Game Day 2022 Trade Period Match Thread

[Snuffaluphagus]

Thanks for making this an awesome trade period peeps. Will be locking this thread later tonight

 

[Taylor]

Not good enough. Pick 30 and 30.

It would allow us to trade a future second for Sharp, assuming that is considered value

 

[Swiggy]

Not good enough. Pick 30 and 30.

It’s probably pick 30 and sharp

 

[s_wd6]

21 and a future second is fair considering we have zero incentive to trade him. 30 and a future second is not. GC want north's second for Sharp. If ours didn't get the deal done then Dog's won't either.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It could be a ruse cooked up by Hawthorn to get GWS to stump up the goods, leaving more options to get Meek over the line. I hope.

I dont think Daniels goes with it if there was some more substance than Hawthorn telling him we are keen.

Additionally, there was very strong rumours (cant remember if I said something or not) last year about us asking about JOM last year when Hawks were supposedly trying to sell players but apparently we pulled out when it became apparent they wanted full market value for players they were pushing out. We seem to really rate him, which is fine, it's just ludicrous for me to do it at this stage of our list build

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Again, can someone genuinely tell me what incentive we have to get rid of Lobb? We got our guy, we got Jackson. We have zero reason to let Lobb go unless we have a Godfather offer thrown our way.

I agree. 30 and 30-ish sounds about right in terms of market value. However the opportunity cost of trading Lobb is massive next year in particular. I reckon a substantial ‘2023 tax’ should apply to our decision making here.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

21 and a future second is fair considering we have zero incentive to trade him. 30 and a future second is not. GC want north's second for Sharp. If ours didn't get the deal done then Dog's won't either.

Worst comes to worse though we have two seconds (and one those basically guaranteed to be really good) as well as pick 30 this year. That's a good deal for a 30 year old who is leaving regardless in 12 months

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Worst comes to worse though we have two seconds (and one those basically guaranteed to be really good) as well as pick 30 this year. That's a good deal for a 30 year old who is leaving regardless in 12 months

We can achieve great things in that 12 months if he sees out his contract.

 

[theGav56]

Coniglio wore a dress...?! This really is one strange trade period!

Unicorns are a thing you know.

 

[vidwhal]

Sam Mitchell does strike me as a character from Horrible Bosses, in that he’d be willing to absorb some of the players payments into his coaching contract.

As long as he isn't merging the locker room with his office

 

[maccamk]

I just looked up what we paid in picks for Lobb. If we get pick 30 and a future second we are making out like bandits


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[theGav56]

unless youre expecting and think that two rookie mids would benefit from 22 games in their second season, there is room for both

He won't be coming for one year.

 

[vidwhal]

I've had a lot of trust in our list management since walls took over. If we lose lobb and Meek and get JOM then I'm losing all faith in them.

Way to dismiss all the good stuff they've achieved then....

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

So instead of gc stretching it out Geelong get to and get a top ten pick in the process. I don't share your one sided support for the players. I like a balance between the welfare of the player and the club and the fairness of the comp.

But GCS don't want to stretch his salary out. They want it all gone. In their mind they have made a mistake and they have found a way out of the mistake -- all for one lousy 1st rounder.

Salary is way more valuable than picks (god we over-rate picks!). Making the mistake of contracting someone too high for too many years and then deferring their pay day year after year harms players more than clubs -- the player doesn't get their money when they were originally entitled to get it. And sure they eventually get paid but often at the cost of disrupting your life and being publicly shoved off elsewhere.

And in return, all the club has to do is accept a mediocre pick. Then it can dust off its hands and move on

What would be more one-sided to the player is forcing the club to honour the contracts. I'm sure Grundy, Phillips, Bowes and Treloar at least would have far preferred to their original clubs to have honoured their original contract conditions.

 

[FreoRicci]

O’Meara defends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarcastic? Surely you are.
JOM is probably the worst defensive midfielder with Mitchell second.
Doesn't make sense. 4 year contract for JOM yet we didn't want to overpay or offer anything suitable for Acres or Logue. These shitty contracts aren't good for fans or the culture of the club

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

We can achieve great things in that 12 months if he sees out his contract.

I think it should be clear what Lobb gives us next year is restricted to the gap you see between him and the 10 games of Tabs is fit and 12+ games of unfit Tabs.

For mine, one of Lobb or Tabs and Amiss is the set-up next year. Short of complete exhaustion, Amiss just has to play every game and 3 of Amiss/Lobb/Tabs/Jackson/Darcy rotating through the forwardline at one time or another just doesnt work.

Two top 30 picks for a 30 year old who has really only had 1 good year (his latest which was only 37 goals) is getting to be a pretty good deal

 

[wakojako]

Sarcastic? Surely you are.
JOM is probably the worst defensive midfielder with Mitchell second.
Doesn't make sense. 4 year contract for JOM yet we didn't want to overpay or offer anything suitable for Acres or Logue. These shitty contracts aren't good for fans or the culture of the club

It's illogical going for him, maybe one of our mids will be leaving next year? Even if that were the case surely there would be better mature mids to target.

 

[s_wd6]

Side note: How great is it listening to Bell talk about how we were trying to move up in the 2019 draft to get Jackson, meaning we would have missed out on serong and young. Now we have all three.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Side note: How great is it listening to Bell talk about how we were trying to move up in the 2019 draft to get Jackson, meaning we would have missed out on serong and young. Now we have all three.

Got a link to this one?

 

[apuchar]

But GCS don't want to stretch his salary out. They want it all gone. In their mind they have made a mistake and they have found a way out of the mistake -- all for one lousy 1st rounder.

Salary is way more valuable than picks (god we over-rate picks!). Making the mistake of contracting someone too high for too many years and then deferring their pay day year after year harms players more than clubs -- the player doesn't get their money when they were originally entitled to get it. And sure they eventually get paid but often at the cost of disrupting your life and being publicly shoved off elsewhere.

And in return, all the club has to do is accept a mediocre pick. Then it can dust off its hands and move on

What would be more one-sided to the player is forcing the club to honour the contracts. I'm sure Grundy, Phillips, Bowes and Treloar at least would have far preferred to their original clubs to have honoured their original contract conditions.

I agree. GC should have honoured their contract. I don't believe geelong should have been able to benefit from it though. Pick 7 is in The Serong/Young potential category. It isn't some mediocre pick. Hate to think what would have happened to our re-build if we didn't have access to those picks. This rubbish has started for two reasons. Free agency and players demanding massive overs to stay at the gold coast or Gws.

 

[s_wd6]

Got a link to this one?

LISTEN: Luke Jackson on the radio

First one here. Just talks about how we tried to move up unsuccessfully to get him. If we had moved up, Serong and Young would've been taken before our next pick.

 

[guidodp15]

The Age is also saying Dogs have offered 30 and a future 2nd for Lobb

I’m listening


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rgauci]

If JOM is anything but a salary dump, one where we benefit in picks. It’s a huge mistake.

Don’t see him as particularly valuable.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I think it should be clear what Lobb gives us next year is restricted to the gap you see between him and the 10 games of Tabs is fit and 12+ games of unfit Tabs.

For mine, one of Lobb or Tabs and Amiss is the set-up next year. Short of complete exhaustion, Amiss just has to play every game and 3 of Amiss/Lobb/Tabs/Jackson/Darcy rotating through the forwardline at one time or another just doesnt work.

Two top 30 picks for a 30 year old who has really only had 1 good year (his latest which was only 37 goals) is getting to be a pretty good deal

It’s a good deal no doubt but at worst he’s cover for our most perennially injured player of the past decade and also ruck cover if we trade Meek. I think he’s still worth more than two late mid second rounders for us next year. Obviously a trade takes into account a player’s expected output over several years so we are not comparing apples and apples on how either club is or should be approaching this.

 

[greatgatsby]

LISTEN: Luke Jackson on the radio

First one here. Just talks about how we tried to move up unsuccessfully to get him. If we had moved up, Serong and Young would've been taken before our next pick.

Another mention of Meek as part of our future plans.

 

[ImperialPurple]

The Age is also saying Dogs have offered 30 and a future 2nd for Lobb

I'd take that and send the F2 to GC for Sharp.

Lobb for Sharp and 30 isn't a terrible outcome.