Sam MaClure- "Hibberd to Melbourne, 4 year deal"

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

1 minute ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

Should have just stopped at "Bombers high"

[thesleepinggiant 160]

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

His kick to Jack Watts across the ground on Sunday was sublime.......not

 

......ask trac

[Moonshadow 16,946]

6 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

Really don't see that happening. At the very least, it would have to involve a number of other picks and/or players. Hibberd is simply not worth a first round pick, regardless of where we finish in 2017.

[whatwhat say what 21,167]

Hope so.

 

Would be a terrible deal for us in my view if we straight up gave up a first round 2017 pick for him.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,059]

6 hours ago, AzzKikA said:

Hows Jones taking Greg Broughton (took a while to find who it was!) out, great bump!

That was a great bump. I didn't see who it was, but I had the impression that it was Frost, but that would be more a lot more surprising than Jones ... 

[hells bells 2,023]

8 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Really don't see that happening. At the very least, it would have to involve a number of other picks and/or players. Hibberd is simply not worth a first round pick, regardless of where we finish in 2017.

I just responded as such in another thread.  They are dreaming.  I'd be calling for Mahoney's head on a plate if they made that trade.

[olisik 4,060]

2017 is a super draft. We won't trade out a pick 10 in that. 

[MadAsHell 4,097]

51 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

What's next years draft suppose to be like?

I wonder, as the only way that trade could remotely be acceptable is if we make the finals next year so the pick we give them is somewhere around the 12 mark. If we were to get their 2nd round pick this year (19) with Hibberd it mightn't be to bad if we feel pick 19 in 2016 is about equal to pick 12'ish in 2017.

[Deeman 1,459]

55 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

Tell 'em they're dreamin'

[jnrmac 19,751]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Getting way off topic but I didn't have a problem with that kick. We needed to open it up instead of bombing it inside 50. I thought it was a good decision and reasonably well executed. I know Watts is the man of the hour and rightfully so but he should've marked that. Had he gone a little harder it would've been an uncontested mark and given our best kick in Watts open space to hit a target inside 50.

Suggest you watch it again. Very poor decision. You are off the mark.

[Undeeterred 2,943]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Getting way off topic but I didn't have a problem with that kick. We needed to open it up instead of bombing it inside 50. I thought it was a good decision and reasonably well executed. I know Watts is the man of the hour and rightfully so but he should've marked that. Had he gone a little harder it would've been an uncontested mark and given our best kick in Watts open space to hit a target inside 50.

Absolute drivel. It was an appallingly bad decision, and an even worse kick.

If he'd kicked it flat and hard and to Watts' advantage, then it might have been Watts's fault.

[KingDingAling 3,713]

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

So they should be. If we were silly enough to pay overs for Melksham - and not factor in a drug ban, then we are odds on to deliver a first round pick for Hibberd. They would be silly not to also ask for our second round also. They just might get it.

[dworship 3,342]

7 hours ago, PaulRB said:

Maybe the Dons have bigger issues to worry about than Hibberd... http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-02/beveridge-admits-dogs-interested-in-hurley

A number of Essundone supports I know keep bleating about how various players will cost us and how we won't be able to afford them because the AFL won't allow players to walk for nothing. I believe the D's and Dogs are in a good position when responding to any AFL rebuff because we can say; we have been disadvantaged as the players we picked up, in good faith, have been unable to play due to the indefensible (cheating) actions of the EFC

[John Demonic 5,065]

They'll start the bidding high so when they settle for demanding a 2nd round with a few hours before the deadline, we'll think its a good deal

Edited August 2, 2016 by johndemons

[Binmans PA 27,379]

22 minutes ago, dworship said:

A number of Essundone supports I know keep bleating about how various players will cost us and how we won't be able to afford them because the AFL won't allow players to walk for nothing. I believe the D's and Dogs are in a good position when responding to any AFL rebuff because we can say; we have been disadvantaged as the players we picked up, in good faith, have been unable to play due to the indefensible (cheating) actions of the EFC

As much as I agree with you, that won't wash with the AFL, who want a strong and viable Druggie outfit in 2017-2018. If they get pillaged this off season, the AFL will step in and give them first rounders. You watch. And I hope Triple Chins and the rest of the competition are up in arms about it. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by AdamFphlebeb

[Binmans PA 27,379]

20 minutes ago, johndemons said:

They'll start the bidding high so when they settle for demanding a 2nd round with a few hours before the deadline, we'll think its a good deal

I don't think the FD will allow the Druggies to hold us over a barrel. I believe we paid overs for Melksham last off season (he is a turn over merchant of the highest order - hoping the MFC gives him a new lease of life), but I reckon we'll hold steady this year. 

I think part of the high asking price (apart from Dodo's usual [censored] tactics) is ensuring that if Hibberd is worth a first or second rounder, an AA like Hurley must be worth two first rounders. I'm sure they're trying to manufacture a higher market price for their players in other trades. Especially, as they're aware we're after Hurley as well.

Edited August 2, 2016 by AdamFphlebeb

[dworship 3,342]

3 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

As much as I agree with you, that won't wash with the AFL, who want a strong and viable Druggie outfit in 2017-2018. If they get pillaged this off season, the AFL will step in and give them first rounders. You watch. And I hope Triple Chins and the rest of the competition are up in arms about it. 

While they won't like it, they still have to "look" like they are reasonable. They can give them concessions as long as we get Hurley. Regardless, I love the way we are actually a "player" in all this and I think Jackson is just the man to lead us through this.

[Binmans PA 27,379]

12 minutes ago, dworship said:

While they won't like it, they still have to "look" like they are reasonable. They can give them concessions as long as we get Hurley. Regardless, I love the way we are actually a "player" in all this and I think Jackson is just the man to lead us through this.

Yeah, I guess getting Hurley is the most important part of this equation, but I also don't think Essendon deserve to come out of their debacle with a string of draft picks. And they will if we get him. 

Meanwhile, PJ is a genius and I hope he's with us another 5+ years.

[ding 5,126]

3 hours ago, hells bells said:

I just responded as such in another thread.  They are dreaming.  I'd be calling for Mahoney's head on a plate if they made that trade.

Couldnt agree more.

I would lose my shyte if, for even a nanosecond, we contemplated giving up a first rounder for Hibberd. I want him, but for a second rounder at best. Any more than that and Essedun can get stuffed.

We rolled over for the Melk, and it cost us a full year of lost games. These pricks owe us and we should be as hard nosed about this deal as possible.

FFS it is WELL overdue that we finally grew some balls when it came to trades, especially in regards to the drug cheats.

 

 

[SaberFang 7,141]

A first rounder for Hibberd!?

Christ, it was clearly more than TB4 in those vials!

[DemonWA 3,774]

whatever deal we may or may not get done with  bombers listed players I'll be relatively comfortable - Goodwin will know the players well enough to know whether we can afford to pay what others might see as overs or unders for them.

 

After writing this I recall Neeld and Dawes........

[John Demonic 5,065]

31 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

 - Goodwin will know the players well enough to know whether we can afford to pay what others might see as overs or unders for themm

 

Oh the benefits of employing an asst coach from a wooden spoon  team. So much access.

 

Maybe we should hire Adem the Yze  as head coach and recruit some A grade kicking B graders that know the Hawk system. Brendan White cross come on down. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by johndemons

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,589]

5 hours ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

As much as I agree with you, that won't wash with the AFL, who want a strong and viable Druggie outfit in 2017-2018. If they get pillaged this off season, the AFL will step in and give them first rounders. You watch. And I hope Triple Chins and the rest of the competition are up in arms about it. 

I'd love to see Essendon get pillaged this off season.

I'm surprised no club has pushed the breach of contact line harder yet. Similarly, why Geelong didn't simply take Dangerfield as a FA.  Guessing that these clubs still want to retain some relationship credits for any future trades, but I do wonder if that is really worth it when they could get more immediate returns by playing hard ball.

[godees 731]

22 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'd love to see Essendon get pillaged this off season.

I'm surprised no club has pushed the breach of contact line harder yet. Similarly, why Geelong didn't simply take Dangerfield as a FA.  Guessing that these clubs still want to retain some relationship credits for any future trades, but I do wonder if that is really worth it when they could get more immediate returns by playing hard ball.

Geelong didn't take Danger as a FA as he was a restricted free agent and Adelaide would have matched the deal and forced them to trade anyway (to get a better deal than one 1st round draft pick as compensation)

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,589]

23 minutes ago, godees said:

Geelong didn't take Danger as a FA as he was a restricted free agent and Adelaide would have matched the deal and forced them to trade anyway (to get a better deal than one 1st round draft pick as compensation)

OK, thanks.  Forgot he was restricted.

I do recall Danger wasn't just chasing big bucks that Adelaide couldn't have matched, so that one makes more sense now.