Noticed on 360 footy that Jack Watts was nominated as our most likely trade player... so figure I'd ask the question. 

Do we trade Jack Watts? Or not? 

Must be September. Another trade Watts thread....

Yep another year of inconsistent, teasing, weak, brilliant footy by our Jack...

I'd wait. We won't get much for him on current form. If he has a better year in 2018 he'll be worth more at the trade table or we keep him. If he's about the same (likely) then we haven't lost anything.

Edited September 6, 20177 yr by Skin Deeamond
.

Time to go, Jackie boy.

One solid season out of 9.   Sell him to the highest bidder and continue to build the list with real footballers. 

 

Trade for something we need, a player.  Don't trade for a pick.

Can't vote until that option is there.  It's a silly question because you need to know what you're getting.

Depends.  What's on offer?

I'd trade him for a player that makes us better.  I wouldn't just trade him for the sake of it.

Edit: snap @Vogon Poetry

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

Depends.  What's on offer?

I'd trade him for a player that makes us better.  I wouldn't just trade him for the sake of it.

Edit: snap @Vogon Poetry

Would it be better if the op said "do we try to trade Jack Watts"?

Thats the way I read it anyway, because of course we are not going to give him away for nothing, or what we conceive to be zero benefit.

7 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Trade for something we need, a player.  Don't trade for a pick.

Can't vote until that option is there.  It's a silly question because you need to know what you're getting.

 

6 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Depends.  What's on offer?

I'd trade him for a player that makes us better.  I wouldn't just trade him for the sake of it.

Edit: snap @Vogon Poetry

 

I'd trade him for a solid pick that could be used in the Gaff / Lever deals, if required.

Edited September 6, 20177 yr by Petraccattack

9 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Trade for something we need, a player.  Don't trade for a pick.

Can't vote until that option is there.  It's a silly question because you need to know what you're getting.

You tell us what you'd trade him for?

I've every confidence in the FD getting a good deal should it go that way...

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Would it be better if the op said "do we try to trade Jack Watts"?

Thats the way I read it anyway, because of course we are not going to give him away for nothing, or what we conceive to be zero benefit.

I'd listen to offers from other clubs.  I'm not sure whether clubs actively *try* to trade their own players out unless they have salary cap / behavioural / other off field related issues.  To me that is a concept that exists in supporters minds only, and usually this question comes from a place of emotion rather than pragmatism.  

Not trying to be smart, I do just genuinely think it's a naff question.  Perhaps the right question is, what would you accept in exchange for Jack Watts?

An enigma if ever I saw one.

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

I'd listen to offers from other clubs.  I'm not sure whether clubs actively *try* to trade their own players out unless they have salary cap / behavioural / other off field related issues.  To me that is a concept that exists in supporters minds only, and usually this question comes from a place of emotion rather than pragmatism.  

Not trying to be smart, I do just genuinely think it's a naff question.  Perhaps the right question is, what would you accept in exchange for Jack Watts?

With respect Nash, the idea that clubs only "try" to trade out players based on those issues is ridiculous.

Clubs trade out players every year to attempt to improve their list. Sometimes those traded players include guys who the trading club would prefer to keep under normal circumstances, and who do not go by any of the issues you quote.

 

I suspect what many here believe Watts is worth would be grossly exaggerating his market value, but I am simply tiring of the false dawns, and half hearted physical efforts, and would like to see us get something that would improve our list if it arises this trade season.

Hopefully Adelaide or Gold Coast show some interest as I think we will get a reasonable trade in return. But yes its time to move him on.

The Trade or keep conversation is depending on whats on offer.  I couldn't see any club giving up a top 30 pick for Jack Watts, if someone was prepared to offer a pick 18-30 you would consider but outside that you keep him.  Or as stated he is used to get a player that will make us better.

He is a contracted player and probably on  a pretty good contract at that. He would need to agree to be traded. Of course the club could encourage him to want to leave by say threatening VFL footy but there is no surer way to kill a culture. Look at what is happening with Mayne at the Pies. similar money and similar contract length i suspect.  

No Way...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10 minutes ago, faultydet said:

With respect Nash, the idea that clubs only "try" to trade out players based on those issues is ridiculous.

Clubs trade out players every year to attempt to improve their list. Sometimes those traded players include guys who the trading club would prefer to keep under normal circumstances, and who do not go by any of the issues you quote.

 

I suspect what many here believe Watts is worth would be grossly exaggerating his market value, but I am simply tiring of the false dawns, and half hearted physical efforts, and would like to see us get something that would improve our list if it arises this trade season.

It's just not how I expect the conversation to start.

1: "Trying" to trade a player: "hey other club, Jack Watts is up for sale, whattaya got?"

2: Using as part of a target: "hey other club, we're interested in [player/draft pick], what will it take? Oh, you're interested in Watts? Let us negotiate..."

3: Listening to other clubs: "hey other club,   you're interested in Watts? Okay, here is our price..."

I can see 2 and 3 happening. I can't see 1 happening (unless for other reasons as mentioned) but that is what the proposal is if the other side of the transaction isn't discussed.

21 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

You tell us what you'd trade him for?

I've every confidence in the FD getting a good deal should it go that way...

I'd trade him for something we need.  If he was in some way packaged in the Lever or Gaff scenario I'd do it in a heartbeat because we'd be better off.

I'd not trade him for simply  (say) "pick 25" and take that pick to the draft.

For all Watts has his weaknesses and frustrates he also has his strengths, and they are significant.  You may get something with a pick or you may not.  It would most likely take years to mature.  I don't believe we are at the stage of trading out our experienced and good players (which Watts is) to develop talent down the line.  At some stage you move beyond development and have a go. 

As Goodwin says, we are now out of our bubble and there is expectation around the Club.  Trading Watts for something that may be good in 4 years doesn't do it for me.

If Watts does go there will be a part of me that is very disappointed.

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

It's just not how I expect the conversation to start.

1: "Trying" to trade a player: "hey other club, Jack Watts is up for sale, whattaya got?"

2: Using as part of a target: "hey other club, we're interested in [player/draft pick], what will it take? Oh, you're interested in Watts? Let us negotiate..."

3: Listening to other clubs: "hey other club,   you're interested in Watts? Okay, here is our price..."

I can see 2 and 3 happening. I can't see 1 happening (unless for other reasons as mentioned) but that is what the proposal is if the other side of the transaction isn't discussed.

Nash, clubs are free to use whatever approach they like in order to get a good deal for themselves.

Simple sales technique to enter trade period with 1: in mind, but packaging it as 2 or 3

The words used dont matter, only the aim, and end result.

So, trade our most productive ball user dead eye kick for goal, and get ?????

In a team of football ball Butchers gee doesn't make a lot of sense!?

Keep him and play him out of the goal square. Trade in better users of the ball that can deliver it to him on the lead lace out so he can kick us 3 goals a game for the rest of his career. Not to mention his ability to create scoring opportunities for others with his evasiveness in tight and pin point footskills. Keep him around and play to his strength, goals and score assists.

I thought Goody's postmortem observation that we started to fall away as a team from Round 15 is interesting as it also coincided with Jacks loss of form and him being dropped to the VFL...

How much can a team trust and rely on a player who went missing in one of the most crucial periods for the MFC in the last 5 years?

31 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I'd trade him for something we need.  If he was in some way packaged in the Lever or Gaff scenario I'd do it in a heartbeat because we'd be better off.

Agree with that.  Otherwise hang on to him.

Up until his injury he was having a very good year - on top of a great 2016.  Teasing is the right word for it.

A fit and firing Watts makes us a four goal better team; when he's 'off', he's a liability.

 

I'm conflicted, as I think many supporters are.  If success comes, I'd love to see him there as a key part to it.  However if the offer is very good... perhaps both parties could benefit from the change.