21 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Judd's Granny is an anagram of Grand Nu Sydj'. Grand New Sigil? A flag could be considered a type of sigil, right? Bam! The Riddler has been Scooby-Doo'd and we're still three weeks shy of Trade Week.  

And he would have got away with it too, if it weren't for you, mate. 

According to some quotes from Brian Waldron below, Watts and Salem are up as trade bate to secure Lever. For mine Watts has had his chance but Salem still has so much upside and we need more like him

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/09/15/plough-shocked-young-dee-is-up-for-trade/

 

6 minutes ago, Garbo said:

According to some quotes from Brian Waldron below, Watts and Salem are up as trade bate to secure Lever. For mine Watts has had his chance but Salem still has so much upside and we need more like him

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/09/15/plough-shocked-young-dee-is-up-for-trade/

Surely its one or the other. They probably did not bite on adding another forward.

5 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Lets keep facts as facts. He does not intercept more than any other player and NEVER has. He led the league in intercept marks, not intercepts. 

Dominated? Haha he played a good game in a great team performance, he most certainly did not dominate. 15 touches and a few big spoils which everyone gets excited about when an actual player dominating would have marked them instead of punching to the boundary. 

ADELAIDE v GREATER WESTERN SYDNEY
8 Brad Crouch (Adel)
8 Eddie Betts (Adel)
5 Matt Crouch (Adel)
4 Tom Lynch (Adel)
3 Callan Ward (GWS)
1 Luke Brown (Adel)
1 Richard Douglas (Adel)

Lets talk FACTS if you want, but lets stick to facts.

There's a reasons Adelaides offer isn't close to ours.

I would much rather Stringer given he would cost less financially, significantly less trade wise and has a higher ceiling as a footballer.

Stringer has not touched the footy for 2 years. 

5 hours ago, Garbo said:

According to some quotes from Brian Waldron below, Watts and Salem are up as trade bate to secure Lever. For mine Watts has had his chance but Salem still has so much upside and we need more like him

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/09/15/plough-shocked-young-dee-is-up-for-trade/

This is the same idiot who was certain Lever was off to Pies for a few weeks.....

But in fairness he does get good mail

Definitely give Watts the arse.More than happy trade out.

We'll need to trade to secure a second pick. Adelaide want two first-round picks, which is fairly reasonable because they have good luck at the draft like the Eagles. If it goes in that direction, we'll trade one of Watts or Salem for a pick in the 12-15 range, and then package pick 10, new pick, and maybe a player of the Kent variety for Lever and their first round pick.

This could all also be part of the Gibbs trade, which might see:

Adelaide:

Gain - Gibbs, Pick 10

Lose - Lever (to Melbourne), Pick 17 (Carlton)

 

Melbourne:

Gain - Lever, Adelaide player filler (who is a reasonable option in this scenario?)

Lose - Pick 10 (Adelaide), Watts/Salem (Carlton)

 

Carlton

Gain - Watts/Salem, Pick 17

Lose - Gibbs

 

End of the day we're either trading for another first-round pick, or we're giving up players in the Watts/Salem area. Such a trade would probably include packaged players as fillers for Melbourne seeing as both Carlton and Adelaide have high second round picks that probably won't satisfy us. IMO this direction seems most likely.

Not sure Carlton would go for this, although Salem would be another fine piece to add to what is already a good backline, and they're crying out for some forward line coherence but Watts is more of a "cherry on top" and not someone you draft to improve your forward wares.

Edited September 15, 20177 yr by praha

Just now, praha said:

We'll need to trade to secure a second pick. Adelaide want two first-round picks, which is fairly reasonable because they have good luck at the draft like the Eagles. IMO we'll trade one of Watts or Salem for a pick in the 12-15 range, and then package pick 10, new pick, and maybe a player of the Kent variety for Lever and their first round pick.

This could all also be part of the Gibbs trade, which might see:

Adelaide:

Gain - Gibbs, Pick 10

Lose - Lever (to Melbourne), Pick 17 (Carlton)

 

Melbourne:

Gain - Lever, Adelaide player filler (who is a reasonable option in this scenario?)

Lose - Pick 10 (Adelaide), Watts/Salem (Carlton)

 

Carlton

Gain - Watts/Salem, Pick 17

Lose - Gibbs

 

End of the day we're either trading for another first-round pick, or we're giving up players in the Watts/Salem area. Such a trade would probably include packaged players as fillers for Melbourne seeing as both Carlton and Adelaide have high second round picks that probably won't satisfy us. IMO this direction seems most likely.

Not sure Carlton would go for this, although Salem would be another fine piece to add to what is already a good backline, and they're crying out for some forward line coherence but Watts is more of a "cherry on top" and not someone you draft to improve your forward wares.

No. No. No

 A million times no. Why on earth would watts agree to a trade to the blues? The crows maybe (and he would slot in beaitifully in that side). But not the blued.

AND WATTS NEEDS TO AGREE TO ANY TRADE AS HE IS A CONTRACTED PLAYER!!!!

I'd be looking at trying to turn pick 10 into pick 3 from the Suns and then sending pick 3 to the Crows for Lever and pick 18 or whatever they'll have 

Get Lever, retain a pick in the first round of 2017 and 18 

we'd also have the option of offering that pick up for someone like Andrew Gaff 

Edited September 15, 20177 yr by Abe

Why is there an assumption Watts hasn't agreed to be traded?

 

Edit:

I'm not saying any specific trade is agreed to

Edited September 15, 20177 yr by Unleash Hell

2 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Why is there an assumption Watts hasn't agreed to be traded?

 

Edit:

I'm not saying any specific trade is agreed to

Who is assuming that?

7 minutes ago, binman said:

No. No. No

 A million times no. Why on earth would watts agree to a trade to the blues? The crows maybe (and he would slot in beaitifully in that side). But not the blued.

AND WATTS NEEDS TO AGREE TO ANY TRADE AS HE IS A CONTRACTED PLAYER!!!!

Why wouldn't he? I know he has to agree with it, but Watts ain't no Dangerfield or Buddy. His weight in this instance is limited exclusively to that very clause: he has to agree with it,  and it would be a professional courtesy to agree to it considering the 10 years we've put into him. Players rarely say no to say trades. The ramifications are huge, and why would you want to stay at a team that is packaging you? Even Trengove agreed to go to Richmond. 

IMO we're likely going to have to part ways with Watts or Salem to get Lever. And I doubt either of them is going to hold off the negotiations just because they don't want to go to Carlton. Watts might have the right to say no, but at the same time, he doesn't. 

26 minutes ago, praha said:

Why wouldn't he? I know he has to agree with it, but Watts ain't no Dangerfield or Buddy. His weight in this instance is limited exclusively to that very clause: he has to agree with it,  and it would be a professional courtesy to agree to it considering the 10 years we've put into him. Players rarely say no to say trades. The ramifications are huge, and why would you want to stay at a team that is packaging you? Even Trengove agreed to go to Richmond. 

IMO we're likely going to have to part ways with Watts or Salem to get Lever. And I doubt either of them is going to hold off the negotiations just because they don't want to go to Carlton. Watts might have the right to say no, but at the same time, he doesn't. 

The only reason we will part with Watts or Salem will be to get another player like Gaff.

We have the picks to satisfy Adelaide on the Lever trade and as history shows, a player gets to their club of choice more often than not.

I am not adverse to trading Watts or Salem if it is part of a larger deal but not just for Lever.

For what it's worth I'd prefer to trade Watts than Salem due to their respective ages and the need for a large number of quality mids to be successful.

3 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Stringer has not touched the footy for 2 years. 

Yet he has still kicked 68 goals in that period. 

http://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/news/how-teams-can-meet-crows-asking-price-for-jake-lever-afl-adelaide-collingwood-melbourne-western-bulldogs-west-coast-fremantle-magpies-demons-eagles-d/21r8ikvmsgr513qyq3no5q7m0

On my rounds this morning I came across this. Apologies if posted already but sheesh.....

Sportingnews.com is the basically the sports version of Women's Day. 

Edited September 16, 20177 yr by Ethan Tremblay

3 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Stringer has not touched the footy for 2 years. 

Never mind the fact he plays a completely different role.

9 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Lets keep facts as facts. He does not intercept more than any other player and NEVER has. He led the league in intercept marks, not intercepts. 

Dominated? Haha he played a good game in a great team performance, he most certainly did not dominate. 15 touches and a few big spoils which everyone gets excited about when an actual player dominating would have marked them instead of punching to the boundary. 

ADELAIDE v GREATER WESTERN SYDNEY
8 Brad Crouch (Adel)
8 Eddie Betts (Adel)
5 Matt Crouch (Adel)
4 Tom Lynch (Adel)
3 Callan Ward (GWS)
1 Luke Brown (Adel)
1 Richard Douglas (Adel)

Lets talk FACTS if you want, but lets stick to facts.

There's a reasons Adelaides offer isn't close to ours.

I would much rather Stringer given he would cost less financially, significantly less trade wise and has a higher ceiling as a footballer.

Credibility just went from below average to zero.

1 hour ago, binman said:

Who is assuming that?

I am assuming everyone is upset because the assumption on here is Jack Watts is being traded against his will.... 

I am not specifically commenting to anyone @binman - just general conversation

Edited September 16, 20177 yr by Unleash Hell

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Credibility just went from below average to zero.

All of what I said is true, other than my opinion which is I would prefer him so I don't see how that relates to credibility, but please enlighten me.

38 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I am assuming everyone is upset because the assumption on here is Jack Watts is being traded against his will.... 

I am not specifically commenting to anyone @binman - just general conversation

No worries. He might want to leave that is true. But there is no evidence is he is unhappy at the club.

And i maintain that he will have zero interest in going to a club in the bottom half of the ladder. Why would he? He's had more than his fair share of being in crap teams

Edited September 16, 20177 yr by binman

3 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

All of what I said is true, other than my opinion which is I would prefer him so I don't see how that relates to credibility, but please enlighten me.

Here's some facts:

Stringer - All Australian, recent premiership player and under contract.

Lever - Out of contract. 

So why do you think it is that Lever would cost more financially and trade wise on the open market? Usually uncontracted players have less currency than contracted, because the threat of the PSD comes into play.

And every other club would be prepared to pay more for Lever than Stringer, not just us.

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

Here's some facts:

Stringer - All Australian, recent premiership player and under contract.

Lever - Out of contract. 

So why do you think it is that Lever would cost more financially and trade wise on the open market? Usually uncontracted players have less currency than contracted, because the threat of the PSD comes into play.

And every other club would be prepared to pay more for Lever than Stringer, not just us.

Because it has been reported that Stringer will most likely go for a pick between 10 and 20 while Adelaide are going to request 2 first round picks of Lever.

It has also been reported that Stringer would be on around 600-650 while we have offered Lever 800+.

The argument about contracted players is stupid in this case and WB have decided to make Stringer their scapegoat publicly. He is gone for whatever they can get.

The last part is your opinion. Clearly multiple clubs have no interest in Lever.

We already have a Stringer type...

Player Statistics Comparison

Jake Stringer Name Dean Kent Western Bulldogs Team Melbourne Demons Forward Position Forward 89 Career Games 58 Bendigo Pioneers Origin Perth April 25, 1994 Date of Birth February 24, 1994 23yr 4mth Age 23yr 6mth 192cm Height 179cm 92kg Weight 84kg 2012 National Draft Last Drafted In 2012 National Draft Round 1, Pick #5 Last Draft Position Round 3, Pick #48 Western Bulldogs Last Drafted By Melbourne Demons Career Stats for Season Career 89 Games 58 8.1 Kicks Per Game 8.2 4.7 Handballs Per Game 4.9 12.8 Disposals Per Game 13.1 3.2 Marks Per Game 3.2 1.8 Goals Per Game 1.0 1.2 Behinds Per Game 0.6 2.2 Tackles Per Game 2.2 0.1 Hitouts Per Game 0 2.3 Inside 50s Per Game 3.0 0.6 Goal Assists Per Game 0.5 0.6 Frees For Per Game 0.6 0.9 Frees Against Per Game 0.8 6.0 Contested Possessions Per Game 4.4 7.1 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 8.6 8.5 Effective Disposals Per Game 8.8 66.4% Disposal Efficiency % Per Game

37 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Because it has been reported that Stringer will most likely go for a pick between 10 and 20 while Adelaide are going to request 2 first round picks of Lever.

It has also been reported that Stringer would be on around 600-650 while we have offered Lever 800+.

The argument about contracted players is stupid in this case and WB have decided to make Stringer their scapegoat publicly. He is gone for whatever they can get.

The last part is your opinion. Clearly multiple clubs have no interest in Lever.

Just as it is your opinion that Stringer has a higher ceiling.

And I suggest that you look up the definition of "scapegoat". The Dogs are getting rid of him for a reason.