Trade Stagnation

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:27 pm

Seriously worried about our inability to close the Carlisle Deal. It's obvious the Hawthorn option has dried up...Carlisle clearly demanding St Kilda.

So now we have some convoluted deal in the makings involving Port and the Sun's.

For the life of me I can't understand how this stuff drags out so long. It's clear St Kilda won't give us pick 5. They're not going to back off now. So just do this Port/Sun's deal, get pick 10 and let's focus on how we get GWS pick 8....now more of a challenge with Carlton and Adelaide in the mix for the same pick but with better options on offer.

I would be aggressively chasing pick 8 now and throw in Dempsey if necessary to secure the deal.

Let's get the business done now before we end up with nothing

Picks 4, 8 & 10 would be a perfect outcome so make it happen

Post by **boncer34** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:55 pm

A trade will be done.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:49 pm

What's stopping them doing the GWS deal?

Like I said before. f*** the Saints and f*** Carlisle. Would rather let him go through to PSD than satisfy those MoFo's.

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:40 pm

BenDoolan wrote:What's stopping them doing the GWS deal?

Like I said before. f*** the Saints and f*** Carlisle. Would rather let him go through to PSD than satisfy those MoFo's.

Carlton may pip us for the GWS pick

kelvin_sheedy · Post by **kelvin_sheedy** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:46 pm

If we cave into the Carlisle deal then the clubs and managers will be circling every EFC available player starting 2016 and start sowing the seed.

Need to make a stand. Get the GWS thing done and Carlsile can go to Brisbane in the PSD if these pricks that won't to offer a fair price.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:18 pm

BenDoolan wrote:What's stopping them doing the GWS deal?

Both Adelaide and Carlton can offer two draft picks worth more points than our 23 and 25 selections - not sure of the exact totals but from what I understand, the total point value of the traded picks to GWS cannot exceed 200 above the threshold they need to draft their academy players

Our 2 second round picks are only a few points over the threshold and therefore qualify for any trade with GWS for pick 8

I am assuming both Carlton and Adelaide's two picks would exceed the threshold by quite a deal more but not sure if its 200 points more

DC2 · Post by **DC2** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:18 pm

BenDoolan wrote: Like I said before. f*** the Saints and f*** Carlisle. Would rather let him go through to PSD than satisfy those MoFo's.

there seems to be two trains of thought on this. i am in your camp, in that i would rather lose him for nothing and see carlton or brisbane get him than to please those dogs, the saints.

obviously there are those who just wont something in return. i dont agree with letting others get over on you. a clear message must be sent for the future to other clubs. we're not accepting garbage offers and we wont be bent over a barrel, even if that means we get nothing in return.

when we get that rep, clubs will be hesitant to play hardball knowing we wont bend.

Gimps · Post by **Gimps** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:31 pm

Swans now trying to get involved in Carlisle trade. Their 14 to Saints for Saints pick 24, and other picks to get points for academy. We'd then get pick 5. But they reckon we'd have to give up 25 to give Swans enough points.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:42 pm

Gimps wrote:Swans now trying to get involved in Carlisle trade. Their 14 to Saints for Saints pick 24, and other picks to get points for academy. We'd then get pick 5. But they reckon we'd have to give up 25 to give Swans enough points.

Ok so we get Pick 5 for Carlisle and 25

Right now I'd take that

That gives us 4, 5 and 23

Unless of course Carlisle can be talked into going to Hawthorn which seems a real long shot at this stage (Hawks offering around 150K to 200K less per annum)

Gimps · Post by **Gimps** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:44 pm

Still think we're giving overs if we hand over pick 25

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:46 pm

Gimps wrote:Still think we're giving overs if we hand over pick 25

Yep we are - but were also getting better than expected with Pick 5. Carlisle is a pick 10 at best

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:14 pm

Windy_Hill wrote:
Gimps wrote:Still think we're giving overs if we hand over pick 25
Yep we are - but were also getting better than expected with Pick 5. Carlisle is a pick 10 at best

But Dixon is worth pick 5? Please...

s'dreams · Post by **s'dreams** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:00 pm

Hawks looking at restructuring their player payments to make Carsisle happy ... they desperately want him.

Extra leverage for us ...

Can someone remind me again why JAke is being treated like an unrestricted free agent and calls the shots about who when and where?

They did that in US Baseball a decade or so ago - the owners got so jack of it they all sacked their players (during a player strike) and recruited minor leaguers to staff the games ... the fans hardly noticed and the star players became a lot more manageable after that.

Crazyman · Post by **Crazyman** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:04 pm

I been saying for a while that the pendulum has swung too far towards a players wishes...
If a player is not a free agent (restricted or otherwise), then they can ask, but they should have no final say in where they end up...the whole purpose of free agency is you earn the right to choose...

nomolos · Post by **nomolos** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:55 pm

Crazyman wrote:I been saying for a while that the pendulum has swung too far towards a players wishes...
If a player is not a free agent (restricted or otherwise), then they can ask, but they should have no final say in where they end up...the whole purpose of free agency is you earn the right to choose...

I agree. If the player is the one that is asking to be traded then the player should have no say in where the club wants to trade him to.

That player is abandoning the club and club needs to find the best deal for the club...not the player. The player should also be required to be in country and not on holiday to specifically avoid all of this and let his butt monkey manager be deal with it all.

MH_Bomber · Post by **MH_Bomber** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:45 am

We are not hard to deal with in this whole Carlisle fiasco.

St Kilda are not willing to do the fair trade and swap pick 5 for Carlisle. That is the fair and correct deal for all parties. He is a proven 24 key position player. We invested all the development into him and they want him for nicks.

"Tell 'em their dreamin' !"

Do the deal St Kilda or stuff it and he can go to the pre-season draft where he can be picked up by Brisbane.

grassy1 · Post by **grassy1** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:31 am

I agree with Crazy's summation,but further add,that player managers do a lot of driving with many of these players.A lot of these guys mightn't feel so comfortable dealing their old clubs out,but are driven by their manager,who give them bright ideas on what they think they're really worth.

As for Trade week,thought I heard once that someone at AFL House thought it dragged on for too long,over a week,so they were going to cut it back to a few days.I must have been dreaming,because now it drags on for bloody forever!

So wake me up Friday,when all the deals are done.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:06 pm

In American Baseball, players are traded without a say on the club they go to on their existing salary.

The Free Agency system allows them to choose a club and salary. They also have an arbitration system that makes independent rulings on salaries where the club and player are in dispute

We need to look at this.

Post by **boncer34** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:10 am

boncer34 wrote:A trade will be done.

As I was saying lol.

Bombertalk

Trade Stagnation

Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation

Re: Trade Stagnation