Prediction 2019 "Hypothetical Trade, FA, random player you wish we could get" thread..

[Judd2Sewell]

We were better as a team, our list may have had an overall reduction in quality but the ability work as a team improved. We were better in 2014 and 2015.

And we would have been better again with Franklin playing in the right role. The onus was on Clarko to find the right balance, which he did in 2013.

There is just no way a team would be worse for having players like Franklin or Dangerfield in it, if the coach finds the right role.

 

[KermitJagger]

And we would have been better again with Franklin playing in the right role. The onus was on Clarko to find the right balance, which he did in 2013.

There is just no way a team would be worse for having players like Franklin or Dangerfield in it, if the coach finds the right role.

Yet again, missing the point. The list is worse, the team is better. How do you not understand that? Role aside, do you think it would be possible to take a bloke like Dangerfield or Buddy and say "Oh just play on the forward flank, it's better for the team"?

Doesn't work that way. There are not many players of that caliber aren't going to play a self sacrificial role and compromise their game or earning capacity for the sake of the team.

 

[Timo pez]

We are more likely to win with Gunston (fit) and in the team than with 2MP. Regardless of whether you think the FA/trade in guns route is going to work that seems to be the direction we have taken. That's trading in guns, not trading them out.

Yeh, of course. It would need to be 2MP (who i dont rate that much) and a good pick, such as a top 15 that would allow us to upgrade on Gunston in a seperate deal, before i would seriously consider doing that

 

[kazzooka]

Cegs is a free agent so we can’t trade him and from all the talk I’ve heard GWS Wong be looking to add any mediocre free agents so they don’t impact the compo their likely to get from losing Coniglio as a free agent. I think any Hawk fan knows how good Cegs could / would be for them.

Ryder or Goldstien are good chances to end up at GWS i think

 

[Iceman!]

This shit is laughable, I am not in the trade Gunston camp but could be persuaded I suppose with a godfather type trade.

2MP is not at all that... Not even close

He is yet to prove he is anything other than a solid player at best. He is tall and a reasonable set shot but that is it at the moment.

 

[Hawkboy62]

All these hypothetical trades are reliant on the traded player being willing to go to Gold Coast. I don't think any of our established players with currency would be rushing to go there, with the possible exception of Silk, who might be tempted at a 2 plus 2 deal. Would give him plenty of time to reach the 400 game mark, without having to play every game.

If we re-signed Silk we could trade him to Gold Coast with 2MP involved. Provided King stays healthy and is not poached 2MP is probably not best 22, so is expendable. I think that Silk would be an excellent pick up for the Suns, and help them both on field, and with player retention

 

[Kinghts 24]

Given we're in the land of 'hypotheticals'......

There's a scenario where Coniglio goes to Carlton (or stays put) and Hill lands at the Saints.

What we do know is that we'll bring in Patton and Maginness and then....

I get a sense that it will unfold like last year when we were all punting on Lynch (insert Cogs) or Shiel (insert Hill) and they land elsewhere, and then from nowhere came Wingard and Scully.

Will be very interesting to see who pops up (Wingard stye) that the Hawks chase as a 'Plan B' based on missing Coniglio and Hill.

In the above scenario, i'd be very happy to go hard at this year's draft and try and find a way to Anderson or Rowell. The 2004 draft of 3 x first rounders would be a good outcome IMO.

Coniglio goes to Carlton and Hill lands at the Saints.

Had this firmed up to me by a Club recruiter over the weekend.

So i shifted the post from 'Hypothetical' thread to the 'Trade / FA' thread.

And got banned and deleted from the 'Trade / FA' thread.....

Ahhh BigFooty.com, don't ever change!

 

[KermitJagger]

Coniglio goes to Carlton and Hill lands at the Saints.

Had this firmed up to me by a Club recruiter over the weekend.

So i shifted the post from 'Hypothetical' thread to the 'Trade / FA' thread.

And got banned and deleted from the 'Trade / FA' thread.....

Ahhh BigFooty.com, don't ever change!

It's still a hypothetical trade though?

 

[Kinghts 24]

It's still a hypothetical trade though?

Yeah I guess until it's done, you're right.

But then again that's the case with every single discussion on any player at this time of year.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Adelaide were better without Dangerfield, the same as we became a better side without Buddy. I will argue to the death with anyone that says otherwise. Reliance on a player exposes inherent weaknesses and uneven contribution. It cultivates a dependence on those players to lift you when you need to be lifted.

That logic doesn't apply to Gunston as he cultivates nowhere near the same reliance as a player as both Buddy and Dangerfield did for their respective sides.

The difference between "Adelaide played better after Dangerfield left" and "Adelaide played better because Dangerfield left" is pretty significant. Should Hawthorn ask Tom Mitchell to leave, as that's the best way to make sure the cont

You might feel certain in your opinions, but if you're suggesting that Hawthorn couldn't have won 3 in a row with Lance Franklin in our team then it's silly and I'm not discussing it.

Coniglio goes to Carlton and Hill lands at the Saints.

Had this firmed up to me by a Club recruiter over the weekend.

Did that recruiter also confirm who would be coaching those two clubs next year?

There’s simply no way any player would agree to a deal at a club without knowing for sure who would coach them. I’m not ruling those clubs out, but this stuff is basic. There is no way those deals have been accepted.

 

[Kinghts 24]

The difference between "Adelaide played better after Dangerfield left" and "Adelaide played better because Dangerfield left" is pretty significant. Should Hawthorn ask Tom Mitchell to leave, as that's the best way to make sure the cont

You might feel certain in your opinions, but if you're suggesting that Hawthorn couldn't have won 3 in a row with Lance Franklin in our team then it's silly and I'm not discussing it.

Did that recruiter also confirm who would be coaching those two clubs next year?

There’s simply no way any player would agree to a deal at a club without knowing for sure who would coach them. I’m not ruling those clubs out, but this stuff is basic. There is no way those deals have been accepted.

Guess we'll see. Was enough to get me banned from the Trade / FA thread.

 

[beta_condition]

Coniglio goes to Carlton and Hill lands at the Saints.

Had this firmed up to me by a Club recruiter over the weekend.

So i shifted the post from 'Hypothetical' thread to the 'Trade / FA' thread.

And got banned and deleted from the 'Trade / FA' thread.....

Ahhh BigFooty.com, don't ever change!

I'm gonna call bullshit.

 

[Pessimistic]

Shiel was supposed to come to us and seemed to be switched with scully at the knock

We got Wingard and scully and lots of us are pretty happy with that.

If theres no Cogs, whos the wingard option?


Also, up forward, wheres the 2020 version of jarrad waite 2015? In that the general?
Waite played 23 games for north and kicked 40 odd with 130 marks. Equalled his best year and shared the fwd line with a young colt

Is it josh jenkins? Add scott thompson and really watch the too old too slow melts

 

[SuperSic]

This is my ideal and imo realistic trade scenario for Hawthorn this year (out ----> in):

Coniglio as FA

2019 4th ----> Patton

2019 1st ----> Alex Keath + 2019 3rd (Adelaide)

Future 2nd ----> Karl Amon

Isaac Smith ----> Future 2nd (Bulldogs)

We then have enough draft currency to match a bid for Maginness this year and Downie next year, as well as holding a full set of draft picks in 2020 for flexibility.

So overall we end up with
In: Coniglio, Patton, Keath, Amon, 2019 3rd, future 2nd
Out: Smith, 2019 1st, 2019 4th, future 2nd

Suddenly the Impey role is covered for next year until he returns and then once he is back we have someone to fill the Poppy void. Our KPD and KPF issues are largely solved and we grab an A grade midfielder along the way. As an added bonus we are also able to match the Maginness bid and still have a late pick or two to play with and try and find a Worpel/Sicily/Lewis/Hardwick type.

 

[VandoHawk]

This is my ideal and imo realistic trade scenario for Hawthorn this year (out ----> in):

Coniglio as FA

2019 4th ----> Patton

2019 1st ----> Alex Keath + 2019 3rd (Adelaide)

Future 2nd ----> Karl Amon

Isaac Smith ----> Future 2nd (Bulldogs)

We then have enough draft currency to match a bid for Maginness this year and Downie next year, as well as holding a full set of draft picks in 2020 for flexibility.

So overall we end up with
In: Coniglio, Patton, Keath, Amon, 2019 3rd, future 2nd
Out: Smith, 2019 1st, 2019 4th, future 2nd

Suddenly the Impey role is covered for next year until he returns and then once he is back we have someone to fill the Poppy void. Our KPD and KPF issues are largely solved and we grab an A grade midfielder along the way. As an added bonus we are also able to match the Maginness bid and still have a late pick or two to play with and try and find a Worpel/Sicily/Lewis/Hardwick type.

I like the acquisitions - Patton/Keath/Amon are a fantastic group of structural players that fulfil our needs. Cogs as FA is what we're all hoping for. With his improved form Amon is likely worth a second but I think it'll be almost identical to the value we gave for Impey rather than a straight second. Still, not inconceivable we part with a future second. Patton also coming REALLY cheaply but it is feasible if GWS are just looking to dump their cap (ala Scully).

But I think we overpay HEAVILY for Keath. He will be a good fit but I think he's worth a second round. In your proposed hypothetical if we lose the WC game
(more likely than unlikely) due to the closeness of this season there is a realistic chance we end up with a Pick between 6 - 8. Pick 7 --> (Adelaide) Keath + Pick ~50 is massive overs.

I understand you want to retain our second round pick for Maginness but in this scenario perhaps a more appropriate solution is trading down our first for two later selections, and using the second on Keath. Following your hypotheticals I would do something like:

- 2019 2nd (~Pick 25) --> (Adelaide) Keath
- Pick 7 + 2019 Third --> (Brisbane) Pick 15 (tied to Collingwood) + Pick 20 (tied to GC)

Get Keath, use Pick 15 on a talented kid (McAsey/Flanders/Sharp/O'Neill/Jackson) and get Finn with Pick 20.

 

[Alite]

Kosi and our 1st pick: McAsey as our 10 year backmen.

I like that.

 

[TallyHawk]

Kosi and our 1st pick: McAsey as our 10 year backmen.

I like that.

You could be right, especially if we think Coniglio/Whitfield, Finn & Downie round off our midfield needs.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SuperSic]

I like the acquisitions - Patton/Keath/Amon are a fantastic group of structural players that fulfil our needs. Cogs as FA is what we're all hoping for. With his improved form Amon is likely worth a second but I think it'll be almost identical to the value we gave for Impey rather than a straight second. Still, not inconceivable we part with a future second. Patton also coming REALLY cheaply but it is feasible if GWS are just looking to dump their cap (ala Scully).

But I think we overpay HEAVILY for Keath. He will be a good fit but I think he's worth a second round. In your proposed hypothetical if we lose the WC game
(more likely than unlikely) due to the closeness of this season there is a realistic chance we end up with a Pick between 6 - 8. Pick 7 --> (Adelaide) Keath + Pick ~50 is massive overs.

I understand you want to retain our second round pick for Maginness but in this scenario perhaps a more appropriate solution is trading down our first for two later selections, and using the second on Keath. Following your hypotheticals I would do something like:

- 2019 2nd (~Pick 25) --> (Adelaide) Keath
- Pick 7 + 2019 Third --> (Brisbane) Pick 15 (tied to Collingwood) + Pick 20 (tied to GC)

Get Keath, use Pick 15 on a talented kid (McAsey/Flanders/Sharp/O'Neill/Jackson) and get Finn with Pick 20.

Yeah I initially had a second round going over for Keath too but thought perhaps it was my bias lowballing Adelaide. Keath would be in All Australian consideration this year such is his form.

I like your suggestion, perhaps we even trade our 1st for Keath + Adelaide’s 2nd. Unlike many others I don’t value first round draft picks very highly, hence my willingness to give it away. Also lots of people saying this draft pool isn’t very impressive.

 

[KermitJagger]

The difference between "Adelaide played better after Dangerfield left" and "Adelaide played better because Dangerfield left" is pretty significant. Should Hawthorn ask Tom Mitchell to leave, as that's the best way to make sure the cont

You might feel certain in your opinions, but if you're suggesting that Hawthorn couldn't have won 3 in a row with Lance Franklin in our team then it's silly and I'm not discussing it.

Adelaide played better after Dangerfield left. What happened in between then? Dangerfield left? Okay. I understand correlation does not = causation, but there is a stark difference between Adelaide with Dangerfield and after Dangerfield that goes beyond correlation. At Adelaide, Dangerfield was filling a role where they clearly had ample support staff and his being there was not only stifling the development of others it was also creating a single point of failure for their midfield.

In 2015, Patrick Dangerfield led Adelaide for disposals, inside 50s, clearances, contested possessions and despite all that dominance through the middle and in the inside 50 count he was 6th in goal assists. Adelaide in 2015 was predictable.

In 2016, Matt Crouch, Rory Sloane, Brad Crouch, Rory Laird, Brodie Smith all cropped up and improved in their development, where the weight of inside 50s was more evenly shared amongst the playing group and they collectively had 40 more goal assists for the year. Hmm. Adelaide in 2016 was a lot more dangerous and a lot less predictable.

Hawthorn may have been able to win 3 in a row with Buddy in a vacuum. But AFL is not played in a vacuum. Buddy staying on for the salary he demanded would have had real impacts on our list and our ability to get other things across the line that we needed to continue improving as a footy club. We may have lost players due to the pressure his salary placed on our list for the next 2 years. We definitely wouldn't have been able to lure Frawley across. I doubt we would have been able to sell a half forward flank role as a permanent change in position for Buddy too.

Also, strawman argument - I'm not saying that Hawthorn should ask Tom Mitchell to leave as he obviously plays a core role for us where we don't have any other fill. This year has proved that. Like what was said previously, Clarko demands a flexibility from our players to be able to fit in and play wherever they are needed. That's a flexibility that not many other clubs have in their list, so the impact of a player who refuses to or is incapable of playing other positions is a lot larger on a club that has no flexibility and versatility.

Ignoring the fact that there are intangibles that are difficult to quantify in the AFL that make a team better though their list quality may have dropped, and having beliefs so ingrained in your mindset that you simply say you're "not discussing it" is flat out ignorant, intellectually lazy bullshit.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Adelaide played better after Dangerfield left. What happened in between then? Dangerfield left? Okay. I understand correlation does not = causation, but there is a stark difference between Adelaide with Dangerfield and after Dangerfield that goes beyond correlation. At Adelaide, Dangerfield was filling a role where they clearly had ample support staff and his being there was not only stifling the development of others it was also creating a single point of failure for their midfield.

In 2015, Patrick Dangerfield led Adelaide for disposals, inside 50s, clearances, contested possessions and despite all that dominance through the middle and in the inside 50 count he was 6th in goal assists. Adelaide in 2015 was predictable.

In 2016, Matt Crouch, Rory Sloane, Brad Crouch, Rory Laird, Brodie Smith all cropped up and improved in their development, where the weight of inside 50s was more evenly shared amongst the playing group and they collectively had 40 more goal assists for the year. Hmm. Adelaide in 2016 was a lot more dangerous and a lot less predictable.

Hawthorn may have been able to win 3 in a row with Buddy in a vacuum. But AFL is not played in a vacuum. Buddy staying on for the salary he demanded would have had real impacts on our list and our ability to get other things across the line that we needed to continue improving as a footy club. We may have lost players due to the pressure his salary placed on our list for the next 2 years. We definitely wouldn't have been able to lure Frawley across. I doubt we would have been able to sell a half forward flank role as a permanent change in position for Buddy too.

Also, strawman argument - I'm not saying that Hawthorn should ask Tom Mitchell to leave as he obviously plays a core role for us where we don't have any other fill. This year has proved that. Like what was said previously, Clarko demands a flexibility from our players to be able to fit in and play wherever they are needed. That's a flexibility that not many other clubs have in their list, so the impact of a player who refuses to or is incapable of playing other positions is a lot larger on a club that has no flexibility and versatility.

Ignoring the fact that there are intangibles that are difficult to quantify in the AFL that make a team better though their list quality may have dropped, and having beliefs so ingrained in your mindset that you simply say you're "not discussing it" is flat out ignorant, intellectually lazy bulls**t.

What do you want me to argue? It's not intellectual, it's just nonsense to say that losing your best players gives you the greatest chance at success. Just because things panned out well short-term for Adelaide, it doesn't give the theory any weight. The suggestion that we should trade Gunston to get ahead is still rubbish.

 

[KermitJagger]

What do you want me to argue? It's not intellectual, it's just nonsense to say that losing your best players gives you the greatest chance at success. Just because things panned out well short-term for Adelaide, it doesn't give the theory any weight. The suggestion that we should trade Gunston to get ahead is still rubbish.

I agree, I don't think we should trade Gunston because he's not the type of player who we're at risk of becoming dependent on.

My point is that in certain circumstances losing a star player who you're overly reliant on can be a circuit breaker.

 

[Cyzzametimbres]

I agree, I don't think we should trade Gunston because he's not the type of player who we're at risk of becoming dependent on.

My point is that in certain circumstances losing a star player who you're overly reliant on can be a circuit breaker.

Carlton should trade Cripps they’d be unstoppable after that.

 

[KermitJagger]

Carlton should trade Cripps they’d be unstoppable after that.

 

[Pessimistic]

Gunston far more reliable for us than Buddy. Hale Lake Bigboy and Frawley more than compensated in KPP stocks (was Bud really KP anyway?)

When you look at what happened there, should we really think finding servicable talls is so hard?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Hugh Dixon the KP we are supppsedly looking at from Freo. Tassie boy, Hawk fan.

Wonder if we can get him for a late pick ala Scrim?