I wonder if the GWS and GCS's give any weight to who they are trading with, i.e. trading good players or early draft picks to top clubs just makes them stronger.

As for the players being able to veto player trades we need to have a better system in place or some other compensating control to stop clubs being shafted. it looks like a points system is being used, so what about where we have two clubs looking at a player i.e. howe that you give an appropriate point weighting to the trade for instance if GCS is prepared to give up a 1st round pick that Collingwood would need to match that number of points, if they failed the player had the option to go to gold coast, or if the club chose to keep him under the same money he was prepared to accept, or stand out of football..

I was thinking that today if we get 2 second rounders you would have to think GWS would rather deal with us than the Bombers for pick 8 , the Bombers are a much more dangerous club when up and running than us you would think the longer certain clubs can keep the dons and blues down the better .

I was thinking that today if we get 2 second rounders you would have to think GWS would rather deal with us than the Bombers for pick 8 , the Bombers are a much more dangerous club when up and running than us you would think the longer certain clubs can keep the dons and blues down the better .

Plus we seem to get on well with GWS.... Tyson/Salem deal, Sam Frost deal, Tom Bugg likely coming in

Hopefully they want to trade with us for pick 8 , they get what they want and it wont give the Druggos a helping hand

Yes, with intricate draft and trading proposals tha contain multiple points of failure and rely, at every point, for other clubs to be available with the picks we want to simply acquiesce.

This isn't a video game. It's a bunch of reps trying to a multitude of things, but in the main, they are looking out for just one club - it is hard to do a litany of things in trade week.

Of course, but at least it is more enticing and elaborate than just picking up a bunch of delisted duds.

Of course, but at least it is more enticing and elaborate than just picking up a bunch of delisted duds.

I didn't know that was what we were doing...

Childish. But then your over the top posts during this trade period should mean your above one comes as no surprise.

You aren't the only one but the amount of people on here who can't see past their noses at this time of the year is astounding. No one automatically wins or loses a trade. When 3-4 years have passed then you can take a good look at it, but to get all worried about now is just silly.

And besides, who knows what we have planned? We might land Kennedy and two second rounders, and we have some good plans in place for those picks. We know that teams are keen to get a GWS pick in the Top 10, and we may well and truly have an eye on that with further plans in place for 2 picks inside the Top 10.

So before you get childish about the situation you should think before you post. You'll do yourself a huge favour.

What a bunch of rubbish.

People are rightly cynical because we've seen this all before. Until the club can prove it has a backbone (something I've only ever seen under Gutnick) people will continue to expect to see them rolled over.

What a bunch of rubbish.

People are rightly cynical because we've seen this all before. Until the club can prove it has a backbone (something I've only ever seen under Gutnick) people will continue to expect to see them rolled over.

Rubbish?

When was the last time we were rolled over in a trade? In depth analysis is welcome.

Trade Picks 6 & 8 (3302) to Gold Coast for Picks 3 & 16 (3301)

Why would GC do that? If we trade 6 & 8 for 3 maybe, but not with 16 thrown in just so they can do us a favour...

Why would GC do that? If we trade 6 & 8 for 3 maybe, but not with 16 thrown in just so they can do us a favour...

You can't do your deal as the AFL will veto any pick transfer that has more than 200 points difference. You need a player trade to make it happen, so a club can maximize the points they get for swapping.

Rubbish?

When was the last time we were rolled over in a trade? In depth analysis is welcome.

Mitch Clark last year for starters. It may have turned out he was more rooted than we thought but getting Lumumba for Clark was rubbish.

Dawes for 20 was questionable and a poor move in hindsight.

You can't do your deal as the AFL will veto any pick transfer that has more than 200 points difference. You need a player trade to make it happen, so a club can maximize the points they get for swapping.

Well then my original point stands, why would GC trade us 3 and 16 for 6 and 8 for no benefit to them (1 point difference)?

Mitch Clark last year for starters. It may have turned out he was more rooted than we thought but getting Lumumba for Clark was rubbish.

Dawes for 20 was questionable and a poor move in hindsight.

HL for an injured and ill Clark was fine. The problem was HL had a shocking year. If HL had continued his NAB Cup form we would have been laughing. I think HL will be playing with us after Clark has retired from the AFL finally..

Mitch Clark last year for starters. It may have turned out he was more rooted than we thought but getting Lumumba for Clark was rubbish.

Dawes for 20 was questionable and a poor move in hindsight.

We were lucky to get anything for Clark. After retiring and then backsliding 6 months later we were able to at least get a player who, admittedly, didn't have much of a year but is much better than nothing. I fail to see how that's being rolled over.

The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan. And what we did trade for Dawes, pick 20 (Tim Broomhead) and Pick 47 (on traded to Norf who drafted Mitchell Wilkins), have done very little in 3 years. Dawes hasn't lived up to the expectations but he has done more than what we traded for him.

I'm still yet to see this 'rolled over' business you're talking about.

Rubbish?

When was the last time we were rolled over in a trade? In depth analysis is welcome.

Dawes and Lamumba come to mind. We paid way too much for both of them. Melksham? Probably paid too much there although that is offset a bit by the shallow draft. Letting Howe dictate that we accept a worse trade to accommodate him.

In essence we seem to have this reputation for being easy to trade with, also known as we'll give them what they want and won't push for what we should.

Dawes and Lamumba come to mind. We paid way too much for both of them. Melksham? Probably paid too much there although that is offset a bit by the shallow draft. Letting Howe dictate that we accept a worse trade to accommodate him.

In essence we seem to have this reputation for being easy to trade with, also known as we'll give them what they want and won't push for what we should.

We've come out either ahead or on par in those trades. Clark can't even get on the park and the picks we traded for Dawes have amounted to nothing for the other clubs. Don't even start on Melksham as we won't know for a few years if we paid the right amount or if it was overs.

I'd rather us be easy to trade with so we can get what we need. We've never really been bent over at trade time so I have no idea why people are worried.

We were lucky to get anything for Clark. After retiring and then backsliding 6 months later we were able to at least get a player who, admittedly, didn't have much of a year but is much better than nothing. I fail to see how that's being rolled over.

The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan. And what we did trade for Dawes, pick 20 (Tim Broomhead) and Pick 47 (on traded to Norf who drafted Mitchell Wilkins), have done very little in 3 years. Dawes hasn't lived up to the expectations but he has done more than what we traded for him.

I'm still yet to see this 'rolled over' business you're talking about.

Dawes had nothing to do with the Hogan deal. The deal for Hogan was with GWS, not Collingwood. The only link is that we used the pick we got back with Hogan to trade for Dawes, who was not in any way worth pick 20 and has been an utter failure for the most part since he got here.

Dawes had nothing to do with the Hogan deal. The deal for Hogan was with GWS, not Collingwood. The only link is that we used the pick we got back with Hogan to trade for Dawes, who was not in any way worth pick 20 and has been an utter failure for the most part since he got here.

Come on Ralphy, you're better than this. We always had interest in Dawes during that trade period, and doing the Hogan trade early allowed us to get that Pick 20 in return, which we packaged with 47 to get Dawes. So, yes, it had something to do with that trade.

We were lucky to get anything for Clark. After retiring and then backsliding 6 months later we were able to at least get a player who, admittedly, didn't have much of a year but is much better than nothing. I fail to see how that's being rolled over.

The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan. And what we did trade for Dawes, pick 20 (Tim Broomhead) and Pick 47 (on traded to Norf who drafted Mitchell Wilkins), have done very little in 3 years. Dawes hasn't lived up to the expectations but he has done more than what we traded for him.

I'm still yet to see this 'rolled over' business you're talking about.

Clark played well for the Cats when he was on the park and if he gets right next year will be a massive player for them, far better than anything Lumumba will offer. I am not and was not against getting Lumumba but getting him for Clark was unders.

Dawes we got with pick 20 after we traded for the Hogan mini draft selection, it was completely separate and not linked in any way. Whatever the players drafted with those picks have done is irrelevant, there's nothing to say we would've taken those same players.

It's not just in trading either, it's about the club as a whole. People are cynical because the club has a track record of being pushed around. We don't speak up for ourselves and just accept the [censored] we cop, of course people think we're going to end up getting dudded on the Howe deal. If we end up getting Kennedy and a second/third rounder for Howe I'll expect your contrition in this thread. If we're able to get something substantially better I'll do likewise.

Come on Ralphy, you're better than this. We always had interest in Dawes during that trade period, and doing the Hogan trade early allowed us to get that Pick 20 in return, which we packaged with 47 to get Dawes. So, yes, it had something to do with that trade.

Completely fallacious logic.

Edit: you said the Dawes trade was part of a larger trade "that landed us Hogan" as if to imply we wouldn't have had Hogan unless we traded for Dawes and therefore trying to somehow make the Dawes trade more palatable. The Hogan mini draft pick was secured before any Dawes deal happened so whatever we went on to do with that Pick 20 was irrelevant.

Edited October 17, 20159 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Come on Ralphy, you're better than this. We always had interest in Dawes during that trade period, and doing the Hogan trade early allowed us to get that Pick 20 in return, which we packaged with 47 to get Dawes. So, yes, it had something to do with that trade.

You explicitly stated that "The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan." It wasn't. Even if we were already looking at Dawes at the time, it was still an entirely separate deal. Collingwood had no involvement in the deal to get Hogan and we would have traded for Dawes whether that deal went ahead or not.

I also question your claim that because Collingwood took Broomhead with that pick it was of little value. There has never been any indication that this is who we would have picked.

Clark played well for the Cats when he was on the park and if he gets right next year will be a massive player for them, far better than anything Lumumba will offer. I am not and was not against getting Lumumba but getting him for Clark was unders.

Dawes we got with pick 20 after we traded for the Hogan mini draft selection, it was completely separate and not linked in any way. Whatever the players drafted with those picks have done is irrelevant, there's nothing to say we would've taken those same players.

It's not just in trading either, it's about the club as a whole. People are cynical because the club has a track record of being pushed around. We don't speak up for ourselves and just accept the [censored] we cop, of course people think we're going to end up getting dudded on the Howe deal. If we end up getting Kennedy and a second/third rounder for Howe I'll expect your contrition in this thread. If we're able to get something substantially better I'll do likewise.

That's a huge IF and a big assumption he gets back on the park.

And if either of the above happens then neither of us should do anything - we have no idea how the trades are going to pan out and doing so is short sighted. Howe may be an average player for the Pies while Kennedy kicks on and becomes an important player in our 22.... or vice versa. We won't know for a few years yet.

Completely fallacious logic.

Edit: you said the Dawes trade was part of a larger trade "that landed us Hogan" as if to imply we wouldn't have had Hogan unless we traded for Dawes and therefore trying to somehow make the Dawes trade more palatable. The Hogan mini draft pick was secured before any Dawes deal happened so whatever we went on to do with that Pick 20 was irrelevant.

Alright, so it wasn't part of a 'larger trade', but you get my drift.

Even if you take that out we are still ahead in that trade.

You explicitly stated that "The Dawes trade was also part of a larger trade that landed us Hogan." It wasn't. Even if we were already looking at Dawes at the time, it was still an entirely separate deal. Collingwood had no involvement in the deal to get Hogan and we would have traded for Dawes whether that deal went ahead or not.

I also question your claim that because Collingwood took Broomhead with that pick it was of little value. There has never been any indication that this is who we would have picked.

Dawes has been more valuable to us than Broomhead. Therefore we're ahead. Simple.

The loss of Mitch Clark was damaging because he was, and is still, exactly the kind of player we could use - tall forward capable of roaming the ground, and also relieving effectively in the ruck. So be it.

By the same token, Howe is exactly the kind of player we have no need for at all.

If we get Freeman, there's a chance he'll be a perfect addition to our one-paced midfield. We'll probably come out ahead even if he barely plays a game for two years then gets delisted. We'll have saved, what, $250k a year?

I know at least one other "J.H." I'd much rather have that money available for.

sad to see you go Howe, watched the cats game again , Howe was kept quiet until he had an influence in the 3rd and 4th quarters , gave the cats defense nightmares flying for the footy marking or causing a spill. Interestingly watts and dawes were good in that game .

With more ball coming into the forward line howe will do well for the pies.

The kangas game in defense is also fresh in my mind as a good game for Howe.

I'm in the minority but would like to see him, stay.

It looks like the Howe deal will go through Monday and Kenedy will be included.

The Bugg deal will get done as it is a simple one for a pick.

I wonder if we can trade up to 8 with GWS for picks probably including Bugg at the same time.

If that happens can we then do anything else. Prestia/OMeara are reported today as staying.

Can we become involved in Tomlinson. Is Gorringe an option?

Can we do a player and 6 for 3 with GC?

We will have 3.5 days to try something or is it complete something?

Personally I could live with having 6 and 8 in the ND.

If we miss Parish, Francis and Curnow would Weideman and Rioli be silly.

Edited October 17, 20159 yr by Redleg

If anyone wants back at the Pies for their Howe intervention, having a Weideman in our next premiership side should do it