The Age: Pies to trade pick 25 for Marty Clarke + Jamie Elliot

[Knightmare]

Interesting if true that the Pies will trade for Clarke + Elliot.

Again it's a case of getting the key player and an additional player to fill a need - even if it means slightly overpaying.

Elliot is a fairly logical replacement for Dick and probably an ok get.

 

[SUPASTARR]

As much as it pains me to say this but Elliott is a jet and wished he didn't go to the Magpies ;-) Electric small forward with the ability to go into the midfield. Has an appetite for laying big tackles and is a very smart player. Magpies fans should be very happy imo...

 

[TradeDraft]

Interesting if true that the Pies will trade for Clarke + Elliot.

Again it's a case of getting the key player and an additional player to fill a need - even if it means slightly overpaying.

Elliot is a fairly logical replacement for Dick and probably an ok get.

The Age got the Krakouer and Ceglar Trade Right so I would be very sure they are right again

 

[Jesus Baulks]

I think Greg Denham/Carlton might've missed the boat here.

 

[jonesy86]

Jake Niall reports on the pies a fair bit.

He reported Carlton's interest in Clarke at the start of August.

 

[Silvagnis]

I think Greg Denham/Carlton might've missed the boat here.

Our interest probably made you put your first round pick on the table.

Clarke may have worked out as a replacement for Scotland, but I doubt that he would be in our best 22 with Russell and Lucas missing the finals.

We're flush for outside players and flankers.

 

[royals1922]

I'm going against the tide here. Collingwood didn't have any early picks last year and will have now traded away another early pick.

It smacks to me of a top up move to rather than a development move.

That said their trade for Krakeour was successful so who knows.

But I reckon the route upward starts with the draft and using your picks wisely.

 

[Zahki]

We're flush for outside players and flankers.

Why do you want Goddard so badly then?

 

[HARKER]

I'm going against the tide here. Collingwood didn't have any early picks last year and will have now traded away another early pick.

It smacks to me of a top up move to rather than a development move.
That said their trade for Krakeour was successful so who knows.

To be fair, the gauge for Collingwood for the trades to have been truly successful would have been a premiership.
It doesn't take more than a trade period or two without any fresh inductees, to start finding yourself behind the eight ball.

Clarke hasn't played for two years yet we seem to want him to come back a gun. It may not be that easy.
Anyway, the Collingwood FC would know better. Don't think they'll be tied into the romance of the prospect of gaining back a prodigal son.

 

[Jeremias]

Why do you want Goddard so badly then?

Are you really comparing Clarke to Goddard?

Completely different.

Goddard isn't just a flanker. He's also not just an average player at best like Clarke.

 

[jonesy86]

In this draft we get Jarrod Witts for nothing and he would have been a 1st/2nd round pick had he not been a scholarship player.

 

[HFF]

Our interest probably made you put your first round pick on the table.

I doubt it TG. Even if there was one suitor for Clarke considering our picks are in the 20s it still would have cost that- I highly doubt GWS would have accepted a pick in the 40s or beyond.

Also, at pick 25 (this is effectively a mid second round pick in any other uncompromised draft). It is a small price to pay, particularly as we will also get another kid along with Clarke as well as a late pick or two which helps us "move up the draft order quicker by the time our second/third round picks come around" ala last year.

Overall the club's strategy is sound.

I'm going against the tide here. Collingwood didn't have any early picks last year and will have now traded away another early pick.

It smacks to me of a top up move to rather than a development move.

That said their trade for Krakeour was successful so who knows.

But I reckon the route upward starts with the draft and using your picks wisely.

Hardly a top up move when you consider we will have gained 2 kids from the exchange in consecutive years. Last year it was Ceglar a developing ruckman and this year apparently it's young Jamie Elliot. Marty Clarke is also only 24.

I agree about the route upward starting from the draft- it is something we have been doing since 2004/2005. Look at our list- it was the 5th youngest playing list in season 2011 and we are well entrenched at the top. A couple of experienced players over the last few years has been pivotal i.e. Jolly, Ball, Krak, Tarrant even if it has cost us a top pick or two. Need to strike while the iron is hot.

 

[JonoNash]

In this draft we get Jarrod Witts for nothing and he would have been a 1st/2nd round pick had he not been a scholarship player.

& don't forget Emma Quayle has stated that James Stewart is a bonafide Top 10 pick next year who has been selected in the same AIS group as O'Meara. She believes that he would be highly sought after if he nominated for the GWS 17 year old draft. He is ours next season.

 

[Jesus Baulks]

Our interest probably made you put your first round pick on the table.

Clarke may have worked out as a replacement for Scotland, but I doubt that he would be in our best 22 with Russell and Lucas missing the finals.

We're flush for outside players and flankers.

Undoubtedly. How else would we have trumped your offer of Brock McLean?

And you're flush with average outside players and flankers (see Jordan Russell and Kane Lucas), now you missed out on getting a good one.

 

[royals1922]

I doubt it TG. Even if there was one suitor for Clarke considering our picks are in the 20s it still would have cost that- I highly doubt GWS would have accepted a pick in the 40s or beyond.

Also, at pick 25 (this is effectively a mid second round pick in any other uncompromised draft). It is a small price to pay, particularly as we will also get another kid along with Clarke as well as a late pick or two which helps us "move up the draft order quicker by the time our second/third round picks come around" ala last year.

Overall the club's strategy is sound.



Hardly a top up move when you consider we will have gained 2 kids from the exchange in consecutive years. Last year it was Ceglar a developing ruckman and this year apparently it's young Jamie Elliot. Marty Clarke is also only 24.

I agree about the route upward starting from the draft- it is something we have been doing since 2004/2005. Look at our list- it was the 5th youngest playing list in season 2011 and we are well entrenched at the top. A couple of experienced players over the last few years has been pivotal i.e. Jolly, Ball, Krak, Tarrant even if it has cost us a top pick or two. Need to strike while the iron is hot.

I've given kudos to Collingwood elsewhere for their drafting. 18 of their GF side came from their own rookies and drafted players.

I reckon might Collingwood got sucked into reaching for Clarke because of Carlton's perceived interest unless the real jewel here is Elliott not Clarke.

I reckon the best trade involves keeping your draft picks even if hurts in the short term. That said the Krakeour gambit worked so there's no reason to suggest that Clarke trade won't even itself out.

(Thinking to oneself, forget Jonathon Hay, it never happened, it was all a bad dream).

 

[laminex]

I think Greg Denham/Carlton might've missed the boat here.

What boat, i really don't see how he would make out best 22.

 

[Jesus Baulks]

What boat, i really don't see how he would make out best 22.

Of course you don't, Carlton's got the best everything in the league, hence them winning all those finals/GFs recently. Clarke would only get a game in a plodder team like Collingwood.

 

[yaco55]

I'm going against the tide here. Collingwood didn't have any early picks last year and will have now traded away another early pick.

It smacks to me of a top up move to rather than a development move.

That said their trade for Krakeour was successful so who knows.

But I reckon the route upward starts with the draft and using your picks wisely.

Agree.

Seriously worried that CWD has traded out their first round draft selections in three consecutive years.

 

[Ants]

So I take it Elliott isn't an U18 year old player despite playing with them? Is he one of the over-agers?

 

[Bay Pie]

Agree.

Seriously worried that CWD has traded out their first round draft selections in three consecutive years.

Still had the 5th/6th youngest list in the AFL. Very few players will be retiring over the next few years. This is a rubbish draft. Our 1st round pick this year and last year are actually a mid-2nd round pick for any normal year. We are likely to also pick up youngsters, albeit 19 year old overagers, with these 2 traded pick 25's for kids we have rumoured to rate around pick 30/40 anyway.

So I take it Elliott isn't an U18 year old player despite playing with them? Is he one of the over-agers?

Yep. 19 year old overager. Same as Jon Ceglar last year. Beams was also an overager when we drafted him in 2008.

 

[look at him goooo!]

Still had the 5th/6th youngest list in the AFL. Very few players will be retiring over the next few years. This is a rubbish draft. Our 1st round pick this year and last year are actually a mid-2nd round pick for any normal year. We are likely to also pick up youngsters, albeit 19 year old overagers, with these 2 traded pick 25's for kids we have rumoured to rate around pick 30/40 anyway.

Yep. 19 year old overager. Same as Jon Ceglar last year. Beams was also an overager when we drafted him in 2008.

Beams wasnt an overager when we drafted him....he turned 18 in his final year before being drafted, the same requirements as today's draftees. yeah he couldve been drafted the year before, as an underager (eg. sidebottom and zeibell that year) but he was born in 1990 like most players drafted that year. just cause he was born between jan-apr doesnt mean he was an overager

 

[Silvagnis]

Mick cool on Clarke

Clarke was a promising half-back until Malthouse lost faith in him during 2009 when, he claims, Clarke began to struggle with being ''a small fish in a big bowl'', having been a ''superstar'' at home in County Down.

This became obvious after the Magpies had beaten the Swans at ANZ Stadium, Malthouse wrote in his new book, The Ox is Slow but the Earth is Patient.

''In the rooms after the game, Marty told me he wanted to play forward or in the midfield rather than continue in the back line. When I asked him why, he said: 'I want to win games off my own boot, like Dids and Leon.'

''I then started to doubt his acceptance of the role he had to play within our structure and his willingness to be a team player.

''When I realised he wasn't taking responsibility for his role in our team structure, my faith in him faltered. It was his own desire to return home to the spotlight, though, that influenced his decision to retire from the AFL at the end of the season, leaving many of us wondering, 'what if?' ''

''What became obvious to me with Marty - and I knew other coaches would soon pick up on it too - was his lack of a 'right side', his struggle with handpassing and his inability to effectively negotiate stoppages, which, in turn, exposed our back line.''

Mick cool on Clarke

 

[TradeDraft]

Mick cool on Clarke

Mick cool on Clarke

Well Mick is Gone now

 

[HFF]

Well Mick is Gone now

lol very subtly played sir.

 

[mdc]

None of that is news. It was well known that Clarke had asked to move from the backline and Mick took offense at a young player not simply following orders and blacklisted him from then on.

That Clarke wants to return as soon as MM is out is no coincidence.