2 hours ago, praha said:

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. 

A professional courtesy to agree to a trade that you are not keen on? You're kidding aren't you. He doesn't owe us anything. He is professional footballer. Would you leave your job and go to another workplace, one you didn't like and for no more pay as 'professional courtesy'? 

Players rarely say no trades? Give some examples where a contracted player who is not keen to leave the club agrees to a trade? It is an entirely different scenario for out of contract players. They are much more likely to go to clubs they are not keen on going to

To be honest i can't recall if Trengrove was still under contract when we were going to trade him to Richmond. If he was then it is  a good example actually. But not of the point you are making. Contracted players leave for more opportunity and clubs trade such players to get a good outcome for them.

If contracted he could have said no to a trade but in his case there were good reason to go. The tigers are a strong side who were playing finals and we were the opposite. He was struggling to get senior time at the dees, the writing was on the wall in terms of how the club saw his future (and no doubt this was made clear to) and they needed inside mids and wanted him. We were going to get pick 10 for that deal (and use it for Lever). A win win win. 

Watts on the other hand is very unlikely to play  much VFL footy at the dees. The only reason he would is because of insufficient application. If he was traded and showed insufficient application at his new club he would also be playing in the magoos. So where's the advantage for him in moving clubs if it is not for more opportunity at senior level?

Edited September 16, 20177 yr by binman

As my great'a poppa used to say, back in the old'a country used to say'a. You cann'a use string'a or you can use a lev'a, but not both'a, because it don't work'a..........

22 minutes ago, binman said:

A professional courtesy to agree to a trade ...

Binman - totally in awe of your Sisyphus-like persistence in trying to explain this stuff.

Sadly, just like Sisyphus, you just might have to go on pushing it uphill forever

26 minutes ago, mo64 said:

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.

If you want to do semantics. You still haven't explained your use of 'credibility'?

And check 'their' - clearly he is a scapegoat for the bulldogs failed season, or did he single handedly derail it? 

43 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

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

You have noted they're 13 cms and 8 kilos in size difference yeah?

1 minute ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

You have noted they're 13 cms and 8 kilos in size difference yeah?

It's barely worthy of a reply. There's an 80% difference in goals per game.

18 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

If you want to do semantics. You still haven't explained your use of 'credibility'?

And check 'their' - clearly he is a scapegoat for the bulldogs failed season, or did he single handedly derail it? 

What the hell are you talking about? For whatever reason, his future at the club is untenable. That doesn't mean that the Dogs believe that he was the sole reason for the failed season. You seem to forget that he was also dropped from the side in 2016.

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

What the hell are you talking about? For whatever reason, his future at the club is untenable. That doesn't mean that the Dogs believe that he was the sole reason for the failed season. You seem to forget that he was also dropped from the side in 2016.

You were questioning my use of scapegoat, anyway lets get back to football.

I have not forgotten that he had a poor period in 2016, he was poor in the back half of the season as he was for much of this season.

What I do remember is him standing up in the last quarter of the grand final and being a major reason the bulldogs broke away from Sydney. 

I can understand why people don't want him and despite my stance on Lever, I do want him, just at the right price.

 

11 hours ago, 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. 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.

If the above is true, we must be targeting someone else this year with our 2018 pick.

On 16/09/2017 at 4:08 AM, 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/

If true, the pick 2 for pick 9 and Tyson will have turned out to be a very bad trade.

Sheedy said to me at the time (at the Light Brigade Hotel in Sydney following a corporate lunch in the pres-season prior to Kelly's and Salem's first season) that it was a bad trade as Kelly was going to be an absolute gun. He didn't really rate Tyson and he said GWS couldn't believe its luck to have landed Kelly.

I towed the company line and said we needed to build our midfield and we needed two mids rather than one etc blah blah blah.

He just laughed and said 'just watch Kelly - you'll see'. If we let Salem go, it seems Sheedy was right. I really hope he's not on the trade table.

 

12 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

 If we let Salem go, it seems Sheedy was right. I really hope he's not on the trade table.

 

Ron, it depends what we get for him.

23 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

If true, the pick 2 for pick 9 and Tyson will have turned out to be a very bad trade.

Sheedy said to me at the time (at the Light Brigade Hotel in Sydney following a corporate lunch in the pres-season prior to Kelly's and Salem's first season) that it was a bad trade as Kelly was going to be an absolute gun. He didn't really rate Tyson and he said GWS couldn't believe its luck to have landed Kelly.

I towed the company line and said we needed to build our midfield and we needed two mids rather than one etc blah blah blah.

He just laughed and said 'just watch Kelly - you'll see'. If we let Salem go, it seems Sheedy was right. I really hope he's not on the trade table.

 

I doubt that Salem is up for trade, or rather being pushed for trade.

If we flip Salem for something better - it improves that trade... 

And if you said to me that I either get Tyson, Salem, and Hunt or Kelly and Gardiner - I would have taken the former. Now that may change as the careers of these 5 players move and change but Tyson was required in Roos' first year and we didn't make that deal in a vacuum; we had a terrible list and if we needed talent.

RPFC, aren't you forgetting we also gave away Pick 20 in this deal. 

Even now only the diehard Dees supporters are defending this trade.

Tyson, slow & one sided. Salem lacks intensity, lacks leg speed and I'm not sure about his desire to build a midfield type engine, just a neat half back flanker. 

Roos with his one premiership by less than a kick, despite all the advantages enjoyed by the Swans is not always right. 

21 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

RPFC, aren't you forgetting we also gave away Pick 20 in this deal. 

Even now only the diehard Dees supporters are defending this trade.

Tyson, slow & one sided. Salem lacks intensity, lacks leg speed and I'm not sure about his desire to build a midfield type engine, just a neat half back flanker. 

Roos with his one premiership by less than a kick, despite all the advantages enjoyed by the Swans is not always right. 

This is a very poor post, but each to their own. 

Tyson is a ball magnet, who needs to improve his kicking/decision making and if he does he'll be A grade.

Salem doesn't lack intensity. He goes when he needs to, is a beautiful kick and doesn't lack leg speed either (ie. he's not what I'd call "slow").

You have these guys and add the Hunt's, Hibberd's and another pacey outside mid (Whitfield or Kelly types) and you have just about the complete midfield. 

If you want to sit there and slash your wrists, fine, but to say only diehard Dees supporters are defending the trade is a load of rubbish.

Ridiculous comment, you won't find one football person outside of the MFC family claiming that Melbourne won this trade. 

The best we'll get is that "whilst it doesn't look good now, it was deal that PERHAPS the Dees had to do at the time due to their pathetic situation. 

If you don't believe that we wouldn't have made finals this year with Kelly or Bontimpelli at the Dees instead of Tyson & Salem, then you have no idea. 

The facts are we could've taken Kelly or Bont with Pick 2 and Hunt with Pick 20. 

If you say Hunt was a stretch at 20, then do what other Clubs have done and turn 20 into 30 & 48 so you get your speculative pick because you know he'll be there. 

Your defense of Tyson will look silly when Maynard pushes him to Casey next year and Salem's lack of intensity and fierce desire has him at Casey with him. 

9 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

Ridiculous comment, you won't find one football person outside of the MFC family claiming that Melbourne won this trade. 

The best we'll get is that "whilst it doesn't look good now, it was deal that PERHAPS the Dees had to do at the time due to their pathetic situation. 

If you don't believe that we wouldn't have made finals this year with Kelly or Bontimpelli at the Dees instead of Tyson & Salem, then you have no idea. 

The facts are we could've taken Kelly or Bont with Pick 2 and Hunt with Pick 20. 

If you say Hunt was a stretch at 20, then do what other Clubs have done and turn 20 into 30 & 48 so you get your speculative pick because you know he'll be there. 

Your defense of Tyson will look silly when Maynard pushes him to Casey next year and Salem's lack of intensity and fierce desire has him at Casey with him. 

The problem with this theory is that we've stated we would have taken Jack billings 

 

so billings and Gardiner vs Tyson/Salem/hunt 

 

we win I believe because hunt is in the best 22 under 22, Tyson has had 2 top 5 best and fairest finishes in three counts so far and Salem has shown his promise and talent but struggled with injuries. It's pointless including Kelly because as Paul Roos himself has said we wouldn't have taken him. 

39 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

RPFC, aren't you forgetting we also gave away Pick 20 in this deal. 

Even now only the diehard Dees supporters are defending this trade.

Tyson, slow & one sided. Salem lacks intensity, lacks leg speed and I'm not sure about his desire to build a midfield type engine, just a neat half back flanker. 

Roos with his one premiership by less than a kick, despite all the advantages enjoyed by the Swans is not always right. 

I mentioned Gardiner in the post. Plays for the Lions and is a solid tall in the backline. 

I maintain that I would prefer the last 4 years of Tyson, plus Salem's elite skills and upside, plus Hunt's run and explosive pace to The Excelllent Josh Kelly and The serviceable Darcy Gardiner.

But continue the handwringing if it makes you feel better talking to your mates who support other clubs and only look at the surface of trades and player movements.

On the Sunday footy show, Barrett supremely confident we'll get Lever but it's going to cost us big time and we're not just talking salary cap.

A lot of the value in the Tyson was realised in the first year. We needed to get off the ground, quickly, and it's unlikely any draftee would have helped in that regard.

1 hour ago, Abe said:

The problem with this theory is that we've stated we would have taken Jack billings 

 

so billings and Gardiner vs Tyson/Salem/hunt 

 

we win I believe because hunt is in the best 22 under 22, Tyson has had 2 top 5 best and fairest finishes in three counts so far and Salem has shown his promise and talent but struggled with injuries. It's pointless including Kelly because as Paul Roos himself has said we wouldn't have taken him. 

Have also heard that elsewhere. Frightening to contemplate sitting here with Billings watching Kelly do what Kelly's doing. Would have been such an MFC decision.  Doesn't bare thinking about. And at the same time the rest of the footy world was absolutely clear it should have been Kelly and were right. 

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

On the Sunday footy show, Barrett supremely confident we'll get Lever but it's going to cost us big time and we're not just talking salary cap.

I don't see why sides like Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn can just trade picks for gun players but then we have to give up a lot more?

F' em. We offer a first and 2nd round pick and that's it. 

Dom Tyson was possibly our best player for a chunk of 4-5 games after he came back from injury. He accumulated 30 odd possessions in successive games and used the ball effectively. He is a gun!

Salem has had injuries this year and has been underdone but he is a very competitive footballer. Jayden Hunt was an inspired choice at the draft table.

Josh Kelly may not look so good when he is not surrounded by GWS young stars, in another team.

2 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I don't see why sides like Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn can just trade picks for gun players but then we have to give up a lot more?

F' em. We offer a first and 2nd round pick and that's it. 

Do you mean like Collingwood with Treloar and Hawthorn with O'Meara?  I don't envy those deals.

Edited September 17, 20177 yr by Fifty-5

16 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Do you mean like Collingwood with Treloar and Hawthorn with O'Meara?  I don't envy those deals.

Hawthorn with Mitchell. Geelong with Dangerfield. At least Collingwood didn't have to give up a decent player. Picks are all speculative. 

I'm backing our recruiters in to make the right calls though. They've had a great track record the last 2-3 years.