Rivers is a must-keep for mine. You can't buy footy smarts, which he has in spades. We won't get a high enough pick to compensate for his loss anyway.

I don't know what everyone's problem is - he won't go unless its an effing good deal.

Everyone is tradeable at the right price anyway, so don't take it personally.

But as I've said, the question is what is a good deal and what is Rivers worth to us?

Pick 9, great deal and probably one we should (would) take. A second round pick? a third round pick?

Are we likely to find a better all round defender/footballer/leader with a pick in the 20's than Rivers? Is the risk worth taking?

It says a lot about the quality of our defence that we look to Rivers as being tradeable, when in reality Rivers is a high quality player who would easily slot into Hawthorn's backline. Grand Finals are won from the backline IMO, you break up that synergy we have going, and it might cost us more than just a good player.

He's also the best 'defender' that we have.

In a marking contest against a Reiwoldt-type forward I would much rather have Rivers than Frawley/Warnock/Garland trying to spoil.

Riewoldt kicked 9 on him when he was a good player. He's had an ordinary year so Riewoldt would probably kick 15 on him. He wouldn't be able to keep up with him. He's worth keeping for depth but if we traded him it wouldn't bother me he is definately not an untouchable. Frawley and Warnock have been better than him, if Garland didn't have a serious injury then I would consider trading him. Very disappointed that they didn't persist with Martin down back he showed more promise down back than Rivers has for years.

I believe it would be a big mistake to trade ANY of the key defenders and an even bigger mistake to trade Jamar.

Firstly on Jamar- most ruckman take until 25 to mature. Jamar is now a capable ruckman who at least breaks even with almost every senior afl ruckman out there. He is good with his tap work and can take a clunk up forward. We also have no one in the reserves- PJ will probably be delisted this year, Meesan has played 2 afl games and who the fark knows, and Spenser is raw as hell and not even on our senior list. Do NOT trade away our number 1 ruckman.

On Trading Rivers or ANY of the KPB- does anyone realize how lucky we are to be in the position we are in. We have 4-5 good options down back, but more importantly all play a different role. Garland and Frawley can play on tall and small and provide run from the backline as well. Warnock takes to big power forwards. Rivers is the general of the defence, the glue that sticks it all together. He is still capable of beating fowards 1 on 1 and reads the play well. Martin is versatile enough to play in the ruck and up forward, but can also take any Key defensive role if others go down injured.

Rivers is the most important player in that back line. Do not put our one major strength at jeapardy for a draft pick. Even pick 9 is still a gamble! What if we get a David Trotter or Luke Molan... it happens every year!

Let's keep all our defenders and create the best defence in the afl.

If you want to see how important key defenders are, look what happened to Hawthorn when Croad went down, and how the cats struggle when Harley or Scarlett isn't in the team. Key defenders are crucial. Do NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT trade them for picks.

Very much argee.

would be silly to jeapodise the team down back, the bond they have down there is great to see.

also would be very greedy for MFC to go after another first round draft pick.

MFC already have picks 1 + 2.

A trade like this would come back to bite us.

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by tatu

Riewoldt kicked 9 on him when he was a good player. He's had an ordinary year so Riewoldt would probably kick 15 on him. He wouldn't be able to keep up with him. He's worth keeping for depth but if we traded him it wouldn't bother me he is definately not an untouchable. Frawley and Warnock have been better than him, if Garland didn't have a serious injury then I would consider trading him. Very disappointed that they didn't persist with Martin down back he showed more promise down back than Rivers has for years.

Our backline is settled and our best 'line.'

Martin can be a very good and very versatile back-up ruckman for a decade.

I think it was an inspired decision that will see Martin get better and better in the coming years.

It has certainly proved dividends all this experimentation. How else might we have knownwhat some of these players can/cant do

Rivers had his first (almost) full season in years and performed strongly. I know this sounds a bit strange but if he can get a full pre-season under his belt, he is well capable of having another break out year. Footy smarts, reads the play beautifully and almost always gets across to help out his fellow tall defenders. Keep Riv or take a speculative pick in a shallow draft?

No trade thanks.

Edited September 4, 200915 yr by Left Field

He's also the best 'defender' that we have.

In a marking contest against a Reiwoldt-type forward I would much rather have Rivers than Frawley/Warnock/Garland trying to spoil.

He cant out body the big forwards like Brown and he cant keep up with the Riewoldts. Lacks pace and always has. I'd back Frawley and Garland before I'd risk Rivers.

He cant out body the big forwards like Brown and he cant keep up with the Riewoldts. Lacks pace and always has. I'd back Frawley and Garland before I'd risk Rivers.

As a key defender, he would be my fourth choice behind Warnock, Frawley and Garland but ahead of Martin, Miller, etc.

As a third tall (for want of a better term the "Nick Maxwell role"), I think he is the best we have. As for criticism of his kicking, I haven't seen that. Likewise, his disposal efficiency stats don't seem to back that up either.

I thought he should have been dropped mid-season as he seemed woefully out of form in reading the game which is normally his great strength. However, he was very good in the latter part of the season playing in a non-favoured role (ie. on one of the two key talls). Speed is a major issue, strength is a minor one but he is still a very valuable player.

Given this, and the query on his fitness, I don't think you could knock back a top 10 draft pick, and serious consideration would have to be made for a top 20 offer. Anything above that though simply doesn't provide any value, particularly when we still have a very inexperienced backline.

Finally some sense on this forum!!! Great thread!!!

I'd trade him, but doubt we'd get much for him.

I'd trade him, but doubt we'd get much for him.

So what would you trade him for?

So what would you trade him for?

What are you offering ?

Martin can be a very good and very versatile back-up ruckman for a decade.

I think it was an inspired decision that will see Martin get better and better in the coming years.

I hope your right but I'm not convinced.

Rivers

Daylight

Garland

Frawley

Warnock

Rivers

Daylight

Garland

Frawley

Warnock

Did you watch a game this year?

Rivers

Daylight

Garland

Frawley

Warnock

cant agree with you Clint...not this year.A bit hard to tell exactly where Garland is at..but Frawley and Warnock have come on immensely..and Jared still hasnt found his previous form.

What are you offering ?

Mid 20 pick- straight swap.

Yay or nay?

Mid 20 pick- straight swap.

Yay or nay?

Nay

Just putting my name on the 'Keep Rivers' list.

He's not good value as trade bait, but he is good value as a player, and immense value as a leader.

Nay

A follow up if I may, do you think we'd get more than a mid/late second round pick for him on the open market?

I love Jared Rivers.

But, I love the club more.

I wouldn't trade him for anything that another club is willing to give but I would trade him before Warnock, Frawley, and Garland.

Warnock and Frawley are ahead of Rivers because they can hold down CHB and FB respectively, Jared cannot. His value is being that loose man peeling off and killing contests, and he does that better than most, but it is a trait that can be taught as I recall Clint Bizzell was also fantastic at it. One just needs a decent footy IQ and enormous amounts of courage.

Garland is quicker, more agile, a better kick and more versatile than Jared.

Jared's value to us is higher than other clubs are willing to give, but if a club gave us something silly for one of our backman, Jared would be the one I would move on.

But I wouldn't shop any of them around as our backline is in very good shape and I wouldn't tinker with it.

If trading Jared Rivers meant the MFC having 3 first round draft picks inside the top ten the club would have to consider it. It would mean we could draft 3 potential top line mid-fielders in one swoop. Scully, Trengove and one of say Cunnington, Rohan or Martin all in one draft makes it very very tempting.

Firstly we must remember that this draft is VERY SHALLOW (due to the concessions)!!!!

Trading proven players for draft picks is a risky strategy - i don't understand why people are so keen to do it. In recent years, we traded Jolly for pick 15ish = Dunn, we traded Woey for a similar pick = Bell, and Johnstone for pick 14 = Grimes. So using this strategy in recent years we have had 1 success out of 3.

So IMO to trade a proven best 18 player for a draft pick, you MUST get a very high pick (i.e. no worse than top 10) in return, even more so when it is a key defender (high value). We also did simmonds for craig ellis and pick 25ish which was steve armstrong.

Rivers is a better player than Warnock and can play his position just as effectively, and he has the flexibility to play other roles even better. Warnock is a good player and is certainly best 18, but he is chronically overrated on here. I would trade him over Rivers every day of the week. We also have Martin who is a far better defender than forward and he would also be an option for fullback. I actually really like him down there.

I rate our key defenders: Garland > Frawley > Rivers > Warnock, Martin

It is a myth (bullpoo) that Rivers can only play as a loose man/3rd defender. He is not great on the lead but otherwise he will beat his man 9/10 times. He is so reliable, and has far better disposal and smarts than Warnock.

And this talk of 2nd round picks - my god, not even close - that would be absolute stupidity (refer to previous examples)! Trading for the sake of trading - i really don't understand why there is such a push for it. WE HAVE ENOUGH DRAFT PICKS, we have stockpiled enough in the last few years and what we need to be worrying about now is developing them!!! The only trading i want us doing this year is getting fringe players to other clubs (for little gain) if anyone wants them and maybe holding the pre-season number 1 pick over a club's head to get a player on the cheap. That is it. Trading away proven players for anything less than a top 10 pick is stupidity, and even then I would be reluctant.

Firstly we must remember that this draft is VERY SHALLOW (due to the concessions)!!!!

Trading proven players for draft picks is a risky strategy - i don't understand why people are so keen to do it. In recent years, we traded Jolly for pick 15ish = Dunn, we traded Woey for a similar pick = Bell, and Johnstone for pick 14 = Grimes. So using this strategy in recent years we have had 1 success out of 3.

So IMO to trade a proven best 18 player for a draft pick, you MUST get a very high pick (i.e. no worse than top 10) in return, even more so when it is a key defender (high value). We also did simmonds for craig ellis and pick 25ish which was steve armstrong.

Rivers is a better player than Warnock and can play his position just as effectively, and he has the flexibility to play other roles even better. Warnock is a good player and is certainly best 18, but he is chronically overrated on here. I would trade him over Rivers every day of the week. We also have Martin who is a far better defender than forward and he would also be an option for fullback. I actually really like him down there.

I rate our key defenders: Garland > Frawley > Rivers > Warnock, Martin

It is a myth (bullpoo) that Rivers can only play as a loose man/3rd defender. He is not great on the lead but otherwise he will beat his man 9/10 times. He is so reliable, and has far better disposal and smarts than Warnock.

And this talk of 2nd round picks - my god, not even close - that would be absolute stupidity (refer to previous examples)! Trading for the sake of trading - i really don't understand why there is such a push for it. WE HAVE ENOUGH DRAFT PICKS, we have stockpiled enough in the last few years and what we need to be worrying about now is developing them!!! The only trading i want us doing this year is getting fringe players to other clubs (for little gain) if anyone wants them and maybe holding the pre-season number 1 pick over a club's head to get a player on the cheap. That is it. Trading away proven players for anything less than a top 10 pick is stupidity, and even then I would be reluctant.

You need to open your eyes and watch Warnock play! I rate him our No. 1 KP defender. The others are good. But Warnock is solid week in week out. A big key to our defence.