Reportedly GWS contract offer wasn't what Lobb thought he was worth
Recommitted Rory Lobb [trade is off, staying at Fremantle]
- Thread starter Jeremias
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Reportedly GWS contract offer wasn't what Lobb thought he was worth
Moo
Premium Platinum
Wonder if the Hawks are the most likely team to work with GWS and us to get a Lobb deal done.
Hawks would love to get 2 to grab Finn ….5 should get GWS Mack Andrews.
Lot of assumptions here (Hawks willing to pay to get Finn, GWS want Andrews & Freo will favour getting Lobb out and have some sort of plan B)
Wonder if we could see a scenario where:
-Hawks give up 5 and 24 for GWS pick 2 & a GWS F2 ( might depend on assets Hawks get for players)
- GWS then have 5, 13, 24 & perhaps a ?F2 for Hill from a ?Essendon
If we don’t want Rory Knob then I’d be tempted if GWS then started the convo with assets 13, 24, GWS 1st and Hill F2nd rounder to negotiate with for Lobb and ?
6, 8 & 13 for Freo - would see us most likely get our 1st choice WA mid and 1st choice WA forward plus another highly touted mid or forward.
Just spit balling…maybe not enough difference between Finn and other mids on offer for Hawks.
Hawks would love to get 2 to grab Finn ….5 should get GWS Mack Andrews.
Lot of assumptions here (Hawks willing to pay to get Finn, GWS want Andrews & Freo will favour getting Lobb out and have some sort of plan B)
Wonder if we could see a scenario where:
-Hawks give up 5 and 24 for GWS pick 2 & a GWS F2 ( might depend on assets Hawks get for players)
- GWS then have 5, 13, 24 & perhaps a ?F2 for Hill from a ?Essendon
If we don’t want Rory Knob then I’d be tempted if GWS then started the convo with assets 13, 24, GWS 1st and Hill F2nd rounder to negotiate with for Lobb and ?
6, 8 & 13 for Freo - would see us most likely get our 1st choice WA mid and 1st choice WA forward plus another highly touted mid or forward.
Just spit balling…maybe not enough difference between Finn and other mids on offer for Hawks.
I haven't been following this thread.
Presumably, given all their pious pontificating on the Jordan Clark thread, Freo fans support letting Lobb go wherever he wants for massive unders, to support his mental health and wellbeing.
Presumably, given all their pious pontificating on the Jordan Clark thread, Freo fans support letting Lobb go wherever he wants for massive unders, to support his mental health and wellbeing.
Think you've got West Coast and Freo supporters mixed up. Very few (if any?)Freo people are saying anything about mental health and Clark.
Think you're projecting mate, very few comments being made about Clark's mental health in that thread. What is abundantly clear though is how important Lobb and Clark are to each team's respective best 22s and how that should effect their trade value.
No. Geelong and Freo should hold their players to their contracts.
Strange thing to melt over. Geelong look like getting significant overs.
As for Lobb, could something like this work?
Lobb to GWS
Hill to Ess
Essendon pick/s to Freo
Not sure it's going to get done anyway.
Freo and GWS seem quite apart on valuation and there's only 3 days left.
Happy to keep him in the Freo family.
Freo and GWS seem quite apart on valuation and there's only 3 days left.
Happy to keep him in the Freo family.
Freo offload Lobb's entire remaining 1.4 million contract to Hawthorn for pick 35 (or picks to that value). Haw immediately pay him 200k on a 1 day contract. On trade the remaining 1.2 million.
Hawthorn trade him to GWS for pick 30, banking 5 spots in the order for the 200k pay out.
Lobb turns the remaining 2 years for 1.2 million on his deal in to 3 years at 450k, knowing he's probably sacrificed about 150k (less after tax) if he had gotten a 300k 1 year deal by staying at Freo.
Everyone's happy (enough). GWS can justify pick 30 given the appropriate salary. Freo can justify pick 35 and saving a heap of money on a player who just isn't worth it, that they can then spend on free agents or frontloading. Hawthorn just happy to move up the draft using cash they had spare to spend anyway.
None of the above is legal or likely, just thinking about it as a thought exercise.
Hawthorn trade him to GWS for pick 30, banking 5 spots in the order for the 200k pay out.
Lobb turns the remaining 2 years for 1.2 million on his deal in to 3 years at 450k, knowing he's probably sacrificed about 150k (less after tax) if he had gotten a 300k 1 year deal by staying at Freo.
Everyone's happy (enough). GWS can justify pick 30 given the appropriate salary. Freo can justify pick 35 and saving a heap of money on a player who just isn't worth it, that they can then spend on free agents or frontloading. Hawthorn just happy to move up the draft using cash they had spare to spend anyway.
None of the above is legal or likely, just thinking about it as a thought exercise.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,198
- 71,233
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #660
The salary is irrelevant to us, losing his salary for next year has no tangible benefit for us when he is one of 3 KPFs on the list. Despite the posturing I'm pretty sure we would be more than happy to pay part of this wage to increase the draft compensation.
I doubt GWS have a number where they will increase draft capital tho. Whether Lobb's on 300k or 500k I'd imagine there's a limit to what they'd give pick wise. The salary negotiation is more a way to make sure Lobb is satisfied. My guess is you will move on that too but you don't want to make it any easier for Lobb who hasn't delivered on his end.
Salary cap space just got you pick 19 from the Giants. Obviously it's not the end of the world if you're paying Lobb but it would be handy to get out of that deal. It's enough to make a really juicy offer for a good player after next year.
I know Freo are frustrated wanting to improve quickly asap but there's got to be someone who can fill in. Cale Hooker, Nathan Vardy or Shaun McKernan could probably be tempted out of retirement. Levi Casboult? Mason Cox? One of the oversupply of key defenders on your list.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 6,778
- 14,855
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Suns
- May 28, 2017
- 7,850
- 10,732
- AFL Club
- West Coast
He's being traded for a bag of dicks, which you've got a handbag full of.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,198
- 71,233
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #664
But we can trade him next year when he inevitably asks again to move and free up the space then? The capspace freeing up should no more benefit for us then any other trade (ie Cerra) and it’s not taken into account for those trades.
We’ve done well historically when trading out contracted players we want to keep and this should be no different.
Obviously me being this stubborn means Bell folds and we trade him for a F2 and I look stupid
There's a difference between trading out players who are really wanted and trading out players who are overpaid, underperforming and seemingly not very popular.
The Saints, Lions and Suns all had their reasons to go hard for Hill, Neale and Weller. GWS are surely looking at this as more of an opportunity. I doubt they are sweating on Lobb given they're deep with rucks and have decent key forward options.
You clearly have some form of desire to keep Lobb rather than just toss him out, but if you really wanted to keep Lobb you wouldn't even be entertaining his request. There's some kind of middle ground that could be possible or it would be entirely shut down by now.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,198
- 71,233
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #666
All fair points which is why I’ll probably be disappointed. The language has always been we are keeping Lobb and we’ve told Lobb it’s unlikely we can trade him given what our demands will be. Offers for Dunkley and Papley were entertained and a sufficient offer wasn’t given so they stayed. Either we have been full of s**t since the beginning or GWS actually have more than a passing interest and are happy to pay overs.
Like I said, we’ve historically done well on contracted players and GWS would have known the value of Lobb to us when they decided to try to trade for him, my money is on GWS overpaying but I‘ve got my pitchfork ready just in case
Lobb is difficult on a number of levels.
Firstly, Fremantle doesn’t want Lobb out.
Secondly, Lobb has another 2 years on his contract.
Thirdly, GWS can’t fit Lobb into the cap
Fourthly, GWS draft assets to trade with Fremantle is either too much or too little.
Firstly, Fremantle doesn’t want Lobb out.
Secondly, Lobb has another 2 years on his contract.
Thirdly, GWS can’t fit Lobb into the cap
Fourthly, GWS draft assets to trade with Fremantle is either too much or too little.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,173
- 41,970
- AFL Club
- GWS
we can fit him but he isn’t worth the money.
Not saying cap isn’t getting up there but we also are going to pay him 700k.
and as for trade we are so far apart it isn’t funny. Still can’t see this one getting through.
And his current contract is null and void to GWS. They will negotiate a new one.
What he is on at Fremantle is almost irrelevant once he has agreed to terms.
Fremantle shouldn't be letting him go though.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,173
- 41,970
- AFL Club
- GWS
All for it.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 6,778
- 14,855
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
If GWS gives #13 for Wingard, do they get anything back?
I suspect Lobb will accept less money from GWS, and Freo will get whatever picks are available from the Bobby Hill trade plus that Future 2nd.
I suspect Lobb will accept less money from GWS, and Freo will get whatever picks are available from the Bobby Hill trade plus that Future 2nd.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,856
- 43,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
No way known I'd give #13 for Wingard outright.
haha - 22 is unders for Clark - haha
if they give 13 for Chad Wingard McCartney should be drug tested
Similar threads
