Realistic trade targets

[Wonaeamirri33]

Would figure that Greeny made a clear choice before the start of the season, so I'd be very surprised if that's changed.

 

[00Stinger]

I say that if port are having a clear out we put picks 18 and 34 on the table and go after Salopek or Boak. Both would fit well.
As for a KPF we should go after Dawes for Collingwood, I could think of others but he would be alot more realistic option IMO.

 

[Bond.ShaneBond]

I say that if port are having a clear out we put picks 18 and 34 on the table and go after Salopek or Boak. Both would fit well.
As for a KPF we should go after Dawes for Collingwood, I could think of others but he would be alot more realistic option IMO.

Why would a clear-out involve a third year player who was picked at 5 in a superdraft?

 

[GriffBlick]

they wont trade boak, he may want to leave tho cause who would want to stay at port with everythying going on.. was a geelong boy

 

[stickman11]

By no means is this a trade rumour - but I was on the same flight as Brad Green coming back from Sydney. Looks as if he did a day trip (sans luggage).

Read what you will, he may there for nothing...

He is contracted to us for 2 years - he can't be there for nothing.

 

[00Stinger]

Why would a clear-out involve a third year player who was picked at 5 in a superdraft?

The rumor I have heard( and not on bigfooty) is that Boak wants to come home to Victoria

 

[Demon 16]

The rumor I have heard( and not on bigfooty) is that Boak wants to come home to Victoria

Is he contracted? Would be a dream to get someone like this while weve got preseason draft pick 1..

 

[saj_21]

CBF reading through this whole thread, but if we're looking at any incoming players in this trade period I'd hope that we chase a young KP forward, my thoughts being that if we get someone who's around the 20-23 mark they fit our youth policy & potentially take some pressure off Watts becuase they should be ahead of him in terms of development. Targets would be the likes of Thorp (who i'm sure has been mentioned), Dowler from Hawthorn, Rusling, Reid, Dawes from Collingwood, Murphy from Freo, Lonergan from Geelong. The last 2 are a bit older, but might be worth a shot & could at very least put pressure on Miller to step up.

Yoy may to much sense to be on this board MFC, all those you mention are suitable and realistic trade targets. But for what pick?

I wouldn't mind dowler, he seems a less talented but more honest (and fit) footballer than thorp. Dowler's game against essendon in round 22 was impressive.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

Yoy may to much sense to be on this board MFC, all those you mention are suitable and realistic trade targets. But for what pick?

I wouldn't mind dowler, he seems a less talented but more honest (and fit) footballer than thorp. Dowler's game against essendon in round 22 was impressive.

Plus we could use his forehead to show set plays.

 

[Dez!]

Word is that Cleve Hughes has been dumped by the Tigers, wouldn't mind picking him up in the PSD.

22 years old.
193cm
94kg
Forward.

16 career games so he hasn't been Richmond'd too badly, it's worth it I reckon if there's nothing obviously better available in the PSD.

 

[The Professor]

Word is that Cleve Hughes has been dumped by the Tigers, wouldn't mind picking him up in the PSD.

22 years old.
193cm
94kg
Forward.

16 career games so he hasn't been Richmond'd too badly, it's worth it I reckon if there's nothing obviously better available in the PSD.

Prefer to pass. Better off plucking a name out of the territory.

 

[Future Star]

Something wrong with Cleve Hughes in the head i believe, if he could work that out would be worth a rookie spot. Is a big if though

 

[McLean_4_Captain]

Yoy may to much sense to be on this board MFC, all those you mention are suitable and realistic trade targets. But for what pick?

I wouldn't mind dowler, he seems a less talented but more honest (and fit) footballer than thorp. Dowler's game against essendon in round 22 was impressive.

That's why I don't post very often...

In reality all of the Collingwood or Hawthorn players are worth no more then pick 18 to an outside club. But unless they're going to walk, we have to pay what they're club values them at. What we have to consider is collingwood has enough players to delist to keep all of those players, so we have to pay what collingwood deam they're worth. I'm not sure if collingwood would want any players we'd consider trading if they wanted more then pick 18, but I think collingwood ones are a bigger chance because hawthorn are hard to trade with. The 2 i think the pies would consider trading, Dawes & Reid, pick 18 should be pretty close if not a bit over the odds

Hawthorn are unlikely to want picks, and now unless this Josh Gibson thing comes to a head before trade week ends, I cant see them doing other signifcant trades, it's got the O'Keefe trade holding up all other deals written all over it. However on the flip, hawthorn could want the extra pick to on trade to get gibson, picks 18 & 25 might be enough for the hawks to get gibson from NM. Based on that not happening, they're likely to want one of our backman. Dowler proved he could fit into the side late in the year & increased his value, they'll base his worth on those last few games and Thorp is an enigma. I could maybe see Rivers/Warnock + pick 18 for Thorp/Dowler & another young player and maybe a pick of theirs, but multi-player deals like that don't often happen.

The other 2 are worth less, I wouldn't want to be paying much if anything especially seeing as they're a bit older then we're really after, pick 34 max. Geelong may do a S King type pick 90 trade for Lonergan if they're going to delist him otherwise, but we'd have to convince him to want to get traded to us

I consider Hughes in my initial post, but he's really just Richmonds version of Juice, potential but not much proven. I rate Hughes slightly ahead of Juice, he'd be a last resort at best

 

[The Professor]

I could maybe see Rivers/Warnock + pick 18 for Thorp/Dowler & another young player and maybe a pick of theirs, but multi-player deals like that don't often happen.

pick 90 trade for Lonergan if they're going to delist him otherwise, but we'd have to convince him to want to get traded to us

Talk about dudding your own team. Warnock easily eclipses Thorpe or Dowler. To throw in pick 18. wow. Would you like Grimes with that as well?

Tom Lonergan. pfftt. Talk about the most uninspiring trade deal ever.

Geelong would have to give us Gary Ablett for us to accept Tom Lonergan. That or Geelong promises to take Bell's contract, Newton's contract, Paul Johnson's contract and Tom Lonergan. Done deal.

 

[McLean_4_Captain]

Talk about dudding your own team. Warnock easily eclipses Thorpe or Dowler. To throw in pick 18. wow. Would you like Grimes with that as well?

I was rating Warnock & Rivers above their player, otherwise I would've suggested a straight swap. And I mentioned a pick of there's, so it might be Thorp, young player & pick 25, we'd trade one player for 2 and a pick downgrade.

Basically, we fill a need (KPF), they fill a need (KPD) and we do a pick downgrade for a player. Open both eyes & look at it, it's pretty fair

 

[RandB]

I was rating Warnock & Rivers above their player, otherwise I would've suggested a straight swap. And I mentioned a pick of there's, so it might be Thorp, young player & pick 25, we'd trade one player for 2 and a pick downgrade.

Basically, we fill a need (KPF), they fill a need (KPD) and we do a pick downgrade for a player. Open both eyes & look at it, it's pretty fair

Don't like it myself - it's not too bad but I can see us getting burnt by this. I understand Thorp is a KPF and pick 6 in the 2006 draft suggests a very good prospect but all I can say is buyer beware.

So either Warnock or Rivers (two proven players at AFL level) are on the table for an unproven 2 gamer and then on top we downgrade pick 18 (which could be on the fringe of the top end of the draft talent) for "another player" who may or may not serve a purpose and I assume wouldn't be much of a loss to the Hawks which suggests something.

I realise that in order to induce a trade you have to put out quality to get quality but having pick 18 on the table as well doesn't sit with me. The Hawks would jump at this.

 

[W. Smithers]

Something wrong with Cleve Hughes in the head i believe, if he could work that out would be worth a rookie spot. Is a big if though

He saw Polak get collected by the tram. Messed him up a little.

 

[Oscarman]

Where's bee dee with all his trade news? I guess the scooter is in being serviced.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I can tell you outright that Port would laugh at you and send you on your way if you offered that for Salopek.

keep using the word he loves it

 

[McLean_4_Captain]

Don't like it myself - it's not too bad but I can see us getting burnt by this. I understand Thorp is a KPF and pick 6 in the 2006 draft suggests a very good prospect but all I can say is buyer beware.

So either Warnock or Rivers (two proven players at AFL level) are on the table for an unproven 2 gamer and then on top we downgrade pick 18 (which could be on the fringe of the top end of the draft talent) for "another player" who may or may not serve a purpose and I assume wouldn't be much of a loss to the Hawks which suggests something.

I realise that in order to induce a trade you have to put out quality to get quality but having pick 18 on the table as well doesn't sit with me. The Hawks would jump at this.

I'm sure some Hawks fans would have the exact same reaction as you, which probably means it's pretty fair that people on both sides have some hesitation about it.

You need to look at it this way, Rivers & Warnock are proven players, but not stars (although many hold hope for Riv he's not reached his potential) and they will be 25 & 26 at the start of next season. Thorp, although not being able to get on the park much, is only 21 next year. Youth has a currency and Thorp's age plays a part in his value. He's contracted at Hawthorn, so we'd have to make it worth their while to let him go.

Yes it's a more dangerous from our end (and this is where I assume your hesitance comes from) but it has potentially much greater benefits for us if Thorp turns into a star, which is why Hawthorn would make us pay such a premium for him.

It's a classic risk vs reward scenario, which i'm hoping we'd consider seeing as we have a chance to try this with upsetting our own applecart too much

 

[RandB]

I'm sure some Hawks fans would have the exact same reaction as you, which probably means it's pretty fair that people on both sides have some hesitation about it.

You need to look at it this way, Rivers & Warnock are proven players, but not stars (although many hold hope for Riv he's not reached his potential) and they will be 25 & 26 at the start of next season. Thorp, although not being able to get on the park much, is only 21 next year. Youth has a currency and Thorp's age plays a part in his value. He's contracted at Hawthorn, so we'd have to make it worth their while to let him go.

Yes it's a more dangerous from our end (and this is where I assume your hesitance comes from) but it has potentially much greater benefits for us if Thorp turns into a star, which is why Hawthorn would make us pay such a premium for him.

It's a classic risk vs reward scenario, which i'm hoping we'd consider seeing as we have a chance to try this with upsetting our own applecart too much

I understand where you are coming from but I still think it is a little one sided. Ok so Thorp is a 21 yr old I understand there is potential for an upside but I don't think youth is the be all or end all when certain teams have such prominent gaps in their line up. Take Warnock for example. He is a reliable and solid defender and arguably will come into his prime next year and is capable of at least another 5 yrs of top service. Hawthorn are crying out for defenders - this is the other side of the coin. Warnock may not be a star but Hawthorn may not be after one, like Gibson they may be after just a solid contributor who is not injury prone and will solve a major headache for them. If that figure of 800k for 3 yrs for Gibson is true (as reported) then that says a bit I reckon of their position.

Also Hawthorn are not the only side in the equation who have the position of valuing their players to themselves, both Rivers and Warnock are immensely valuable to us as senior defenders and provided important service to us this year. We would be cutting into that rather than losing a non-contributor such as Chris Johnson. Warnock takes the big forwards more often than not, just think about it, Hawthorn have this problem and then would off load it to us. Putting pick 18 into the equation just makes it all that more of an unnecessary risk.

The theme of the thread is realistic trades suggestions and yours is not far off the mark IMO but I don't see why other teams need to be sugarcoated to induce a trade as opposed to us. We have valuable commodities in defence both to us and opposition teams here (despite finishing 16th).

I read one of your earlier posts about getting a KPF who is a couple of years ahead of Watts and I think that is an excellent point so going after Thorp is not a bad notion (from an age pov - despite only 2 senior games) even though a bit of a risk. I can't fathom going through with it though if it meant both a dependable defender and pick 18 were the cost.

The risk is x3 on our end:

1) 21 yr old KPF with 2 games and unproven

2) losing one of our senior defenders potentially leaving a huge hole. We have a plethora of flankers or pockets but not many prospects who can reliably hold down a FF or a CHF.

3) Downgrading our pick from 18 to 25

There is risk and then there is a lot of risk and this is too much for mine. From this trade, Hawthorn would have complete peace of mind in what they were getting - a better pick and a defender they know they would be able to rely on (notwithstanding Rivers getting another injury) and possibly freeing up space by offloading a spud onto us. Their supporters would either say yes or no but it is hardly a risk of any sort given their forward stocks and that they could get another tall forward in the draft if they wanted to.

Sorry this post turned into a ****ing novel.

 

[McLean_4_Captain]

The theme of the thread is realistic trades suggestions and yours is not far off the mark IMO but I don't see why other teams need to be sugarcoated to induce a trade as opposed to us. We have valuable commodities in defence both to us and opposition teams here (despite finishing 16th).

I read one of your earlier posts about getting a KPF who is a couple of years ahead of Watts and I think that is an excellent point so going after Thorp is not a bad notion (from an age pov - despite only 2 senior games) even though a bit of a risk. I can't fathom going through with it though if it meant both a dependable defender and pick 18 were the cost.

The risk is x3 on our end:

1) 21 yr old KPF with 2 games and unproven

2) losing one of our senior defenders potentially leaving a huge hole. We have a plethora of flankers or pockets but not many prospects who can reliably hold down a FF or a CHF.

3) Downgrading our pick from 18 to 25

There is risk and then there is a lot of risk and this is too much for mine. From this trade, Hawthorn would have complete peace of mind in what they were getting - a better pick and a defender they know they would be able to rely on (notwithstanding Rivers getting another injury) and possibly freeing up space by offloading a spud onto us. Their supporters would either say yes or no but it is hardly a risk of any sort given their forward stocks and that they could get another tall forward in the draft if they wanted to.

There are a few reasons why I was seemingly swaying it or sugarcoating it in there favour, firstly people have a tendancy to heavily favour their own team when suggesting trades, which i was trying to avoid (even though i knew i'd have idiots immediately shoot down my suggestion because it wasn't hugely in melbourne's favour ). Secondly, my suggestion is we chase Thorp and because we're doing the asking, that gives Hawthorn the upper hand in negotiations. Thirdly hawthorn are pr1cks. They're notoriously shrewd at the trade table and are unlikely to give away a player they'd like to keep unless it favours them.

There's also the potential if it's Rivers on the table that it could blow up in their face if he got injured again, we're not the only ones running the risk. Also its not like Warnock had put together 5 solid seasons, he's had about 1 & 1/2 solid years, less of a risk but he could still fall apart. Its definitely a greater risks for us, but its a 2 way street. Like i said before, greater risk for potential greater return

And the additional player could be quite decent player, who they deem surplus but good for us, a fringe hawthorn midfielder could easily get into our best side at present, a player like jarryd morton, Hawthorn might say that's too much then. That could give us 2 quality players before the draft, in what is said to be a weak draft

 

[RandB]

There are a few reasons why I was seemingly swaying it or sugarcoating it in there favour, firstly people have a tendancy to heavily favour their own team when suggesting trades, which i was trying to avoid (even though i knew i'd have idiots immediately shoot down my suggestion because it wasn't hugely in melbourne's favour ).

A bit of an over reaction to a difference of opinion I would have thought. I haven't seen any arguments for a deal that favours us, simply a better one than that.

Secondly, my suggestion is we chase Thorp and because we're doing the asking, that gives Hawthorn the upper hand in negotiations.

I guess it comes down to the scenario Hawthorn are faced with with respect to getting defenders from other clubs. If they satisfy their requirement/s elsewhere then yes we are stuffed good and proper for bargaining power as you suggest. If not then we have some clout. We have the luxury that if we don't get Thorp then getting a kid in the draft is not that much of a difference with respect to experience. Hawthorn on the other hand are in the situation where they have to make a deal with another club to get an established defender if they don't want to try pot luck in the PSD. They have apparently contacted players from 4 clubs so they are very keen.

Either way, given that deal itself and the other options we have I would still prefer the club to walk away from it.

If what Parko on 'AFL Teams' said has any weight, apparently they will announce something big in the next few days so I am assuming a big name player here separate from Gibson.

Thirdly hawthorn are pr1cks. They're notoriously shrewd at the trade table and are unlikely to give away a player they'd like to keep unless it favours them.

Not withstanding contract status, all clubs work like this. It doesn't mean that we go ahead and get pantsed in the deal simply because the Hawks are pr1cks - we look elsewhere. Hawthorn can say anything to try and strengthen their position such as Thorp being a valuable player without anyone else really knowing their position. If you just roll with it then you are a mug. At some point you have to draw a line, especially when the player you are after is not that important.

There's also the potential if it's Rivers on the table that it could blow up in their face if he got injured again, we're not the only ones running the risk. Also its not like Warnock had put together 5 solid seasons, he's had about 1 & 1/2 solid years, less of a risk but he could still fall apart. Its definitely a greater risks for us, but its a 2 way street. Like i said before, greater risk for potential greater return

That is quite true and I would have to say that I could handle Rivers in such a trade more so than Warnock for that very reason (plus a year older I think) however pick 18 doesn't need to be part of it IMO.

And the additional player could be quite decent player, who they deem surplus but good for us, a fringe hawthorn midfielder could easily get into our best side at present, a player like jarryd morton, Hawthorn might say that's too much then. That could give us 2 quality players before the draft, in what is said to be a weak draft

Without knowing the player involved it is hard to know either way in this regard but given we will be injecting quality into our midfield next year the last thing we will need is another fringe player which would be the likely scenario. If it is a shallow/weak draft then pick 18 will be critical.

 

[kingross29]

I'd like to think that Pav would be a realistic target seeing as he still hasn't signed yet.
Pick 2 + Brock?

You would need to give up picks 1,2 and 17 minimum

 

[saj_21]

I believe we should put Warnock out there and see what he attracts, namely at hawthorn.

I am pretty harsh critic of Warnock, i should give him some slack about the amount of goals he conceeded this year due to the consistent lack of mide field pressure. But in saying that Melbourne conceeded the least amount of points (for a wooden spoon tema) since the Saints in 1988 who would of played on a mud heap.

I would keep Rivers over Warnock despite Warnocks size advantage, Rivers has better football smarts, better skills and can win more of the footy and use it better. Both times this year rivers did a good job on Kosi, towelled up cloke on QB so he can play on the bigger forwards.

Getting another pick between 20-30, may allow us to shop around pick 18.