On 05/10/2010 at 06:56, rpfc said:

The armchair recruiters hate this proposed deal...

There must be amazingly talented (and obvious) five 18 year olds, about to be picked at 12-16 in the draft...

Honestly, we wanted the 2nd round pick deal and we threw in a set of steak knives.

They don't want the steak knives.

Although, steak knives look attractive when you have been looking long enough...

It's really simple, for me, I want the Pick 12 over & above Hale.

It sounds like many members feel the same.

  On 05/10/2010 at 06:56, mdemonski2 said:

Say it isn't so. If it is for the mooted first round pick swap plus a second rounder, we have just made our first trading blunder in two seasons...

Haha.

  On 05/10/2010 at 06:59, dee-luded said:

It's really simple, for me, I want the Pick 12 over & above Hale.

It sounds like many members feel the same.

Explain the difference, the amazing difference, in talent between 12 and 17 and maybe those members will stick with you.

Otherwise, when they calm down - they'll be with me.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:03, rpfc said:

Explain the difference, the amazing difference, in talent between 12 and 17 and maybe those members will stick with you.

Otherwise, when they calm down - they'll be with me.

Point is I wouldn't give our round two pick regardless of first round swap

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:03, rpfc said:

Explain the difference, the amazing difference, in talent between 12 and 17 and maybe those members will stick with you.

Otherwise, when they calm down - they'll be with me.

If there is no difference then why would Nth be interested? If it makes no difference then they will take our second round pick.

It is a silly statement to say it doesn't matter - of course it does. It means that we wil have to cross off 5 players we were looking at unless we are KOTD from other clubs missing kids we rate.

I'd rather our drafting fate be in our hands rather than giving it to someone else for a good ordinary player like Hale and I really don't care if Nth are offering to pay his contract for us. He is not worth a swap of 1st rounders by any stretch.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:12, Rojik of the Arctic said:

If there is no difference then why would Nth be interested? If it makes no difference then they will take our second round pick.

It is a silly statement to say it doesn't matter - of course it does. It means that we wil have to cross off 5 players we were looking at unless we are KOTD from other clubs missing kids we rate.

I'd rather our drafting fate be in our hands rather than giving it to someone else for a good ordinary player like Hale and I really don't care if Nth are offering to pay his contract for us. He is not worth a swap of 1st rounders by any stretch.

Totally agree. If it goes through I hope I am forced to eat my words (as are you) but I have a bad feeling we are paying over the odds if indeed this eventuates..

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:18, mdemonski2 said:

Totally agree. If it goes through I hope I am forced to eat my words (as are you) but I have a bad feeling we are paying over the odds if indeed this eventuates..

Agreed. Why would we offer pick 12 AND a second round pick for a player playing VFL when Nathan Bock an Ex AA goes to GC and Adelaide recieve effiectively a pick around the mid 20's?makes no sense to me

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:03, rpfc said:

Explain the difference, the amazing difference, in talent between 12 and 17 and maybe those members will stick with you.

Otherwise, when they calm down - they'll be with me.

There may be some, & there might not, depending on how you play it, but for mine, If I was targeting a particular player who is expected to go inthat area of the 1st Rnd, then I'd sooner have Pick 12 to use than P-17.

I know one thing & that is after all we've been through, and have put up with, emptying the old list, then the pain of the rebuild through bottoming out, & now you guys want to give up the thing we've built up our list with, for an already failed player, it's too expensive.

Recruit Josh Fraser then instead, if you have to have a bean pole in the goal square. He'll be cheaper.

IF, you all, want that physical ruck/forward, and want to spend the 1st Rnd pick, then chase Mitch Clark, but don't go halfway with this reported offer.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:12, Rojik of the Arctic said:

If there is no difference then why would Nth be interested? If it makes no difference then they will take our second round pick.

It is a silly statement to say it doesn't matter - of course it does. It means that we wil have to cross off 5 players we were looking at unless we are KOTD from other clubs missing kids we rate.

I'd rather our drafting fate be in our hands rather than giving it to someone else for a good ordinary player like Hale and I really don't care if Nth are offering to pay his contract for us. He is not worth a swap of 1st rounders by any stretch.

Oh, ROTA...

Putting words in my mouth?

You might get away with that on BF. But not here. Never here.

There is a difference. Set of steak knives difference. Might be enough to tip them over while still keeping us in the first round.

And 'our drafting fate in our hands?'

I think we have been to used to being at the pointy end of the draft, we have young talent in every position.

What we don't have is an acceptable back-up for Jamar who happens to be an AA player and who doesn't get a rest in games.

If the FD wants to take a calculated risk to do that, I say Jolly-good show. We Ottens let them go for it then.

  On 05/10/2010 at 06:28, dee-luded said:

It seems to be an element of Panic in all this from the footy dept, if these rumors have any substance. I hope Not.

There's panic alright but it's not from the FD.

If this goes thru let's trust the FD and look forward to David Hale MFC premiership player.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:03, rpfc said:

Explain the difference, the amazing difference, in talent between 12 and 17 and maybe those members will stick with you.

Otherwise, when they calm down - they'll be with me.

Just have a look through previous drafts & take note of the difference 5 selections difference can make. You will only ever know what the difference is when you look back on the decision in a few years time. You might think that 5 picks isn't a lot but at that pick you have five more choices to make to get the right choice and possibly recruit an A grade player. I'll give u some examples:

2005:

12 Nathan Jones Dandenong Stingrays Melbourne

13 Shannon Hurn Central District West Coast

14 Grant Birchall Tassie Mariners Hawthorn

15 Travis Varcoe Central District Geelong

16 Richard Douglas Calder Cannons Adelaide

17 Darren Pfeiffer Norwood Adelaide

2006:

12 James Frawley North Ballarat Rebels Melbourne

13 Jack Riewoldt Tassie Mariners Richmond

14 James Sellar Glenelg Football Club Adelaide

15 Daniel O'Keefe Geelong Falcons Sydney

16 Mitchell Brown North Ballarat Rebels West Coast

17 Shaun Hampson Mount Gravatt Football Club Carlton

2007:

12 Cyril Rioli St Marys/Scotch College Hawthorn

13 Brad Ebert Port Adelaide Magpies West Coast

14 Jack Grimes Northern Knights Melbourne

15 Robbie Tarrant Bendigo Pioneers Kangaroos

16 Matthew Lobbe Eastern Ranges Port Adelaide

17 Harry Taylor East Fremantle Geelong

So just from that list you would be happy to pass up Cyril Rioli, Nathan Jones & James Frawley. Just a bit of a gamble so you can trade in a bloke who can barely get a game at a club that isn't even in the top 8.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:24, old55 said:

There's panic alright but it's not from the FD.

If this goes thru let's trust the FD and look forward to David Hale MFC premiership player.

Thats Not OK for me, this is a big & sudden change of direction. I, as one member, really dislike this strongly. I just can't say that strongly enough.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:26, Bonkers said:

Just have a look through previous drafts & take note of the difference 5 selections difference can make. You will only ever know what the difference is when you look back on the decision in a few years time. You might think that 5 picks isn't a lot but at that pick you have five more choices to make to get the right choice and possibly recruit an A grade player. I'll give u some examples:

2005:

12 Nathan Jones Dandenong Stingrays Melbourne

13 Shannon Hurn Central District West Coast

14 Grant Birchall Tassie Mariners Hawthorn

15 Travis Varcoe Central District Geelong

16 Richard Douglas Calder Cannons Adelaide

17 Darren Pfeiffer Norwood Adelaide

2006:

12 James Frawley North Ballarat Rebels Melbourne

13 Jack Riewoldt Tassie Mariners Richmond

14 James Sellar Glenelg Football Club Adelaide

15 Daniel O'Keefe Geelong Falcons Sydney

16 Mitchell Brown North Ballarat Rebels West Coast

17 Shaun Hampson Mount Gravatt Football Club Carlton

2007:

12 Cyril Rioli St Marys/Scotch College Hawthorn

13 Brad Ebert Port Adelaide Magpies West Coast

14 Jack Grimes Northern Knights Melbourne

15 Robbie Tarrant Bendigo Pioneers Kangaroos

16 Matthew Lobbe Eastern Ranges Port Adelaide

17 Harry Taylor East Fremantle Geelong

So just from that list you would be happy to pass up Cyril Rioli, Nathan Jones & James Frawley. Just a bit of a gamble so you can trade in a bloke who can barely get a game at a club that isn't even in the top 8.

If you are going to play this game, I know alot of people love this game (Very quick with the draft results too BTW), then you have to let me have everyone picked after Pick 17 too...

But you won't let me. Because it blows your argument out of the water.

We are picking teenagers here. The judgement of the recuiting team is what you are questioning, not the difference between Pick 12 and Pick 17.

  On 05/10/2010 at 06:56, rpfc said:

The armchair recruiters hate this proposed deal...

There must be amazingly talented (and obvious) five 18 year olds, about to be picked at 12-16 in the draft...

Honestly, we wanted the 2nd round pick deal and we threw in a set of steak knives.

They don't want the steak knives.

Although, steak knives look attractive when you have been looking long enough...

I agree there are no guarantees with kids in the draft.

We have a need next year the FD things Hale can deliver.

Go for it fellas,

When hale kicks three in a winning game first up will be forgotten.

Don't understand some of these posts. In any commercial transaction, it takes two parties to agree on a price, and if North want a second round pick, then that's their price, end of discussion. Of course, we don't have to accept it, but then we walk away from the deal. No point talking about third rounders etc. etc., it's not going to happen.

Not to mention, the various "Mitch Clark" posts ... if he even does move (unlikely it seems), it won't be to Melbourne.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:36, rpfc said:

If you are going to play this game, I know alot of people love this game (Very quick with the draft results too BTW), then you have to let me have everyone picked after Pick 17 too...

But you won't let me. Because it blows your argument out of the water.

We are picking teenagers here. The judgement of the recuiting team is what you are questioning, not the difference between Pick 12 and Pick 17.

You can have whoever you want after pick 17 the argument still remains that you are risking attaining a quality player for a questionable one.

The point is Hale isn't worth giving up a player who is potentially going to be all Australian when he can't even get a game at his current club.

How can I question the judgement of the recruiting team if the decision hasn't even been made & we are talking about a questionable rumour from Hutchie?

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:37, old dee said:

I agree there are no guarantees with kids in the draft.

We have a need next year the FD things Hale can deliver.

Go for it fellas,

When hale kicks three in a winning game first up will be forgotten.

Thats the whole point. It's not next year we're all concerned about. It's the thing we'll miss in 3 to 4 years when that kid would be maturing in our window.

Again, too expensive.

Wow we has the Melbourne FD lost their minds. This is all one big joke right?

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:40, Bonkers said:

You can have whoever you want after pick 17 the argument still remains that you are risking attaining a quality player for a questionable one.

The point is Hale isn't worth giving up a player who is potentially going to be all Australian when he can't even get a game at his current club.

How can I question the judgement of the recruiting team if the decision hasn't even been made & we are talking about a questionable rumour from Hutchie?

OUR, 1st Rnd Pick & our 2nd Rnd Pick for a fluffed up failed pretentious tall..

What the Hells goin' on? Do we owe North a favor for something???

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:40, Bonkers said:

You can have whoever you want after pick 17 the argument still remains that you are risking attaining a quality player for a questionable one.

The point is Hale isn't worth giving up a player who is potentially going to be all Australian when he can't even get a game at his current club.

How can I question the judgement of the recruiting team if the decision hasn't even been made & we are talking about a questionable rumour from Hutchie?

Potential AA? Fight fair, now.

Pick 12 - Quality

Pick 17 - Questionable

When is the threshold? 15?

Is it the same threshold in all drafts?

Does it change when all the 17 year olds are taken by one club?

So the point is, as you say, you don't think Hale is worth it.

The FD evidently disagree, and so do I, Jamar needs help, we have had enough (more than enough) quality picks over the last few years. Let's get a 22 next year that can do something.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:41, dee-luded said:

Thats the whole point. It's not next year we're all concerned about. It's the thing we'll miss in 3 to 4 years when that kid would be maturing in our window.

Again, too expensive.

That kid?

Probably, be playing a Casey if he's a mid.

Definitely playing at Casey if he is a tall defender, or mobile forward.

If he is a tall forward then he will be fighting it out with Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

We have the talent. Everywhere.

Let's get some help for Jamar next year.

Melbourne obviously know something that we don't know. They are targeting him for specific reasons if we are going to trade those types of picks to lure him in.

The interchange rules is an added incentive to get him, but Melbourne have drafted and traded exceptionally well over the few years. For everyone having a massive banter fest at the club, saying its a big bloody joke and how you are disgusted - should really stop posting if you have nothing to provide but a negative attitude.

They know more than we do, if we are targeting him this hard - we obviously need someone of his personal attributes. Maybe Jamar has had a word to the department? He needs someone because he is getting tired of running around too much? Maybe he knows so many clubs would be interested in him if he does decide to move on so he doesn't have to do all the work?

If Melbourne want Hale in our team, then going from previous history in our recruiting department, I give them all my faith this year as well.

  On 05/10/2010 at 07:49, rpfc said:

Potential AA? Fight fair, now.

Pick 12 - Quality

Pick 17 - Questionable

When is the threshold? 15?

Is it the same threshold in all drafts?

Does it change when all the 17 year olds are taken by one club?

So the point is, as you say, you don't think Hale is worth it.

The FD evidently disagree, and so do I, Jamar needs help, we have had enough (more than enough) quality picks over the last few years. Let's get a 22 next year that can do something.

Oh, so you think Hale would be a better ruck than a cheaper Josh Fraser?

Does no one realise that Hutchy's claims are clearly false??

In spite of the fact it seems a bit over the odds, MFC would not be offering a "set of steakknives' right off the bat.

I know we haven't brought in any big names via trade for a while, but I can't picture them showing their cards on the first day.

And if that is over the odds, then we have no room for compromise to get the deal done if we really want to.

It just doesn't seem right at all.

  On 05/10/2010 at 06:45, Jordie_tackles said:

The leverage stands that:

Hale wants out - Bad for North

Hale is on over 400K per annum - Bad for North

Hale is contracted for 800K+over 2 years so he doesnt have to go anywhere he doesnt want to - also BAD FOR NORTH

Bottom line North if they are smart will get some trade value and salary cap relief for a fringe player (due to their ruck depth)

Hale if true has said he wants to go to the demons, so any offer GC offer must be accepted by Him not just Norths Footy dept

This is all true but Hale, while rumored to prefer Melbourne, is also not averse to a move elsewhere. And Gold Coast have reportedly offered pick 26 and have plenty of salary cap room. The result is that North are in a much better bargaining position than you suggest.

Incidentally, while I don't necessarily believe the credibility of the propsed trade, I ran it past an impartial and very knowledgeable Bombers supporter mate and he thought it was about right. And thinking further, the difference between picks we are talking about is (for example) from Gysberts to Tapscott... Are we sure there's enough in that to really jump up and down?

My initial reaction was that this would be a crap trade for us but now I'm not certain.