JKH for Lever. Hopefully Adelaide can throw in a sweetener to seal the deal.

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I didn't mean to say he 'only wants money' more that he may be 'bought' (ie attracted) by the best package - he has said:  “It is not just about team success. And it is not just about money. It’s not just about your family. It is a combination of three or four things...“For me, when I make my decision, it is going to be about a whole range of things I need to think about.”

So in addition to 'team success', 'money' and 'family' what are the other things. He is touted as a future Crows captain, so lets add 'club captain.  He has a guest spot on Adelaide radio so perhaps 'public profile' can be added especially if future career ambitions are media related.  And Premiership medal would certainly be on his list. 

If he wants finals he should stay with Adelaide.  If he wants money any number of Vic clubs can give him that.  A number of clubs can offer him captaincy (Carlton, Hawks, Pies, StK).  Fewer clubs can offer him a public profile.

I really hope we get him but I 'm trying not to get my hopes until the deal is done as he wouldn't be the first player in recent years (think Clarke, Tippett, Buddy) to do a list minute about face to a verbal deal, which at best is all mfc have right now.

 

I agree with what you are saying, it is a combination of all the above, i know the pies are a big club with money and i'm sure other things they can offer players; but the point i was trying to make was Buckley and how he publicly threw Mayne under the bus so to speak. I'm not sure how others feel about Buckley but i thought it was quite un-professional to do that to a player and it may just be me but if i was a player i would not want Buckley as a coach. 

I hope we are able to get Lever as well, I'm just hopping Lever see's a future with the Dee's more so then the Pies.

Lever, TMac, OMac, Frost, Hibber, Jetta, Hunt and Lewis

yeh that'd go alright

26 minutes ago, Xavierrodway said:

Lever, TMac, OMac, Frost, Hibber, Jetta, Hunt and Lewis

yeh that'd go alright

Don't forget Joel Smith!

I'm just flabbergasted that  Buckley is still Coach after this season's disappointments.

Mayne aside, Buck's and Co will be there for another year, and McGuire is on a very short (foot in mouth) fuse

17 minutes ago, willmoy said:

I'm just flabbergasted that  Buckley is still Coach after this season's disappointments.

Mayne aside, Buck's and Co will be there for another year, and McGuire is on a very short (foot in mouth) fuse

Mcguire's short Lease on presidency. Some might say he's got buckley's chance, holding that post?

Boom!

 

How much is too much for Crows' elite young key defender? 
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-12/bowen-is-jake-lever-worth-two-firstrounders

How

9 minutes ago, Danelska said:

Boom!

 

How much is too much for Crows' elite young key defender? 
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-12/bowen-is-jake-lever-worth-two-firstrounders

How much is too much? Two first rounders is definitely too much in my book.

5 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

How

How much is too much? Two first rounders is definitely too much in my book.

Agreed. #10 and second round pick swap. Or #10 and Kent. I think he has it in him to be a very handy player, but it's not working here for whatever reason. Maybe Adelaide can see something similar in him, and back themselves to make it happen.

I don't want us out of the first round of the 2018 draft. It's said to be big, and if nothing else the pick could be gold when next year's trade season comes around.

1 hour ago, Danelska said:

Boom!

 

How much is too much for Crows' elite young key defender? 
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-12/bowen-is-jake-lever-worth-two-firstrounders

But.. but.. I thought that anonymous nobody on Facebook/Twitter said Melbourne were out of the race for Lever...

1 hour ago, Deeoldfart said:

How

How much is too much? Two first rounders is definitely too much in my book.

Another fella on DL suggested we give 10 and 27 for richmonds 14 and 16 from memory so they can use #10 on a target, and then we pass them both on for lever, though i think it was also for Gaff. If Adelaide want two 1st round picks then this arrangement fits the bill.

Edited September 11, 20177 yr by Wrecked Owl Dees Function

1 hour ago, Wrecked Owl Dees Function said:

Another fella on DL suggested we give 10 and 27 for richmonds 14 and 16 from memory so they can use #10 on a target, and then we pass them both on for lever, though i think it was also for Gaff. If Adelaide want two 1st round picks then this arrangement fits the bill.

Yes but if 10 and 27 get us 14 and 16 which we pass on for Lever, then 10 and 27 should get Lever - there's a logic failure there.

FWIW I think it will (and should) take more than 10 and 27 for Lever.

8 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes but if 10 and 27 get us 14 and 16 which we pass on for Lever, then 10 and 27 should get Lever - there's a logic failure there.

FWIW I think it will (and should) take more than 10 and 27 for Lever.

Not really. It depends on the club that Richmond are dealing with, and whether they want 10 and not 14 or 16, in this particular case the Demonland user (Apologies for not remembering) was talking about Schache though its been disproven as not an authentic rumour.

Edited September 12, 20177 yr by Wrecked Owl Dees Function

2 minutes ago, Wrecked Owl Dees Function said:

Not really. It depends on a club that Richmond are dealing with, wanting 10 and not 16, in this particular case the person was talking about Schache though its been disproven as an authentic rumour.

if 10 + 27 = 14 + 16

and 14 + 16 = Lever

then 10 + 27 = Lever

Edited September 12, 20177 yr by Fifty-5

10 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

FWIW I think it will (and should) take more than 10 and 27 for Lever.

 

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

if 10 + 27 = 14 +16

and 14 + 16 = Lever

then 10 + 27 = Lever

8 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

if 10 + 27 = 14 +16

and 14 + 16 = Lever

then 10 + 27 = Lever

The point was that a club may not want richmond's pick 14, but would prefer 10. So Richmond would sacrifice what amounts to 30 points, to get our 37 points. This way Adelaide would be getting a better deal with 14 and 16 rather than 10 and 27, and Richmond would presumably be satisfying a 3rd party with pick 10. Similar to the Hawk deal last year, they're doing an unsatisfactory draft pick deal in order to just get a trade to happen. Edit: Todays recent article was about Adelaide wanting 2 first round picks, which prompted this kind of deal idea.

Edited September 12, 20177 yr by Wrecked Owl Dees Function

Surely as the basis of their trading the club's recruiting guys look at the actual draft pick number rather than round of draft pick

6 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

 

Yes, I bet you a donation to Demonland that it will take more than that to get it done.

6 minutes ago, Wrecked Owl Dees Function said:

The point was that a club may not want richmond's pick 14, but would prefer 10. 

Hold the phone!

3 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Hold the phone!

Every draft position counts, if you've got your mind on someone and are assessing other teams lists and who they're going to take. We traded one or two postions up to get above Essendon and nab Clayton Oliver.

Edited September 12, 20177 yr by Wrecked Owl Dees Function

30 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes, I bet you a donation to Demonland that it will take more than that to get it done.

You are on.

Now you want to pay more than 2100 draft points ( 10 + 27 ) How much more do you think it will take?

13 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

You are on.

Now you want to pay more than 2100 draft points ( 10 + 27 ) How much more do you think it will take?

I like your points measurement and am very happy to go with that.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

I make 10 + 27 = 1395 + 703 = 2098.  It only needs to be more than that and I win

But it will get complicated if future picks and players get involved - we may need an impartial judge.

Let's hope we have to decide - because we have Lever!

Two first round picks are too much, but it does sound like a move is on the cards.

This may involve a 3-way deal. What the Crows wanted last year was Bryce Gibbs. Has that changed? I don't think so.

Maybe Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide, Jack Watts and Jack Trengove to Carlton, and Jake Lever to Melbourne.

This deal is about what each club and player wants and needs.

• Jake Lever wants to come home to Melbourne, and we seem to be the club at the forefront.
• We need a top-class defender so Tom McDonald can play up forward permanently.
• Bryce Gibbs wants the opportunity to play in a premiership team, and Adelaide want him.
• Carlton need some experienced players (especially in the forward line) to help their young players coming through.
• Jack Watts needs (probably doesn't want) a kick up the bum to get the best out of himself. We have done it on a few occasions now (even as late as the start of this year), but it barely lasts a season. 
• Jack Trengove wants and needs an opportunity to continue his career at another AFL club. I realise Jack is an uncontracted Restricted Free Agent, but sometimes clubs and players work around the rules in good faith with each other. As a Melbourne supporter, I would love to see him get another opportunity, and I think that Carlton could provide him with that.

We would, I think, we have to offer another player to Adelaide, or our second-round draft-pick, to get the deal done, but 2 first-round draft picks is definitely not on.

 

5 minutes ago, JackDeMan said:

Two first round picks are too much, but it does sound like a move is on the cards.

This may involve a 3-way deal. What the Crows wanted last year was Bryce Gibbs. Has that changed? I don't think so.

Maybe Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide, Jack Watts and Jack Trengove to Carlton, and Jake Lever to Melbourne.

This deal is about what each club and player wants and needs.

• Jake Lever wants to come home to Melbourne, and we seem to be the club at the forefront.
• We need a top-class defender so Tom McDonald can play up forward permanently.
• Bryce Gibbs wants the opportunity to play in a premiership team, and Adelaide want him.
• Carlton need some experienced players (especially in the forward line) to help their young players coming through.
• Jack Watts needs (probably doesn't want) a kick up the bum to get the best out of himself. We have done it on a few occasions now (even as late as the start of this year), but it barely lasts a season. 
• Jack Trengove wants and needs an opportunity to continue his career at another AFL club. I realise Jack is an uncontracted Restricted Free Agent, but sometimes clubs and players work around the rules in good faith with each other. As a Melbourne supporter, I would love to see him get another opportunity, and I think that Carlton could provide him with that.

We would, I think, we have to offer another player to Adelaide, or our second-round draft-pick, to get the deal done, but 2 first-round draft picks is definitely not on.

 

Trengove will unfortunately be delisted and I cant see him returning to AFL; hence his trade value is effectviely voided in your scenario.

Plus Adelaide would want a pick (2nd or 3rd rounder) in addition to losing Lever for Gibbs (he is 29 next year) who may only have a couple more years in him..