Player Watch Nathan Freeman

[Apex36]

No, he doesn't. He just can't play for anyone else. Doesn't have to turn up to the club if he doesn't want to though.



That would be pretty brave if they hadn't done a medical on him.

No braver than St Kilda. If he's passed a medical for you guys then odds are he would pass a medical for other clubs too. It's a calculated risk I'd be happy for my club to take if they felt they could get a quality prospect through the PSD in addition to their ND selections.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Freeman and Kennedy for their first rounder.

 

[spartan-magpie]

Which players would you be happy taking (realistically)?

Id ask for Bruce. Maybe even your captain.

How? You can't force Freeman to sign a contract.

We can force him to accept an offer at a team will to provide better compensation. We can also let him try the psd. Fits carltons list profile perfectly.

 

[Ketchup]

Why get fired up over it? Who cares? We aren't negotiating his trade & neither are they.
He hasn't done anything at our club to get worked up about him leaving.

Trust me, I don't care. Just answering the question you asked.

But you know there's certain posters that are going to get a reaction and they know it.

 

[Pedro]

Rohan Connolly suggesting Freeman and Buckley didn't get along in the last 6 months. Said he was impressed highly by Alan Richardson.

I listened to Connolly and can't recall him saying anything of the sort.

 

[Prestigerrycomo]

How come every trade thread ends up a shit fight between the 2 clubs supporters? Last year everyone was bagging Lions supporters. Couple of weeks ago it was tigers supporters. Now it's saints supporters. Are we playing the jilted lover card? Trade him off & move on. Certainly not the end of the world.

Because they (the opposition) just can't help themselves

 

[MeisterBot]

What? Why? This is a negotiation between two parties with unequal negotiating positions. I'd compare it to similar situations:

O'Rourke: originally pick 2, played 9 games, wanted out, result: pick 18 (equivalent)
Polec: originally pick 5, played 16 games, wanted out, result: pick 28 (equivalent)
Longer: originally pick 8, played 9 games, wanted out, result: pick 21 (equivalent)
Jaksch: originally pick 12, played 7 games, wanted out, result: pick 27 (equivalent) along with Whiley
Docherty: originally pick 12, played 13 games, wanted out, result: pick 33

But most of these guys were higher picks than Freeman, and all of them had played more games. So as a guide I think it's definitely 30+.

So, history suggests that first rounders wanting to leave early are worth anywhere between 18-35 (second round). In a shallow draft, you want something in the top 30, otherwise we'd just send him to the PSD. In all likelihood in that situation you pick him up for free after some nerve wracking moments, but Hine doesn't rate this draft for depth. We don't have any need for your third. So it'll be a second rounder or PSD. Maybe an exchange of thirds or something.

But second rounder for Freeman straight swap is a deal that I think both clubs can agree on in the first 10 minutes of the trade period, so that they can focus on bigger fish (Treloar/Carlisle).

 

[bergholt]

No braver than St Kilda. If he's passed a medical for you guys then odds are he would pass a medical for other clubs too. It's a calculated risk I'd be happy for my club to take if they felt they could get a quality prospect through the PSD in addition to their ND selections.

Yeah, fair point, and I don't disagree. But Melbourne's argument in 2009 was that they couldn't consider taking Ball because they hadn't done a medical, even though I would have thought they could just rely on Collingwood having done the work. So maybe there's more to it than that from a risk perspective.

 

[Apex36]

Freeman and Kennedy for their first rounder.

Can we please stop with the unrealistic trade suggestions? It's getting embarrassing.

 

[Ant85]

Why get fired up over it? Who cares? We aren't negotiating his trade & neither are they.
He hasn't done anything at our club to get worked up about him leaving.

Walking out on a club that has supported you and spent two years rehabilitating your body leaves a bitter taste.

It's poor form, and we have a right to be annoyed and vent.

Apart from that I agree, I don't see the point in engaging "this pick for that pick" discussions, nothing we say has any bearing on the negotiations that take place.

 

[sr36]

Which players would you be happy taking (realistically)?

Hickey, but only if we are going to trade Witts and it sounds like we aren't.

 

[bergholt]

We can force him to accept an offer at a team will to provide better compensation.

Nah, you can't. The AFL won't allow that because then they're leaving themselves open to a "restraint of trade" suit which could bring down the whole draft/trade system.

 

[Kirby]

I listened to Connolly and can't recall him saying anything of the sort.

That's because this Mick39 ballbag is just a troll who makes crap up.

He'll be banned (no doubt again) soon enough.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Can we please stop with the unrealistic trade suggestions? It's getting embarrassing.

Says you. didn't realize I needed to ask permission.

 

[TW Sherrin]

No braver than St Kilda. If he's passed a medical for you guys then odds are he would pass a medical for other clubs too. It's a calculated risk I'd be happy for my club to take if they felt they could get a quality prospect through the PSD in addition to their ND selections.

if he passed a saints medical obviously the pies fixed him.

 

[DERKADERRR]

I really dislike that Paul Connors flog, out of all the player managers I reckon he's the one who handles himself the worst. The fact that he says that the deal we offered Nathan was unreasonable really pissed me off, how is it unreasonable to give a player who hasn't played a game in 2 years due to injury a lower contract with incentives which could net him a higher amount of money than the contract that St Kilda offered.
What a load of crap, I reckon he's probably the main reason why Nathan is making this move.

 

[DaVe86]

In my opinion forget about trying to trade pick 7 to pick 5.

We are trading our first pick anyway and i dont think it makes that big a difference to gws if it is 5 or 7. Its not like we wont have to trade a second roundet as well just because we have them a higher first round.

We are better off just getting a straight 2md round or orchestrating a 3 way trade for someone like aish. Id even be keen for someone like a mckenzie for gc or toumpas from melbourne who are similarly on the ouet at their clubs.

Upgrading pick 7 actually achieves nothing because we are getting rid of it anyway.

 

[bergholt]

So, history suggests that first rounders wanting to leave early are worth anywhere between 18-35 (second round). In a shallow draft, you want something in the top 30, otherwise we'd just send him to the PSD. In all likelihood in that situation you pick him up for free after some nerve wracking moments, but Hine doesn't rate this draft for depth. We don't have any need for your third. So it'll be a second rounder or PSD. Maybe an exchange of thirds or something.

Everyone's saying they don't rate the depth of the draft but all clubs have to use at least two picks. I wonder if that's going to make it hard to trade first and second rounders? The last thing we'd want is to trade our first and second for Carlisle and Freeman and then have to use 40 and 55 on real long shots.

 

[Pedro]

Upgrading pick 7 actually achieves nothing because we are getting rid of it anyway.

Probably right, unless 5 is worth more points than 7, meaning the other pick we send to GWS could be a lesser one also. That might be the only scenario where its worthwhile. Having said that, I have no idea what points each pick is worth and if in fact it would matter to GWS

 

[Robroy22]

You're right.

If Freeman has nominated St.Kilda, we'll have little choice but to deal with them.

Note Pie fans: we've been making the same argument to Richmond supporters re Treloar for the past three weeks.

Ant...you're assuming that GWS don't want to trade with us?
If they don't then Treloar goes elsewhere.....that's the game we're playing. Our offer has to suit them. That's the way you play it for a 80 game GUN player.

With Freeo, he's a 0 game player (big wraps, little return) who's dad's trying to play us off via his manager.
I think I heard the GWS CEO state last week that they wouldn't negotiate trades for McCarthy because it sends the wrong message to the rest of their high draft picks that have "stayed the course". We're in the same boat....its part of the message we want to send our players. No one is bigger than the club.

Now once StK get serious and offer reasonable recompense (whatever Hiney wants) then I'm all for young Nathan taking his bat and ball and going home!

 

[Stripes B and W]

What? Why? This is a negotiation between two parties with unequal negotiating positions. I'd compare it to similar situations:

O'Rourke: originally pick 2, played 9 games, wanted out, result: pick 18 (equivalent)
Polec: originally pick 5, played 16 games, wanted out, result: pick 28 (equivalent)
Longer: originally pick 8, played 9 games, wanted out, result: pick 21 (equivalent)
Jaksch: originally pick 12, played 7 games, wanted out, result: pick 27 (equivalent) along with Whiley
Docherty: originally pick 12, played 13 games, wanted out, result: pick 33

But most of these guys were higher picks than Freeman, and all of them had played more games. So as a guide I think it's definitely 30+.

Not sure how you conclude 30 plus based on your data. The fact he hasn't played makes it tougher IMO. Playing and showing ordinary output doesn't necessarily rate them above a player who has not played. Lets see how it plays out.

 

[dansa]

I'm normally as harsh as anyone about players not showing loyalty to the club.

But think about it from Freeman's perspective.

He knows it is quite possible that his career will be destroyed by injury. This is possibly the last contract he ever signs. He may have nothing to fall back on after footy. I can understand why he'd want the security of a guaranteed $300K or whatever it is.

For once I don't see the player as necessarily greedy.

 

[HFF]

lol @ Paul Connors.

If the thinks it's unfair to question poor Nathan's character, he should then be so kind to reveal exactly what his client will be receiving at his new club.

Money plays, Paul.

 

[bergholt]

Hickey, but only if we are going to trade Witts and it sounds like we aren't.

That's an interesting thought, lots of discussion on our board about whether we should trade one of Hickey and Longer. I think they're probably both worth more to us than you'd want to pay though, rucks with 40+ games under the belt are definitely more than just Freeman alone.

 

[bergholt]

Not sure how you conclude 30 plus based on your data. The fact he hasn't played makes it tougher IMO. Playing and showing ordinary output doesn't necessarily rate them above a player who has not played. Lets see how it plays out.

Surely not playing because of chronic hamstring injuries which you might never recover from has to reduce your value at least a little?