No - I'm not keen on giving Scully, Trengove, Watts, 12, 32 and 49 but it's equally pointless talking about pick 45 if the Hawks and GC are in the market at around pick 26. 32 is the last 2nd round pick in an uncompromised year and the downgrade from 12 to 17 is not necessarily a big deal - clubs often have different player ratings and we could still get the player we wanted at 17 - this happens all the time. I don't see that offer "selling the farm" and I reckon it's about my limit - I want to stay in the first round because I think we can get another very good player - I think BP is a very smart recruiter.

I'd rather see If Gardiner is available next year, & offer them a trade of our 3rd Rnder. I think there will be a few options around, and none should involve giving up Pick 12.

Can anyone confirm what Melbourne have offered Kangaroos? I thought I heard on Draft Radio that Bruce was involved in the deal.

Latest rumour is that Hutchy got it wrong ... according to Damien Barrett. This was not Melbournes offer this was what North wanted. Massive difference.

So it looks like we will just have to sit and wait.

Makes sense..

North would of been stupid not to say yes to that deal straight away.

Massive sigh of relief.

Sounded way over the odds.

You guys would do well skimming over most of the posts and just reading mine

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.

We've got so much talent on our list that a downgrade from 12 to 17 is not all that relevant IMO. Obviously in the FD's mind Hale is what we need and I doubt they'd be making a short term decision.

ATM we don't have a long "opt out" target. As such our game plan is very predictable - lead mark goal. We get very little from crumbing forwards because we don't have someone who is a genuine marking threat. It's not so much about Hale but the structure he brings. We are also absolutely stuffed if Jamar is injured. PJ can't ruck or play forward and that is evidenced by about 70 games in 8 years. Gawn, Spencer and Fitzpatrick are far to young.

Hale, or a Hale type player, provides plenty.

With Tapscott, Blease, Gysberts and Strauss still to establish themselves and with plenty of depth already the "cost" of a late 30's pick and a small downgrading of our first round pick is not much to fill a need we cannot hope to fill in the draft.

Obviously the FD believe in Hale. If he can do what they think he can the cost, as you put it, is minimal.

We agree with one another about the needs & the Type & the structure.

Giving our future opponent our earlier pick is a legup to them, I'm not happy about. We are about similar on Lists, as I make it, and do not want to assist them in this way.

If we miss Hale, bad luck, we can pick another 200 cm Ruck that's on offer, or we can make someone an offer, to stir up interest.

Offer Gardiner a 2 Year contract With a nice fat cheque.

I'm sure we could grab Fraser short term, or some other will come along.

Yes i agree with this.

My brother is a north supporter and we often go to DEES and Kangas games together, so we have seen alot of both teams.

He rates PJ ahead of Hale citing Hale as lifeless and slow, compared to PJ who can at least run and bounce the ball, and is a better Tap Ruckman.

95% of neutral supporters know sweet f.a about football.

Johnson is as useless as [censored] on a bull. Clearly the FD agree, because if they didn't we wouldn't be chasing Hale. Hale is a better forward option and no-one will convince me that Johnson could be a better tap ruckman than anyone.

Maybe neutrals are dazzled by PJ's 16 goals from his last 50 games.

Or not.

We don't want Fraser for any term .. Short or otherwise .. Would be instant list clogger for us . Casey might like him though

We agree with one another about the needs & the Type & the structure.

Giving our future opponent our earlier pick is a legup to them, I'm not happy about. We are about similar on Lists, as I make it, and do not want to assist them in this way.

If we miss Hale, bad luck, we can pick another 200 cm Ruck that's on offer, or we can make someone an offer, to stir up interest.

Offer Gardiner a 2 Year contract With a nice fat cheque.

I'm sure we could grab Fraser short term, or some other will come along.

Gardiner? Michael Gardiner?

I don't where to begin telling you what's wrong with that.

I'd take Hale over gardiner, fraser and PJ and I think you'll find so will the FD.

We want Hale because he has the ability to play as a Forward.

Putting Frasier deep in our forward line would be as worthless as banging your own sister.

Will get you absolutely no where and it's just utterly pointless.

/endrant

On whether we should give away pick 12 for 17 as part of a trade deal, it might be more palatable if we were able to trade away a player eg a Warnock to Carlton and upgrade our first round pick in that way. In other words, the trade week lasts more than a day and there's more than one deal that can be done.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/third-round-pick-for-meesen/story-e6frecrc-1111114619064

YOUNG Adelaide ruckman John Meesen has been traded to Melbourne for a third-round draft pick. Meesen, 21, went to the Demons in return for Melbourne's third round draft pick, No.37.

He is the second player to leave the Crows during the AFL's trade period, after Martin Mattner was traded to Sydney earlier in the week.

Meesen spent three seasons on Adelaide's list, but played only two games for the club, in rounds 20 and 21 this year.

Yeah, yeah

http://www.gfc.com.au/tabid/3933/default.aspx?newsid=94878

"The deal enabled the Cats to secure Brad Ottens from Richmond and there is little doubt that without Ottens Geelong would still be searching for its first flag since 1963.

The deal was far from popular at the time, with Moloney a favourite among the Cats faithful for his hard nosed style of play. "

On whether we should give away pick 12 for 17 as part of a trade deal, it might be more palatable if we were able to trade away a player eg a Warnock to Carlton and upgrade our first round pick in that way. In other words, the trade week lasts more than a day and there's more than one deal that can be done.

That sort of direction would be much more palatable, thanks 'rumpole'.

Yeah, yeah

http://www.gfc.com.a...px?newsid=94878

"The deal enabled the Cats to secure Brad Ottens from Richmond and there is little doubt that without Ottens Geelong would still be searching for its first flag since 1963.

The deal was far from popular at the time, with Moloney a favourite among the Cats faithful for his hard nosed style of play. "

Ha, so Hale is now Ottens, who was a senior player for the Tiges. And always his talent was there for All to see. Inconsistent for various reasons.

Ha, so Hale is now Ottens, who was a senior player for the Tiges. And always his talent was there for All to see. Inconsistent for various reasons.

No Ottens cost 2 first rounders!

No Ottens cost 2 first rounders!

You would pay a first Rnder for Hale, I wouldn't. Thats the difference.

I would consider anything around 25 to 34ish.

If I just heard correctly on SEN melb

and nth having further discussions . Nth prepared to tip in a bit towards Hales wage.. Talking 3-4 years . So hopefully only 3 years and decent haggling on rest

Does Hale not have 2 years remaining on his existing contract?

Where does the 3-4 years come from?

You would pay a first Rnder for Hale, I wouldn't. Thats the difference.

I would consider anything around 25 to 34ish.

Where are we losing a first rounder? Last time I looked 17 was a first rounder 8 picks from the end of the round.

We would still have a first round pick - but 5 picks down the order, we would be giving up our second round pick.

Do you actually understand the offer?

E25, we'd be offering Hale 3 or 4 years (presumably at a bit at less than what he's currently on per year) to get him across - we not only have to satisfy North, we have to entice Hale - he's going to want more security than the 2 years he already has.

Edited October 6, 201014 yr by old55

Does Hale not have 2 years remaining on his existing contract?

Where does the 3-4 years come from?

exactly - offer max 2 years

exactly - offer max 2 years

As suggested above Hale is driving this bus and will state his desired club and terms, you then work from that towards a deal.

Not too hard to figure out

Gosh, let me guess.

Hale is choosing between three clubs that have shown interest. We want him.

Wonder why 3 to 4 years is mentioned.

Sarcastic [censored] aside, he is on a contract that expires in 2 years. Not 3-4. And he is not out of contract.

That would mean we'd have to sign him to a contract extension.

Go on, enlighten us.

Edited October 6, 201014 yr by E25

Where are we losing a first rounder? Last time I looked 17 was a first rounder 8 picks from the end of the round.

We would still have a first round pick - but 5 picks down the order, we would be giving up our second round pick.

Do you actually understand the offer?

Agree with your point, but GC Suns have picks 13 & 15, so 17 is actually only 3 picks down the order from 12.

Sarcastic [censored] aside, he is on a contract that expires in 2 years. Not 3-4. And he is not out of contract.

That would mean we'd have to sign him to a contract extension.

Go on, enlighten us.

It's a contract ... You realize you can write a new one .. One that suprcedes the prior if all parties agree

again. It's not that hard

Agree with your point, but GC Suns have picks 13 & 15, so 17 is actually only 3 picks down the order from 12.

Uh... no... its 5. Definitely 5.

Doesn't matter who owns those picks, it's 5.

Sarcastic [censored] aside, he is on a contract that expires in 2 years. Not 3-4. And he is not out of contract.

That would mean we'd have to sign him to a contract extension.

Go on, enlighten us.

It's a new contract between us and Hale. North and Hale both agree to terminate the old contract. If one or other of them doesn't agree to terminate it then it stands. FMD!