy sure did well out of building some solid relationships in the past. Now he's looking to build another solid relationship with the Crows.

Why not let us have Clark in a straight swap for Michael Johnson and really strengthen the relationship between our 2 clubs?