Bombertalk

Sounds more and more like its down to us and Richmond. Question is what do we give up for him? I know pick 8 has been thrown up but I'd honestly expect something more then Mundy for pick 8, maybe Mundy+ 2nd Round for pick 8? Other thing I'm hearing a lot is that Freo are sniffing around for a tall backman and in Essendons case they are looking at Hooker. Thoughts on that?

As much as i rate Hooker, we have talls, we need units like Mundy. As per the Davey - Jones trade, we must be willing to give something up so we can lock these trades away quickly.

Wouldnt mind giving Hooker away... IF we know for sure that Daniher is going to make it as a player....

Hooker will find it hard to get in the side next year with Fletch, Hurley, Pears and Hardingham all available.

Hooker and our 2nd pick to the Dockers for Mundy and their 3rd pick...??

According to this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/d ... 5922948353

he is waiting until after the brownlow.

fair enough too. no doubt he has got a meeting booked with Essendon, Richmond and maybe a gold coast rep will head down there to say hi as well.

he is on 550K a year at the dockers. man i cannot believe the dough footballers get paid. he obviously wants to move for 600K.

(i wish i could ask for 50K payrises.....oh how sweet that would be).

Mundy is easily worth Pick #8 on his own...talk of him and another pick for Pick #8 are probably the reason that we never seem to get good players from other clubs....for some bizarre reason, we seem to value our picks/players higher than players that we want

Spot on Swoods. We need to let everyone know we are fair dinkum about trading from the outset so the other teams are willing to give us the time.

Sismis wrote:As much as i rate Hooker, we have talls, we need units like Mundy. As per the Davey - Jones trade, we must be willing to give something up so we can lock these trades away quickly.

100% Agree

With Tarrant leaving Freeo a three way trade involving Hooker & a second round pick together with a third club's second round pick might be a good option...

Dawks may give up the GC Concession for Tarrant too...

Whatever it takes do it!

Yep, Hooker is tradeable, regardless of how Daniher turns out.

I still think we should look getting Palmer as well, if possible.

f*** me...you lot are amazing...Hooker is 196cm and around 100kg and only 20-21...he is only going to get better as OUR chb and you want to give him away.

swoodley wrote:f*** me...you lot are amazing...Hooker is 196cm and around 100kg and only 20-21...he is only going to get better as OUR chb and you want to give him away.

Because right now, 196cm tall defenders are not going to win us a flag

We have to build up a mid field and that will mean trading in areas in which we have some fat - tall KPP's of medium to unknow quality is where we have fat.

I would trade Hooker for Mundy in a fricking heartbeat

i think pick 8 would secure mundy, no player would need to be involved.

Windy_Hill wrote:

swoodley wrote:f*** me...you lot are amazing...Hooker is 196cm and around 100kg and only 20-21...he is only going to get better as OUR chb and you want to give him away.

Because right now, 196cm tall defenders are not going to win us a flag

We have to build up a mid field and that will mean trading in areas in which we have some fat - tall KPP's of medium to unknow quality is where we have fat.

I would trade Hooker for Mundy in a fricking heartbeat

This, plus we have Hurley and Pears, who are better.

Windy_Hill wrote:

swoodley wrote:f*** me...you lot are amazing...Hooker is 196cm and around 100kg and only 20-21...he is only going to get better as OUR chb and you want to give him away.

Because right now, 196cm tall defenders are not going to win us a flag

We have to build up a mid field and that will mean trading in areas in which we have some fat - tall KPP's of medium to unknow quality is where we have fat.

I would trade Hooker for Mundy in a fricking heartbeat

I think this is spot on.

If you look at the question *Should we trade Cale Hooker?" in isolation, then it is a laughable idea.
But you have to look at every trade based on what you're going to get out if it, and Hooker for Mundy would seem reasonable. Would have to try our hardest to make it Mundy for a pick or someone like Hardingham instead though before we said goodbye to Cale.

hardingham looks alot better than cale in his few senior games.

id much rather keep kyle.

BomberinJapan wrote:

Windy_Hill wrote:

swoodley wrote:f*** me...you lot are amazing...Hooker is 196cm and around 100kg and only 20-21...he is only going to get better as OUR chb and you want to give him away.

Because right now, 196cm tall defenders are not going to win us a flag

We have to build up a mid field and that will mean trading in areas in which we have some fat - tall KPP's of medium to unknow quality is where we have fat.

I would trade Hooker for Mundy in a fricking heartbeat

I think this is spot on.

If you look at the question *Should we trade Cale Hooker?" in isolation, then it is a laughable idea.
But you have to look at every trade based on what you're going to get out if it, and Hooker for Mundy would seem reasonable. Would have to try our hardest to make it Mundy for a pick or someone like Hardingham instead though before we said goodbye to Cale.

Not even Freo would accept a straight Swap for Mundy, not with Gold Coast lurking with high draft picks to give away. I would imagine that we would need to offer up Cale plus another player and/or draft pick. There is a reason why Mundy is being offer 600K and Hooker is content to pocket his $150K a year

Ummm ... before we alk of trading Hooker to Freo ... we have to ask what does Freo need?

From the Freo chatrooms ... they seem to be keen on a readymade rebounding defender to replace Tarrant or a marking forward.

Sorry ... but Hooker isn't either of these.

Dyson anyone?

s'd

s'dreams wrote:Ummm ... before we alk of trading Hooker to Freo ... we have to ask what does Freo need?

From the Freo chatrooms ... they seem to be keen on a readymade rebounding defender to replace Tarrant or a marking forward.

Sorry ... but Hooker isn't either of these.

Dyson anyone?

s'd

lol surely even they're not that retarded these days.
Dyson is ready made to do what...?

Hell, if you're right though, would approve that deal in a heartbeat.

BomberinJapan wrote:

s'dreams wrote:Ummm ... before we alk of trading Hooker to Freo ... we have to ask what does Freo need?

From the Freo chatrooms ... they seem to be keen on a readymade rebounding defender to replace Tarrant or a marking forward.

Sorry ... but Hooker isn't either of these.

Dyson anyone?

s'd

lol surely even they're not that retarded these days.
Dyson is ready made to do what...?

Hell, if you're right though, would approve that deal in a heartbeat.

Yeah well ... in terms of rebounding half backs we are a bit thin... I'd put Dempsy off the table... that leaves Atkinson (not enough cachet to swing the deal), Houli (just won't work - family), and ... now I'm struggling ... Stanton?

Maybe I'd offer Davey.

s'd