With Westhoff coming up for trade, does this change the landscape? Newton will likely be at MFC next year as he's contracted and no-one would want him...

But with Westhoff popping up, that makes 2 mediocre tall forwards available.

Would anyone be interested in him at MFC? If Juice WASN'T at the club would anyone be interested in him 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.

Consider this: would MFC consider maybe Cleve Hughes or Dean Polo..?

Consider this: would MFC consider maybe Cleve Hughes or Dean Polo..?

why...do you rate them ? They are similar to Juice...NQR's in different guise. would have thought the Toiges inclined to keep....well.Hughes probably

its al a bit of trash 'n'treasure really isn it

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.

Considering it was my 'throwaway line' I guess I will defend it.

Hawthorn didn't think Croad was 'tradeable' until some idiot offered them Pick 1 and they said "[censored] off, Trent."

I never suggested everyone is on the table, but if someone comes with an irresistible offer, there is not a player on our list we wouldn't trade.

Considering it was my 'throwaway line' I guess I will defend it.

Hawthorn didn't think Croad was 'tradeable' until some idiot offered them Pick 1 and they said "[censored] off, Trent."

I never suggested everyone is on the table, but if someone comes with an irresistible offer, there is not a player on our list we wouldn't trade.

I understand what you are saying.

However, in reality the mechanics of trade week don't bare out the statement "all players are tradeable" ... ever club has its untouchable list and your wasting your time even discussing them because both parties will not/can't meet.

Sorry to dampen a few people enthusiasm but trade week is not a fantasy football game played out over the internet. Reality is ... its a real life situation ... where some players are untouchable.

Sadly on our list their are few! Hopefully time will change that.

I also forgot to mention the opposite side of the spectrum ... some players simply get delisted because they are "untradeable" ... why the have no practical value.

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by hangon007

I understand what you are saying.

However, in reality the mechanics of trade week don't bare out the statement "all players are tradeable" ... ever club has its untouchable list and your wasting your time even discussing them because both parties will not/can't meet.

Sorry to dampen a few people enthusiasm but trade week is not a fantasy football game played out over the internet. Reality is ... its a real life situation ... where some players are untouchable.

The reality is that the statement "all players are tradeable" is conditional on their being the right offer, a consenting player and an obliging club.

In 2006, as Captain of Premiership team, Judd was untradeable by WCE. In 2007, he was traded with the right situation being there.

The reality is that the statement "all players are tradeable" is conditional on their being the right offer, a consenting player and an obliging club.

Your spot on ... further strengthening my argument. Good point.

Lets take your second "condition" ... if the player does not consent ... Is he tradeable or untradeable?

Well our laws are quite specific here ... assuming he has a contract ... he is untradeable.

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by hangon007

Your spot on ... further strengthening my argument. Good point.

Lets take your second "condition" ... if the player does not consent ... Is he tradeable or untradeable?

Well our laws are quite specific here ... assuming he has a contract ... he is untradeable.

Your "law" of either tradeable or untradeable is conditional on a number of issues. You're trying naively to make it an absolute situation. It isn't. And just because a player has a contract that in itself does not make him untradeable.

Your spot on ... further strengthening my argument. Good point.

Lets take your second "condition" ... if the player does not consent ... Is he tradeable or untradeable?

Well our laws are quite specific here ... assuming he has a contract ... he is untradeable.

You are struggling with your language here.

Given the right deal, anyone on our list could be traded.

Nothing you have said has broken that tenet.

And trade being boring is neither here-nor-there. Everyone can be moved on, no-one ever is, but any player on our list has their value.

No-one is priceless.

Your "law" of either tradeable or untradeable is conditional on a number of issues. You're trying naively to make it an absolute situation. It isn't. And just because a player has a contract that in itself does not make him untradeable.

Can you trade a player if he has a contract and does not consent to the trade?

Given the right deal, anyone on our list could be traded.

This statement is wrong. The deal is immaterial if the player does not agree irrespective if they have a contract. So is that player tradeable if he refuses to be traded?

The power to be traded is in the hands of the players ... not the club.

PS Also noticed you conveniently choose not to answer my question. Now was that because if you did answer it you would have to conceded all players are not tradeable.?

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by hangon007

Can you trade a player if he has a contract and does not consent to the trade?

No.

No.

Exactly ... hence all players are not trade-able. I will say it again ... its a "throw away line by clubs". Rightly or wrongly,(which is a whole new debate), the power is in the hands of the players.

In reality the easily mis-understood mechanics of trade week mean clubs enter trade week with their "untouchable" lists and work from there.

May I also repeat the opposite end of the spectrum is also true where clubs do not even seek a trade from certain players and simply declare their intentions to delist them ... because they are simply not "trade-able"

Trade week is not a meat market "where any player is trade-able" ... the AFL have quite specific laws in place. Plus the clubs are not stupid, you dont waste your time throwing up stupid "oh but anyone is trade-able suggestions"

Now the reason I've tried to clarify my point in this debate is because I feel we might be facing this very scenario in the not too distant future, where the Dees might be forced to keep a player when the supporters & media are screaming for his head.

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by hangon007

Exactly ... hence all players are not trade-able. I will say it again ... its a "throw away line by clubs". Rightly or wrongly,(which is a whole new debate), the power is in the hands of the players.

In reality the easily mis-understood mechanics of trade week mean clubs enter trade week with their "untouchable" lists and work from there.

May I also repeat the opposite end of the spectrum is also true where clubs do not even seek a trade from certain players and simply declare their intentions to delist them ... because they are simply not "trade-able"

Trade week is not a meat market "where any player is trade-able" ... the AFL have quite specific laws in place. Plus the clubs are not stupid, you dont waste your time throwing up stupid "oh but anyone is trade-able suggestions"

Now the reason I've tried to clarify my point in this debate is because I feel we might be facing this very scenario in the not too distant future, where the Dees might be forced to keep a player when the supporters & media are screaming for his head.

You have clarified nothing.

A player can be convinced to go rather than stay at a club that tried to trade them.

Look, I don't want to get into some semantical or metaphysical argument that goes nowhere but players are the assets of the club and they can be 'sold' at the club's will.

No player cannot be moved on.

As for that last part, I have no idea what you are talking about.

This statement is wrong. The deal is immaterial if the player does not agree irrespective if they have a contract. So is that player tradeable if he refuses to be traded?

The power to be traded is in the hands of the players ... not the club.

PS Also noticed you conveniently choose not to answer my question. Now was that because if you did answer it you would have to conceded all players are not tradeable.?

I sincerely hope that much power is not in the hands of the players.

If a player refuses he will stay at a club that wanted to get rid of him. He is untradeable. Congratulations you have won you semantical argument.

The only problem is I was operating on the idea that the inherent rules of a trade were being met; there is an interested club, and the player agreed to go. RR certainly didn't need to be prompted to know these rules of the argument.

I will state it again - there is no player on our list that cannot be traded. Provided there is an interested club and he agrees. I hope I don't have to provide that rider everytime...

You have clarified nothing.

A player can be convinced to go rather than stay at a club that tried to trade them.

Look, I don't want to get into some semantical or metaphysical argument that goes nowhere but players are the assets of the club and they can be 'sold' at the club's will.

No player cannot be moved on.

As for that last part, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ryan Ferguson was to be traded to Hawks for Brad Sewell. Ferg refused the trade and was off the list by the end of the season. Every time I see Sewell I curse Ferg for not moving on. Might have allowed his career to have gone longer too. oh well

Ryan Ferguson was to be traded to Hawks for Brad Sewell. Ferg refused the trade and was off the list by the end of the season. Every time I see Sewell I curse Ferg for not moving on. Might have allowed his career to have gone longer too. oh well

Ferg played another 2 years at MFC after the aborted trade.

You could have played Ferg at MU at his best and he would still be bog ordinary.