Nasher

Barracking for them as a youth is an especially flimsy reason when he barracked for Adelaide as a youth. I’ve said previously that I thought this move was 50/50 go home/go to Freo, who have been courting him since he came on the scene. I would guess (and it is only a guess) he doesn’t want West Coast because they haven’t spent the last 6 years trying to lure him. Or at least, not to the same extent.

I took it as a question rather than an accusation.

What would we have accomplished in this scenario?

Yes, of course his agent is going to steer him towards the money, that’s how the manager’s living is derived. Gaff is a grown adult though and can make his own choice. I recently took the lower of two offers on a property I sold because I preferred the terms, in spite of the estate agent’s push to take the larger offer.

I would love to believe we could engineer a trade with West Coast that would bring Gaff, but it seems like too many unlikely events occurring: - Hogan wanting to go to West Coast. This is part go home, part the fact that Freo have been in his ear since he was 17. West Coast don’t have a 6 year old relationship with him. - Gaff being party to this. He’s told North that if he leaves, it’s to them. He’s not going to backflip for no good reason. - West Coast being able to come up with enough extras to seal the deal. Gaff is the equivalent of one of those early first rounders Freo have - where’s the other one going to come from? - If not Gaff and instead they try to use their Gaff compo to land some early pics, it would take a monumental trading effort to get in to the early top 10 x2. That’s an even more difficult proposition for them. I like the posturing though. If nothing else it ensures Freo are held accountable.

Only the biggest of optimists haven’t let this dream go now though.

If it’s take pick 75 or Kent goes to the draft; I take 75. Both options amount to nothing, however one tells the footy world we’re big tough chest thumpers at the trade table, the other says we do the right thing by our players. I understand why people want us not to be seen as pushovers, but I think it’s misguided. I think not delivering the trade does us more reputational harm than any good it does. If St Kilda lowball us, they have identified themselves as poor traders and this will harm their future business. The clubs all have rivals they like dealing with and clubs they avoid. I know which club I want to be. It all comes down to Kent’s attitude about it. As @Fifty-5 said, if he gets in cahoots with St Kilda and says he’ll walk, we’re stuffed and he can have fun getting booed every time he play us. If he insists they deal fairly, we regain some power and we negotiate a fair outcome. There’s no point trying to throw our weight around if he throws us under the bus though.

Microcosm of society.

In addition to Lever we got back pick 35 (Harrison Petty) and our fourth round this year is upgraded to a third rounder, that significantly increases the chances of picking up an AFL grade player, or could be on traded this year. We got a bona-fide, known quantity star key defender, and a developing key defender out of those draft picks. It really surprises me that when people are asked which is worth more out of a $1m house or a Tattslotto ticket, people would choose the Tatts.

And achieve what? If he goes to the draft, he gets to St Kilda and we get nothing. We can go all Essendon and thump our chest and make big statements about not being push overs, but all that does is make us look like flogs and wastes time. They hold all the aces. Cut our losses and move on.

No need to resort to such tricks. It’s clearly Collar-da-jash-nidge. Easy.

He names terms if he goes to the draft, and his terms will be 3 years and the Saints $$$ offer. Pretty confident there'd only be one club interested.

Who cares. Was a delisting candidate anyway IMO, I'm still in shock from what they've offered him. Just sign it and move on to the actual business.

Given that we're already moving a squillion players on, I see no harm in one final year to pull the finger out. If he can recapture his prior form it will be worth it, if not, it will come at the expense of about draft pick 150 with our current vacancy list.

Without meaning to be too cynical, this sounds exactly like Paul Johnson’s bio when we picked him up from West Coast. Not saying the result will be the same, just pointing out that annointing him the solution to both our ruck problem *and* third tall forward problem (as belzebub did in reply) is setting the bar very high. If he was that good he’d be in the Norf ones and not getting traded. There is risk involved and the trade, and our expectations, should be weighted accordingly. I’d still be looking at rucks in the draft, even if we get Preuss. (Edit: forgot about Bradtke on the rookie list, so maybe that’s enough project rucks on the list.)

I can’t see how or why we would take a poor deal, on the assumption that he has a preference to go but isn’t hell bent on it, which is how it’s being described.

Possibly outcomes, in descending order of likelihood: 1) We get the deal done for fair trade 2) we can’t get the deal done, Hogan plays for us next year and we all have another crack at the end of next season 3) we can’t get the deal done, Hogan plays for us next year and walks at the end of the year I honestly can’t see 3) happening. He’s had multiple opportunities to shaft the club in his time here and he never has. I believe the club will get the job done, but I equally believe Hogan won’t screw us over if we negotiate in good faith. Going to the draft is not a threat we should concern ourselves with, and hopefully that’s a message Jesse’s manager gives to Freo.

Depth smepth. The only player we lose that has any bearing on anything is Hogan, and I’m very optimistic we’ll come out in front on that one. Our 2019 list will look better than our 2018 list.

Surely most supporters don't give a rat's arse what the players are paid. I honestly do not know why anyone gets hung up on that. It's almost like people are more interested in the accounting than they are the footy. Get the player. Let the bean counters worry about how to line the dollars up.

Nah. We have to start giving young players some benefit of the doubt. My starting position is always that players want to stay until proven otherwise, because most players do. He’s a good kid, with a competitive heart and smart head. He will want to make his own history, despite his family being Collingwood royalty.

This reads exactly how I think I should feel - disappointed but circumspect. Jesse has been our symbol of hope and has blossomed in to a fantastic player. For some reason though I’m just feeling excited by the opportunity. As @ProDeeand others have said, there’s an opportunity for us to use this to actually improve the list further. It also feels like a weight off - the constant speculation over his future has been pretty wearing. I hope flog supporters don’t boo or abuse him when he lines up for Freo for the first time. He stuck fat through those tough times despite his incredibly tough personal circumstances, and goes when it hurts us far less. For those who like to wail about loyalty, he’s shown it in spades. He goes now because the club has changed its message from “we can’t live without you” to “you can explore opportunities”. He has waited until the expectations of saving the day have been lifted. He’s still a favourite in my eyes.

If he leaves this year it will be with be by mutual agreement. It’s possible for players to exit the club, or stay, without them “doing a Scully” or “doing a Jones”. If a deal is struck that suits both parties, you could argue he’s demonstrated loyalty by facilitating the trade.

They always pronounced Illja Grgic “Griggitch” but Brent “Gergitch” - I could never work out if they were actually meant to be pronounced differently or if dumb commentators were dumb.

The old “our team sucks so let’s fix it by filling up our list with every other club’s rejects” strategy. I’ve seen a few clubs attempt this (Pagan era Carlton, Voss era Brisbane, Neeld era Melbourne) and I’ve never seen any result other than complete disaster. Garlett’s more likely to go to a club that can afford a punt I reckon. I think it’s more likely that his career is over.

I think the sticking point would be the three years. If I’m Josh Mahoney and I’ve got Dean Kent in the room saying he’s got St Kilda offering three, I’m saying “no worries, thanks for everything, we’ll get the trade done for you”.