I would suggest something along the lines of Bell & Pick 34 for one of Salopek, Boak or Pick 22.

lol you're dreaming boak is worth a top15 pick and u think they will trade him for bell and 34??

I am not advocating giving players away for free or a wizz fizz!

But in your own words you believe that Rivers will fall from 3rd best to 4th to 5th backman. He will command less value then in 12 months time and with his contract expiring we have less leverage over his destination then. The other issue is how sure are you that he wont be injury prone again.

Which other players who are surplus to our needs and list would have any trade value? Rivers is the only one. Bell does not have value. Nor do PJ or Newton. Can you name any?

Nope, I can't name a single player that we don't NEED that has any value, but that's what happens when you are in the rebuilding pickle we are in.

I see your point about his current trade value at the moment, and I agree that he has been harshly beaten with the Injury stick the last three years, but I don't see why we would look to trade him when his is one of the 6 important backmen we have, and should be for a few more years. Sure he is going to decline over that time, but I think he would be better being kept and maybe used more sparingly, to hopefully lessen his chance of injury, than trade him away, just because he might help us get a not so great draft pick. That is unless Hawthorn of West Coast want to give up a first rounder, in which case, I say go for it. I rate Rivers as a much better player and more important to the MFC than some of the trades being suggested by some folk at the minute

Anyway, at the end of the day I would be sad to see him go if his value isn't matched by our return, but we might get a real win, just like Pick 14 last year for TJ, which looks to be a great player in Grimes, unless he is also r@ped by the Injury Siren.

I don't think you are correct regarding the player having to agreed. If the two clubs agree and the player will be paid the same contract as his original club then the trade can occur regardless of the players agreement.

There are two breakers to this. If you sign an agreement in the year the club seek to trade you, you have to agree to to the trade, this is what happen with ferguson... An example is Cale Morton because he signed a two year deal this year he has to agree to the trade next year he doesn't as long as his contract is matched...

The second is if the player is out of contract, he has to agree to the trade as he needs to sign a contract with the new club (can't just be matched) if the clubs agree to the trade but the player wants a more money than the club offers, they won't sign it and can go into the PSD with that contract and another club can secure him as long as they pay his demands...

These seem to be flipped on there head recently with players now nominating their preferred club but players can be traded without consent.... I pretty sure Croad didn't want to be traded to Freo....

Pretty sure your right there.If i remember correctly Croad was in hospital & didnt even know about the deal to trade him.Apparently he woke up & was presented with a Freo guernsey & told of the bad news.Was [censored] at it & thats why he left as soon as he could

I don't think you are correct regarding the player having to agreed. If the two clubs agree and the player will be paid the same contract as his original club then the trade can occur regardless of the players agreement.

There are two breakers to this. If you sign an agreement in the year the club seek to trade you, you have to agree to to the trade, this is what happen with ferguson... An example is Cale Morton because he signed a two year deal this year he has to agree to the trade next year he doesn't as long as his contract is matched...

The second is if the player is out of contract, he has to agree to the trade as he needs to sign a contract with the new club (can't just be matched) if the clubs agree to the trade but the player wants a more money than the club offers, they won't sign it and can go into the PSD with that contract and another club can secure him as long as they pay his demands...

These seem to be flipped on there head recently with players now nominating their preferred club but players can be traded without consent.... I pretty sure Croad didn't want to be traded to Freo....

Why would a Club trade a player to a another Club that they player does not want to go to and has stated so? What do you think the remaining players and their managers think in future negotiations with a Club that would willing screw one of its own? Its creates a nasty precedent.

Why would a Club trade for a player who has stated that he does not want to play for them?

You would think we are trading slabs of meat.

The Croad matter happened in 2001(?). They are alot smarter than that now and clubs just dont trade players in particular quality players without their consent.

Why would a Club trade a player to a another Club that they player does not want to go to and has stated so? What do you think the remaining players and their managers think in future negotiations with a Club that would willing screw one of its own? Its creates a nasty precedent.

Why would a Club trade for a player who has stated that he does not want to play for them?

You would think we are trading slabs of meat.

The Croad matter happened in 2001(?). They are alot smarter than that now and clubs just dont trade players in particular quality players without their consent.

Because the offer was too good to refuse..... We throw players out like meat so why wouldn't we trade the same.....

Hawthorn showed that precedent and still got back Croad.... The rules mean a player doesn't have to agree, trading for that player would seem silly but thats doesn't mean it can't be done...

If MFC stated we would give pick one for K.Kanes do you really think port would care if Kane stated he didn't want the MFC.... happy to go to Victoria but not to the MFC... They would trade him in a heart beat

In order for a trade to happen you must get agreement between 3 parties:

- Club A

- Club B

- Any players being traded

If the two clubs agree but the player does not then no trade can occur - regardless of their contractual situation.

The draft is different, where a player entering a draft must agree that they can be taken by whichever club picks them.

Because the offer was too good to refuse..... We throw players out like meat so why wouldn't we trade the same.....

Hawthorn showed that precedent and still got back Croad.... The rules mean a player doesn't have to agree, trading for that player would seem silly but thats doesn't mean it can't be done...

If MFC stated we would give pick one for K.Kanes do you really think port would care if Kane stated he didn't want the MFC.... happy to go to Victoria but not to the MFC... They would trade him in a heart beat

Because you dont do that if your a responsible Club and want you remaining players (the remaining plates of meat) to feel that the Club is the place they want to play.

The Croad deal showed the precedent of how stupid Freo were to trade for him without approval?

Your example is unrealistic and does not demonstrate your position at all. Amd even if Port did that they would do it against a backlash of other player who will be wondering about how they will be treated.

Its not about the rule. Its common sense. Focus on that

No need to have a go at me about the rules I was only informing you that a player doesn't have to agree to the trade unless the two contractual situations occur (as stated above)... Sorry Axis I don't think a player has to agree....

Should a club do it.... well thats not the arguement here....

But

I don't think TJ was that keen to go to Brisbane but let me guess DB said " you have no future here and you won't play that often so I think you should look at your options".... Leigh Matthews states I would love to have you.... TJ spoke to his manager and family and thought gees brisbanes not a bad idea

As for a player being a piece of meat.... tell that to robbo, yze, white who are all good enough to play AFL but were asked to move on so we could rebuild

Pretty sure your right there.If i remember correctly Croad was in hospital & didnt even know about the deal to trade him.Apparently he woke up & was presented with a Freo guernsey & told of the bad news.Was [censored] at it & thats why he left as soon as he could

I'm reasonably sure a player has to agree, most of the time they do, but sometimes like Fergs and Nick Stevens they don't.

I'm not doubting your example, but I don't think it proves that a player can be traded without their authority. Some players choose to hand over that responsibility to their managers on their behalf (some of them like Croad aren't the sharpest tools in the shed).

Just had a look on the AFL site and it states player must consent.... don't know if the above info was before the veale deal that changed some of the trading rules but hey.... I was wrong 'a player must consent'

Boak would fetch that. Cornes wouldn't he's 27. A pick between 15 to 25 more likely.

He is one of the best mids in the game. And will give a side competing at the top with 4 years of great service and leadership.

His brother is the d!ckhead.

Kane Cornes is a star of the competition and PA are putting him on the market to attract a top 10 pick.

Bell, Rivers and 34 for Salopek or Boak and pick 22

Bell, Miller and 34, for, K.Cornes and 22 mabbe???

Would that be a deal, 1: in our favour and 2: that they might consider? They'd probably wanna keep 22.

Edited September 3, 200915 yr by DemonDan...

I see your point about his current trade value at the moment, and I agree that he has been harshly beaten with the Injury stick the last three years, but I don't see why we would look to trade him when his is one of the 6 important backmen we have, and should be for a few more years. Sure he is going to decline over that time, but I think he would be better being kept and maybe used more sparingly, to hopefully lessen his chance of injury, than trade him away, just because he might help us get a not so great draft pick. That is unless Hawthorn of West Coast want to give up a first rounder, in which case, I say go for it. I rate Rivers as a much better player and more important to the MFC than some of the trades being suggested by some folk at the minute

Being the just one of six backman is not basis for being a keeper especially when that player is injury prone, lacks pace, body strength and disposals skills. And what he does bring to the team can be covered by younger and as or more capable players.

You have already noted that he is going to decline over that time so why would you not try and get something for him now rather than him struggle for a game (eg Yze) and him being worthless on the market. You advocatre using him sparingly which implies we are carrying him in some form to ride out the next couple of years. Thats not good enough and MFC of all clubs cant act like a charity that it has been at times to some past senior players.

The fact that you would trade him for a 1st round pick contradicts your arguments. We wont get a 1st round pick for him but we will get close to his maximum value now. You may well rate Rivers but you clearly have some fundamental question marks about him. His retention on the sympathetic terms is not fair to the other players and to our push for Sept success.

A sensible trade involving Rivers is the only plausible deal I have seen on here. Nothing new as lopsided deals dishing up crud is nothing new here.

A mistake common in postings regarding trades is the sentimental overvaluing of a player. Strangely the same guffawing rating isnt apllied when looking at most other teams' trade proposals. We will look at them coldly and impersonally and highlight with speed their shortcomings and why this player or that isnt worth a particular round's pick.

Well..I adress this to some..do exactly that in repsect to Rivers. Put yourslef for a moment in th eplace of another teams supporter and value Jared. You wont come up with a first round pick... probably doubtful for a secong on direct swapping..

Any players trade currency is based upon the markets appreciation of him, not our own.

Being the just one of six backman is not basis for being a keeper especially when that player is injury prone, lacks pace, body strength and disposals skills. And what he does bring to the team can be covered by younger and as or more capable players.

You have already noted that he is going to decline over that time so why would you not try and get something for him now rather than him struggle for a game (eg Yze) and him being worthless on the market. You advocatre using him sparingly which implies we are carrying him in some form to ride out the next couple of years. Thats not good enough and MFC of all clubs cant act like a charity that it has been at times to some past senior players.

The fact that you would trade him for a 1st round pick contradicts your arguments. We wont get a 1st round pick for him but we will get close to his maximum value now. You may well rate Rivers but you clearly have some fundamental question marks about him. His retention on the sympathetic terms is not fair to the other players and to our push for Sept success.

A sensible trade involving Rivers is the only plausible deal I have seen on here. Nothing new as lopsided deals dishing up crud is nothing new here.

Yep, point taken RR. As long as he is THE Trade and not a throw away to sweeten a deal, I would be happy. Maybe 1st Round is asking a bit much, but you never know how desperate the Hawks will get?

Yep, point taken RR. As long as he is THE Trade and not a throw away to sweeten a deal, I would be happy. Maybe 1st Round is asking a bit much, but you never know how desperate the Hawks will get?

I hope there very desperate!

Yep, point taken RR. As long as he is THE Trade and not a throw away to sweeten a deal, I would be happy. Maybe 1st Round is asking a bit much, but you never know how desperate the Hawks will get?

Bell will be the sweetener in this kind of deal (if to port )

Edited September 3, 200915 yr by belzebub59

Port are shafted if(I stress the word if) Boak & Salopek ... are un-contracted and as unhappy as the rumors say.

Lets not let the off the hook ... they would show us "no mercy" ... toughen up boys ... time to get the $$$$$ out.

Plus lets not cloud the air with smoke ... they will come to their senses in the cold hard light of day!

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by hangon007

I think it was rpfc who mentioned in another thread that every player is tradeable and that we won't be trading Rivers unless its a very good deal for us, which I agree wholeheartedly with. I love Rivers as much as the next Melbourne supporter, but if the right deal came along you'd have to look at it. Just like if next year the Gold Coast asked for Jack Watts in return for picks 1, 2 and 3 you'd be crazy not to entertain the thought. I see Rivers as an important part of the team. I wouldn't be shopping/flaunting him around come trade week, but I'd be answering any questions other clubs may have, just like I would for all of the players on the list. If the deal wasn't a very good winner for the MFC, then I'd more than happily keep him.

As for the likes of Bell, Newton and Miller, anything we get in return would suffice. For Newton in particular, we'd have to offer the other club an incentive to take him (ie. Newton & 50 for pick 60/70-odd, bearing in mind neither pick would be used by the MFC).

For Newton in particular, we'd have to offer the other club an incentive to take him (ie. Newton & 50 for pick 60/70-odd, bearing in mind neither pick would be used by the MFC).

Disagree. He has some value. What would you say if he kicked 5-6 in the final tomorrow for Casey? IMO he still has a small chance to make it in the AFL but next year will be the last one.

I think it was rpfc who mentioned in another thread that every player is tradeable and that we won't be trading Rivers unless its a very good deal for us, which I agree wholeheartedly with.

Throw away line thats not actually true ... reality is every year very little happens in trade week.

Why - because clubs dont honestly believe every player is tradeable ... they might say it but dont act it out.

Clubs want to make trades that in their opinions are win/win scenarios. No club is going to enter a trade knowing its going to lose out big-time.

This year is going to be quite different. So many aspects. Many players culled....means many spots to be filled. Draft not deep enough to go around to do all of that for al lclubs required. Already some disgruntled players wanting futures elsewhere. The coaching merry go round will result in a very different view at some clubs as to lists.

Its palpable...trade week will fire. Too much fuel , needs but one spark !!

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by belzebub59

Disagree. He has some value. What would you say if he kicked 5-6 in the final tomorrow for Casey? IMO he still has a small chance to make it in the AFL but next year will be the last one.

I have seen enough of him to suggest that he won't make it. I'm happy for him to prove me wrong, but there's no way I can see that happening.

Throw away line thats not actually true ... reality is every year very little happens in trade week.

Why - because clubs dont honestly believe every player is tradeable ... they might say it but dont act it out.

Clubs want to make trades that in their opinions are win/win scenarios. No club is going to enter a trade knowing its going to lose out big-time.

That doesn't mean that a player isn't tradeable, it just means that clubs place different values on their own players. Just because Melbourne wouldn't trade Davey for pick 20 doesn't mean that we wouldn't trade him for pick 1, Gary Ablett and Joel Selwood. He is still tradeable - its just that he's worth more to Melbourne than other sides and no team would be able to come close to an agreement with us in all likelihood.

Disagree. He has some value. What would you say if he kicked 5-6 in the final tomorrow for Casey? IMO he still has a small chance to make it in the AFL but next year will be the last one.

I personally don't think Newton's form in the VFL is anything to write home about. He has shown on occasions he can kick and bag, but then we he gets back to the Dee's, he just doesn't have the same impact. That is either that he just can't cut it at the AFL level, or he needs more games in a row to get form and confidence at the AFL Level. He really needs to knuckle down and put in a very, very good pre-season and stake a claim for a spot in the starting lineup for more than 2 weeks in a row and acutally deliver for us next year. If we play him from rounds 1-4 and he doesn't play a major role, I think we should leave him be at Casey and give that spot to Rookies to develop as he will have had enough chances by then.

Of all our players Juice is one thatwouldnt surprise me the least if he was traded. There may well be interest from a team short on tall forward options wiling to take a punt. especially looking down the barrel of a shallow draft without a plethora of tall forwards. Newton has played at AFL level. This may garner him some brownie points for some teams......or it may not Its plausible he may go.