i just dont see Clarke as a permanent forward, i always thought he had his best year as a ruck / resting forward back in like 08/09. If he play exclusively down forward maybe he can kick 40 goals who knows. For pick 12 he would really be value so i cant complain with this.

I am leaning away from this idea but... what about pick 12 for Freo's 16 and 20 giving us 2 top 20 picks for a 4 spot drop? would depend on where harrington sees teh talent falling

Freo get clarke with 12

  On 13/10/2011 at 01:38, RobbieF said:

Is Martin a big bodied forward?

I have nothing against Stef Martin I only suggested the trade, which in my opinion would be an upgrade for us, because you have to give a bit to get a bit.

We can talk all day about trades but if all we come up with is "Warnock for last year's Brownlow Winner" than we might as well keep out of it.

Not sure how hard we are really going for Clark but we ONLY need to offer a little more than what Freo are and as I understand it all Freo have put on the table to date is their first round pick 20. Our pick 12 or trade back a little from there would be all I want to offer.

Martin stays. If his curve continues into next year we could end up with some serious egg on our faces. I also don't believe Martin would agree to go up there and he is within his rights to stay put since he was just re-signed.

  On 13/10/2011 at 01:52, belzebub59 said:

Interesting comment; "Brisbane welcomes Melbournes interest in Mitch Clark"

ahh the thick plottens !! lol

Very much so.

Wanting to head home to Perth may just be part of a bigger charade.

  On 13/10/2011 at 01:47, billy2803 said:

I see Martin as a Big Bodied Forward. Barry Prendegast sees him as one too. Unfortunately to date, he hasn't had 6 or 7 consecutive games in the position to prove one way or another.

I would've thought giving one of our compo picks for Clark would've been sufficient. Brisbane have not indicated that they want a player in return, and are happy to receive a decent 1st round pick.

I just don't see him as a big bodied forward capable of splitting pack like we appear to want. He is more of a gentle footballer who has a lot of skill and balance and can gain possessions around the ground almost like a midfielder a bit in the mould of a Jeff White.

It was just a suggestion and if someone has another I'd be glad to hear it, I'm not in the recruiting department so my suggestions dont mean squat.

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:12, RobbieF said:

I just don't see him as a big bodied forward capable of splitting pack like we appear to want. He is more of a gentle footballer who has a lot of skill and balance and can gain possessions around the ground almost like a midfielder a bit in the mould of a Jeff White.

It was just a suggestion and if someone has another I'd be glad to hear it, I'm not in the recruiting department so my suggestions dont mean squat.

This is the misperception. We don't need someone to split packs, we need a strong contested mark who can make a contest and bring the ball to the ground. Countless times Martin has done this up forward, it's just our crumbers let us down.

If we got Clark for example, I can easily see Martin play a similar role to Adam Goodes. Goodes is 4cm shorter I think, but their weight is very close to the same, and with another year/preseason under his belt, as well as this new training regime, I think Martin's endurance can see him play all over the ground. If we don't get Clark, I'm happy with him being that Full Forward that we need.

Pick 12 for Clark as a starter... then we can talk about steak knives

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:12, RobbieF said:

I just don't see him as a big bodied forward capable of splitting pack like we appear to want. He is more of a gentle footballer who has a lot of skill and balance and can gain possessions around the ground almost like a midfielder a bit in the mould of a Jeff White.

It was just a suggestion and if someone has another I'd be glad to hear it, I'm not in the recruiting department so my suggestions dont mean squat.

Taking it as a purely hypothetical I don't see a problem with the suggestion. I doubt it will happen though as Martin was only recently re-signed as pointed out by others.

It may free us up to play Martin down back though. He played there with some success in his first season and would assist Frawley, Rivers and Garland take on the monster forward lines. His kicking may be a worry though as he can butcher it so may be a liability in defense.

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:19, billy2803 said:

This is the misperception. We don't need someone to split packs, we need a strong contested mark who can make a contest and bring the ball to the ground. Countless times Martin has done this up forward, it's just our crumbers let us down.

If we got Clark for example, I can easily see Martin play a similar role to Adam Goodes. Goodes is 4cm shorter I think, but their weight is very close to the same, and with another year/preseason under his belt, as well as this new training regime, I think Martin's endurance can see him play all over the ground. If we don't get Clark, I'm happy with him being that Full Forward that we need.

This is why i like Stef so much, can play as that extra midfielder once the ball drops from the bounce, takes it away ala Nik Nat on occassions, pushes forward well, but i dont see him playing deep forward and this seems like the main "gap" Neeld has spoken of

I would be throwing lots at him.. He has a bit of grunt and aggression, and will really change the way our forward line sets up.. Imagine him staying deep, with Jurrah being a 2nd option.. Howe and watts leading up and Petterd/green getting dangerous.. Really good looking forward line.. Please mfc give 1st and 2nd round for him.. Or even compo pick!

Someone just tweeted on #tradeweek:

"Clark deal done: Clark + 29 + 34 for Pick 16 & 20 & 38"

No idea how much truth there is to it though, but TradeWeekRadio also tweeted just after:

"we're hearing two trades could be about to fall. stick with us....more to come"

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:25, daveytrain1 said:

I would be throwing lots at him.. He has a bit of grunt and aggression, and will really change the way our forward line sets up.. Imagine him staying deep, with Jurrah being a 2nd option.. Howe and watts leading up and Petterd/green getting dangerous.. Really good looking forward line.. Please mfc give 1st and 2nd round for him.. Or even compo pick!

I agree that we should be going for Clark...our forward line would look much better..

But, surely Brisbane are using our interest as a smokescreen to invite Fremantle to offer more than just pick 16....Mitch has already stated his desire to move back to WA....and has done so for a few seasons....

Personally, i think we are getting shafted here...false hope..

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:26, hardtack said:

Someone just tweeted on #tradeweek:

"Clark deal done: Clark + 29 + 34 for Pick 16 & 20 & 38"

No idea how much truth there is to it though, but TradeWeekRadio also tweeted just after:

"we're hearing two trades could be about to fall. stick with us....more to come"

Steal.

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:26, hardtack said:

Someone just tweeted on #tradeweek:

"Clark deal done: Clark + 29 + 34 for Pick 16 & 20 & 38"

No idea how much truth there is to it though, but TradeWeekRadio also tweeted just after:

"we're hearing two trades could be about to fall. stick with us....more to come"

I think that's a loss for the Lions.

They get two picks inside 20 for Clark and 29...

It's ok, but not great.

To be honest, i cant imagine Mitch Clarke being happy with coming to Melbourne.

I wonder how much knowledge Rawlings has of the whole situation. As someone posted earlier, maybe Clark is using the "go home factor" as a smoke screen for other issues he has with the Club.

Would we be wasting our time if Rawlings knew for a fact that he wants to go back to WA? Maybe if we are trying to push Freo's offer up a bit (maybe we are sh!tty with them for landing Ross Lyon in an unethical way which gave us no chance of getting him??!!). I love conspiracy theories!

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:28, Tap..Tap..Tappy.. said:

I agree that we should be going for Clark...our forward line would look much better..

But, surely Brisbane are using our interest as a smokescreen to invite Fremantle to offer more than just pick 16....Mitch has already stated his desire to move back to WA....and has done so for a few seasons....

Personally, i think we are getting shafted here...false hope..

Trade week is all about alliances. You build them to get your preferred deal done.

We help Brisbane by getting into the game with something then they help us.

Problem for Freo was the did the super deal without gettting Bris involved and it left a bad taste in their mouth.

Freo then had to turn to its partner in crime GWS to get better picks.

So what is the deal we want to do that we need to get some help from Bris?

First anouncement from TradeWeekRadio was: "sam reid @westernbulldogs to GWS for compensation pick"

and they just anounced: "The Crows confirm they've secured pick 2 and will go after Brad Crouch"

So nothing definite re Clark as yet

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:39, hardtack said:

First anouncement from TradeWeekRadio was: "sam reid @westernbulldogs to GWS for compensation pick"

WOW and that's another major coup for the GIANTS!!!

err... exactly who is Sam Reid?

  On 13/10/2011 at 02:52, Whispering_Jack said:

err... exactly who is Sam Reid?

He's a soft dud that can't get a game with the Dogs. Hardly news....

When interviewed on trade week radio, Clark's manager said that Ross Lyon's plan to play Mitch at Centre Half Forward was very appealling. If my memory serves me well, he was drafted as a forward. Not sure why there's so much talk about Martin. We can have our cake and eat it too.

I would love to see him in Red and Blue - It's time to get some experience in.

Can't see it happening and to be honest I'm not sure why we are wasting our time. Why would he want to come to Melbourne when he wants to go home. It makes little to no sense. I'd prefer us to put our energy into going for Lisle or some muture age players like St. Kilda did - they've got cap issues and they've still managed to do what seems to be a decent deal. What are we doing? So far, it's been a pretty ordinary trade week on our behalf.

  On 13/10/2011 at 03:00, simma02 said:

Can't see it happening and to be honest I'm not sure why we are wasting our time. Why would he want to come to Melbourne when he wants to go home. It makes little to no sense. I'd prefer us to put our energy into going for Lisle or some muture age players like St. Kilda did - they've got cap issues and they've still managed to do what seems to be a decent deal. What are we doing? So far, it's been a pretty ordinary trade week on our behalf.

Yeah pretty disappointed the Saints were able to snatch Saad for next to nothing when we could really use a crumbing small forward.

Whilst a lot of people are saying how does Clark fit with Martin in. I know Martin has had a really good year, but TBH if it was a case of having Clark or Martin I would take Clark.

As has been said here several times you can't get something good in trade week without offering something good up. Martin having a great year is potentially THAT something we might be talking about.

If, and this is a massive if, Melbourne could snag Clark I would be prepared to do the deal with Martin or Spencer as part of the trade, because Brisbane need a replacement for Clark, I mean they are considering trying to use Hudson for a stop gap... why wouldn't they be interested in a more permanent option to work with Leuenberger?

Essentially this trade is all about Clark wanting to come, I can't see Melb and Brisbane having any issues getting the trade over the line.