Shane Crawford

[Carders]

After quitting as captain, amid turmoil apparently, there must be some angst between him and the hawks.

PROS: good mates with eddie, highest fitness level in the league (still got at least 2 years in him), quality disposal, quick midfielder.

CONS: Age, baggage from leaving Hawthorn, stigma from his media roles

What does everyone else think, considering to get him we'd most definetley have to give up pick 7 or a quality player.

[Zeke]

I'd love to have him at the Magpies... I'd hate to think what sort of trade the Hawks would demand.

[GreekLunatic]

that rumour might have legs but also his age could be a no no

[Pants & Rowdy]

We should steer clear for all the fore mentioned reasons....Age?Media?Stigma?

[labrooy]

His age would mean a trade might not cost us so much. Given our average age is quite young I can't see using Pick #7 in a trade for Crawford as being too bad. It could give us a leg up for next year. This would be particularly so if we can trade for another top 10 pick in the draft.

[donuts]

to get him would be good for on field (good on-field leadership, great skills etc) and off field for fitness, preparation standard but...
Under no circumstances must #7 pick (potential 200 gamer) be given up for a bloke who comes with injury...
Didnt the crows give up their first round pick + traded to get another first round pick and sent both to the roos for carey. One of those early picks netted the roos Daniel Wells... (pick 2?)
His overall value (injuries taken into account) is not what it was a few years back and a trade with the hawks must be treated with high caution!

[Cannibal]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not ever!

Waste that friggin' hard earned 7th pick on an old bloke with serious back injuries and bulging pay packet? Some of you people flatter yourselves if you think such a trade makes sense.

You'll get sent to Siberia for 8 months if you suggest it again.

[labrooy]

Well Siberia here I come!!!

We have enough developing young players. Good trading can see us get Crawford and retain a top 10 pick. I don't think this is a bad thing.

[sq3]

Give the Hawks our 2nd pick + Presti for Crawfish and Lonie.

Don't trade the 1st rounder.

[blackandwhite4life]

The players we should try and throw into the mix for Crawf should be O'Bree, McG & Lokan. O'Bree is a hard body with experience and a good tank, while Dermot likes McG (I think) & Lokan also has age on his side plus good skills/hard body etc. Let them pick 2 of these 3 for Crawf and it's definitely a good deal for us.

Forget all the media and other BS. Judge him only on his footballing ability. He has the potential to play at the top level for a good 3 years.

[P4E]

First things first, we currently have a list of 42 (including 3 long term injuries that where replaced by rookies) - therefore we need to remove plenty from our list. I propose the following:

A. Presti, O'Bree, Crow, McKee to WB for Koops and Pick 6 and Koops (which the Pies where after at last trade period)

B. McGough, Mullins, Nixon and Williams to the Hawks for Crawford and 21

C. R Shaw and 23 to Rich for 20

D. Delist Kinnear or throw in as bonus to trading clubs.

This would have the net affect of 32 current list plus Crawford, Koops and picks 6,7,20,21,39(Travis Cloke) = 39 players (max list for club)

The bottom line is that we need to:

1. Delist plenty of people in order to participate
2. Have a duty of care to all players to enable them to play AFL
3. Have a core group that need surrounding by new blood and a little touch of class (and guts)

[Cam]

Koops? F#2k me! Would play at Willi.

The Hawks won't take 4 players for Crawford because then their list would be overloaded with more shit than it already is.

No-one is going to take 4 players for 2. It will be pick + 1 for 1, or 1+pick for 2. Its just taking on too much sh!t.

I think Kinnear will be snapped up by someone if we delist him, given a regular game, and shock, he may turn out ok. Ok, its the drugs.

Richmond will not trade down picks, especially not for Rhyce Shaw. They will want him for Marsh or some other deadshit loser.

[Johnson#26]

I would have him if we got him in a Woewodin type deal. That is not on the cards, and the Hawks are expecting a lot for him. On HHQ, they are saying that they want pick 7 plus Didak. In my opinion, that is way too much, and we can't afford to do a Richmond and trade away early picks. Whats the point? What would you rather have? Crawford for two seasons or a young gun for ten? The answer is simple. The young gun. If we can get Crawford cheap, we may just be in luck. The Footy Show and Eddie will help, and everyone is saying it ois time to land a big name...it will certainly be an interesting two weeks. For all we know he'll stay at Hawthorn.

[Culprit]

If Crawford leaves the Dawks, it will be a case of leaving football all together.

[Nath]

Regardless of the rubbish that is floating around, and I couldn't agree more with Cam in saying that Steven Koops is a loose defender with no chance of getting a regular game in the starting 22 at Collingwood.

That said, Shane Crawford would be nothing but a negative in recruiting for one reason and one reason only, forget his medium commitments and high public profile, Crawf is going on 30, has two good years left in him and WILL NOT deliver a premiership or sustained success to the Collingwood Football Club.

Thats it, arguement done. If this had happened two years ago, I'd have said go for it, but its not worth it now and we are far better off investing time and money in the likes of Didak, David King and Guy Richards than we are in offloading picks and players for Crawford.