| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
At the end of the day the Beams deal with get us pick 5 and Greenwood with Crisp the steak knives.
While we did all the leg work for Greenwood it's still a fortunate situation that we can get him for Brisbane's pick 25 which if his form holds for the next 3 or 4 years will be a massive bargain.
This so far is the one piece of luck we've had if it all goes as hoped.
Varcoe for Lumunba is about even as far as deals go. Both could be hits or misses for there respective clubs.
If we can as hoped come away from this "mega trade" with pick 23 or 25 then it makes the Beams deal that bit more palatable.
I'd love to get a Cockatoo with a pick in that range.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
 |
Harvey
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If the deal is as stated then we've lost out on both the Beams deal AND the H deal.
What we're getting for Beams is essentially what Port got for Burgoyne: with pick 5 = pick 8 (considering the evenness of this years draft after the top 4), pick 25 = pick upgrade from 24 to 16 and Crisp = Nash. Considering Beams is better than Burgoyne, younger than him when traded and with no injury concerns as well as being contracted, we really got well unders for this deal.
I would've thought if we can't do any better for Beams, at least we'd get something better for H. But instead we've essentially downgraded H to Varcoe. We should be at least getting a pick upgrade out of that. Either Melbourne throws in pick 23 or Geelong throw in pick 21 with us giving back pick 30 or we should back out of helping Melbourne and Geelong facilitate a trade for Clark. Otherwise what's in it for us?!
Since Buck's has taken over, I always thought we've done really well out of our trades (FA's and delisted agents not so much). This year we've just been utterly reamed though |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^The Age article suggests that we might also be giving up a 4th rounder to Brisbane as well.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | ^^The Age article suggests that we might also be giving up a 4th rounder to Brisbane as well. |
You have to be kidding right?
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If we are giving it up I dare say we had no intention of using it anyway.
Still stuff em.
LOL.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Harvey wrote: | If the deal is as stated then we've lost out on both the Beams deal AND the H deal.
What we're getting for Beams is essentially what Port got for Burgoyne: with pick 5 = pick 8 (considering the evenness of this years draft after the top 4), pick 25 = pick upgrade from 24 to 16 and Crisp = Nash. Considering Beams is better than Burgoyne, younger than him when traded and with no injury concerns as well as being contracted, we really got well unders for this deal.
I would've thought if we can't do any better for Beams, at least we'd get something better for H. But instead we've essentially downgraded H to Varcoe. We should be at least getting a pick upgrade out of that. Either Melbourne throws in pick 23 or Geelong throw in pick 21 with us giving back pick 30 or we should back out of helping Melbourne and Geelong facilitate a trade for Clark. Otherwise what's in it for us?!
Since Buck's has taken over, I always thought we've done really well out of our trades (FA's and delisted agents not so much). This year we've just been utterly reamed though |
If we don't end up with pick 23 or 25 then it's the Varcoe aspect of the trade probably getting in the way of it.
Pick 25 for Greenwood. Tick.
Lumumba and pick 30 for pick 23. Tick
Nothing left for Varcoe.
Given that Melbourne used pick 23 on Vince last season it's not unreasonable to suggest that Lumumba and pick 48 should have been enough for 23 with 30 left over for Varcoe which I assume Geelong would have accepted.
Who knows but we seem to be getting paid unders for Beams and Lumumba if we don't retain a pick in the 20's.
Not happy.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
|
|
|
|
Harvey
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | Harvey wrote: | If the deal is as stated then we've lost out on both the Beams deal AND the H deal.
What we're getting for Beams is essentially what Port got for Burgoyne: with pick 5 = pick 8 (considering the evenness of this years draft after the top 4), pick 25 = pick upgrade from 24 to 16 and Crisp = Nash. Considering Beams is better than Burgoyne, younger than him when traded and with no injury concerns as well as being contracted, we really got well unders for this deal.
I would've thought if we can't do any better for Beams, at least we'd get something better for H. But instead we've essentially downgraded H to Varcoe. We should be at least getting a pick upgrade out of that. Either Melbourne throws in pick 23 or Geelong throw in pick 21 with us giving back pick 30 or we should back out of helping Melbourne and Geelong facilitate a trade for Clark. Otherwise what's in it for us?!
Since Buck's has taken over, I always thought we've done really well out of our trades (FA's and delisted agents not so much). This year we've just been utterly reamed though |
If we don't end up with pick 23 or 25 then it's the Varcoe aspect of the trade probably getting in the way of it.
Pick 25 for Greenwood. Tick.
Lumumba and pick 30 for pick 23. Tick
Nothing left for Varcoe.
Given that Melbourne used pick 23 on Vince last season it's not unreasonable to suggest that Lumumba and pick 48 should have been enough for 23 with 30 left over for Varcoe which I assume Geelong would have accepted.
Who knows but we seem to be getting paid unders for Beams and Lumumba if we don't retain a pick in the 20's.
Not happy. |
Really hope we have. Just don't understand what Varcoe brings to the table apart from age.
I've resigned myself to the fact that we're going to get reamed this trade period and the club isn't going to show the balls it needs to and draw a line in the sand. The one positive is if we can use those picks we get for Beams this year and then use the salary cap space he creates for a massive play in FA next year or to throw at a GWS youngster coming out of contract like Cameron, Boyd, Treloar and Shiel (or even someone contracted since it doesn't seem to matter these days). Which is why I'd prefer pick 23 to Varcoe. I'd be pissed if the salary cap space we're creating with Beams is used for fringe like Varcoe and overpaying Greenwood.
We need to make a massive play in FA. We've lost too many A-graders the last couple of years. |
|
|
|
|
Domesticated_Ape 
Joined: 01 Oct 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | Harvey wrote: | If the deal is as stated then we've lost out on both the Beams deal AND the H deal.
What we're getting for Beams is essentially what Port got for Burgoyne: with pick 5 = pick 8 (considering the evenness of this years draft after the top 4), pick 25 = pick upgrade from 24 to 16 and Crisp = Nash. Considering Beams is better than Burgoyne, younger than him when traded and with no injury concerns as well as being contracted, we really got well unders for this deal.
I would've thought if we can't do any better for Beams, at least we'd get something better for H. But instead we've essentially downgraded H to Varcoe. We should be at least getting a pick upgrade out of that. Either Melbourne throws in pick 23 or Geelong throw in pick 21 with us giving back pick 30 or we should back out of helping Melbourne and Geelong facilitate a trade for Clark. Otherwise what's in it for us?!
Since Buck's has taken over, I always thought we've done really well out of our trades (FA's and delisted agents not so much). This year we've just been utterly reamed though |
If we don't end up with pick 23 or 25 then it's the Varcoe aspect of the trade probably getting in the way of it.
Pick 25 for Greenwood. Tick.
Lumumba and pick 30 for pick 23. Tick
Nothing left for Varcoe.
Given that Melbourne used pick 23 on Vince last season it's not unreasonable to suggest that Lumumba and pick 48 should have been enough for 23 with 30 left over for Varcoe which I assume Geelong would have accepted.
Who knows but we seem to be getting paid unders for Beams and Lumumba if we don't retain a pick in the 20's.
Not happy. |
Josh Mahoney, Melbourne's footy operations boss, came out in the first couple of days of the trade period and said that since they traded 22 for Vince last season, they felt H was worth pick 23 this year. So I can't see how H and 30 for 23 was ever a deal. It was H for 23 and if we take Varcoe instead, that means we rate him at that pick or higher.
I still think something must be happening with picks 30 and 48. If they're not in the H/Varcoe/Clarke trade, then maybe we're using them with pick 5 to do something else that the media haven't got wind of yet. There's still enough time left to surprise everyone.  |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm merely using that as an example of how we should have been able to get pick 23 if Melbourne wouldn't do it for a straight swap. Pick 48 added on top should have been enough,
In would seem Melbourne's desire to keep pick 23 up there sleeve for use in the Trengove deal will see us having to accept unders in the combined deal of Beams, Greenwood and Varcoe.
It's come down to a straight swap of 3 players to 3 clubs it would seem so we haven't been able to use the situation to as much advantage as we would have liked.
At this stage we'll have picks 5, 9(Moore), 30 and 48 to take to the draft.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Domesticated_Ape
Joined: 01 Oct 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | I'm merely using that as an example of how we should have been able to get pick 23 if Melbourne wouldn't do it for a straight swap. Pick 48 added on top should have been enough,
In would seem Melbourne's desire to keep pick 23 up there sleeve for use in the Trengove deal will see us having to accept unders in the combined deal of Beams, Greenwood and Varcoe.
It's come down to a straight swap of 3 players to 3 clubs it would seem so we haven't been able to use the situation to as much advantage as we would have liked.
At this stage we'll have picks 5, 9(Moore), 30 and 48 to take to the draft. |
Plus Varcoe, Greenwood, Crisp and Frost = 8 new players. That would mean two more delisted.
If we don't get that pick in the 20's then Hine uses pick 30 to upgrade Frost I will seriously think he's lost it.  |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think we might be getting rid of picks because we don't want to take back-end draft talent this year. Pick 5, Moore and an upgrade might be all we're after. I'm not saying that is necessarily the correct approach - rather, I'm just looking at the present list, speculating about whether players we might like to delist are actually out of contract (eg, Armstrong) and then looking at who is left. |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Harvey wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | Harvey wrote: | If the deal is as stated then we've lost out on both the Beams deal AND the H deal.
What we're getting for Beams is essentially what Port got for Burgoyne: with pick 5 = pick 8 (considering the evenness of this years draft after the top 4), pick 25 = pick upgrade from 24 to 16 and Crisp = Nash. Considering Beams is better than Burgoyne, younger than him when traded and with no injury concerns as well as being contracted, we really got well unders for this deal.
I would've thought if we can't do any better for Beams, at least we'd get something better for H. But instead we've essentially downgraded H to Varcoe. We should be at least getting a pick upgrade out of that. Either Melbourne throws in pick 23 or Geelong throw in pick 21 with us giving back pick 30 or we should back out of helping Melbourne and Geelong facilitate a trade for Clark. Otherwise what's in it for us?!
Since Buck's has taken over, I always thought we've done really well out of our trades (FA's and delisted agents not so much). This year we've just been utterly reamed though |
If we don't end up with pick 23 or 25 then it's the Varcoe aspect of the trade probably getting in the way of it.
Pick 25 for Greenwood. Tick.
Lumumba and pick 30 for pick 23. Tick
Nothing left for Varcoe.
Given that Melbourne used pick 23 on Vince last season it's not unreasonable to suggest that Lumumba and pick 48 should have been enough for 23 with 30 left over for Varcoe which I assume Geelong would have accepted.
Who knows but we seem to be getting paid unders for Beams and Lumumba if we don't retain a pick in the 20's.
Not happy. |
Really hope we have. Just don't understand what Varcoe brings to the table apart from age.
I've resigned myself to the fact that we're going to get reamed this trade period and the club isn't going to show the balls it needs to and draw a line in the sand. The one positive is if we can use those picks we get for Beams this year and then use the salary cap space he creates for a massive play in FA next year or to throw at a GWS youngster coming out of contract like Cameron, Boyd, Treloar and Shiel (or even someone contracted since it doesn't seem to matter these days). Which is why I'd prefer pick 23 to Varcoe. I'd be pissed if the salary cap space we're creating with Beams is used for fringe like Varcoe and overpaying Greenwood.
We need to make a massive play in FA. We've lost too many A-graders the last couple of years. |
Rockliff. The karma bus is heading back to Brisbane
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We don't need to wait for free agency or target players out of contract.
Brisbane didn't.
Rockliff is the way to make everything right again
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
