Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread

[Strapping Young Lad]

2024 Picks



2025 Picks

 

[Dewnior]

If Hawthorn were open to realistic player trade options then Serong and Reeves would likely be the first two we’d ask about.

Reeves for Barass, straight swap. You know it makes sense.

 

[eaglevision]

And Ward.

If he’s a realistic option of being traded he’d be at the top of the list, just didn’t think he would be.

 

[TylerDurden]

We can't trade Ward now .

 

[mustang]

Fairly sure you’re thinking of The_Axeman

Arrr yes I am thanks

 

[Dewnior]

We can't trade Ward now .

We couldn't trade him before either

 

[Bugs1977]

I’ve heard one of the coaching candidates is keen on keeping Tom but it’s not Skipworth. Wouldn’t expect the new coach to be able to change his mind or have much say in trade value either.

It would be a pretty sh*t and amateur move to Barrass to tell him to go explore his options to then do an about face and say nah we've changed our minds. This is the kind of thing that a player manager would never forget and wouldn't be a smart move by WC.

 

[Bugs1977]

If Hawthorn were open to realistic player trade options then Serong and Reeves would likely be the first two we’d ask about.

Curiously asking what along with pick 13 do you think is a fair deal? Are you thinking something like pick 13 + Serong or something else?

 

[eaglevision]

It would be a pretty sh*t and amateur move to Barrass to tell him to go explore your options then to do an about face and then say nah we've changed our minds. This is the kind of thing that player manager would never forget and wouldn't be a smart move by WC.

We wouldn’t. Big difference between a coach candidate indicating a preference to keep a player and the club selecting that coach and then signing off on retaining the player.

Like Hawthorn we’re a well run club and I don’t think this deal is going to get messy at all. You can be glad you’re dealing with us and not Fremantle and I’m glad we’re dealing with the Hawks and not the c**k juggling f**kwits at Essendon or Geelong.

 

[eaglevision]

Curiously asking what along with pick 13 do you think is a fair deal? Are you thinking something like pick 13 + Serong or something else?

If we’re talking about including players in the trade I honestly haven’t seen enough of Serong other than to see that his VFL stats have been pretty good but something like that wouldn’t be an unreasonable suggestion.

Very cautious about pushing trades on an opposition board but I’d see if the Hawks were also interested in including Reeves in return for us paying a good chunk of Tom’s salary allowing you to make a better offer for a Perryman this year or potentially LDU/TDK next year.

 

[Bugs1977]

We wouldn’t. Big difference between a coach candidate indicating a preference to keep a player and the club selecting that coach and then signing off on retaining the player.

Like Hawthorn we’re a well run club and I don’t think this deal is going to get messy at all. You can be glad you’re dealing with us and not Fremantle and I’m glad we’re dealing with the Hawks and not the c**k juggling f**kwits at Essendon or Geelong.

Also have to think that there's a fair bit of good will between both clubs in how we let Sam Mitchell walk to you guys for pretty much nothing via trade and the you guys repaid that by letting him leave his assistant coaching gig with I think a season to run. Then there was the Tyler Brockman trade a couple of seasons ago which you guys could've walked him to the PSD and got him for nothing but traded picks 44 and 63 for him. I'm sure there's more there but both clubs seem to have had a long history of good will between each other.

 

[HedgeFund]

Get the Barass deal done, whatever it takes (within reason of course). He's a borderline generational defender, premiership defences are built around blokes like him, and he should have a good five years left in him.

Make it happen Hawk brains trust....

No he’s not. Never been All-Australian (only made the 40-man once in 2022).

He’d be very handy, but frankly with Battle already coming over (unless Josh is going to play as a forward) we would be much smarter to go hard for a key forward who can strengthen our front half.

No point having a super backline if our key forwards get out marked routinely. We need balance at each end.

 

[Bugs1977]

If we’re talking about including players in the trade I honestly haven’t seen enough of Serong other than to see that his VFL stats have been pretty good but something like that wouldn’t be an unreasonable suggestion.

Very cautious about pushing trades on an opposition board but I’d see if the Hawks were also interested in including Reeves in return for us paying a good chunk of Tom’s salary allowing you to make a better offer for a Perryman this year or potentially LDU/TDK next year.

I do get the feeling that Reeves could very well be a player that we're willing to explore his options. With the market for ruckman dry at the moment I think there'll be a lot of clubs enquiring about him.

Either way it will be interesting to see how the trade plays out and I do think it would be in WC best interests to get guys that can plug and play similar to how we did when we acquired guys like Amon, Meek and Chol as it allows the young kids time to just settle in and play their roles.

 

[eaglevision]

Also have to think that there's a fair bit of good will between both clubs in how we let Sam Mitchell walk to you guys for pretty much nothing via trade and the you guys repaid that by letting him leave his assistant coaching gig with I think a season to run. Then there was the Tyler Brockman trade a couple of seasons ago which you guys could've walked him to the PSD and got him for nothing but traded picks 44 and 63 for him. I'm sure there's more there but both clubs seem to have had a long history of good will between each other.

It’s no coincidence that Hawks, Eagles and Swans are three of the most successful clubs in the AFL era. Credit to them Geelong are well run but their salary sombrero, paper bag deals and the fact that they are ****s at the trade table makes me dislike them immensely.

Mitch was instrumental in our ‘18 flag, the midfield group from that year still speak very highly of him, particularly Chris Masten. His family had their reasons to move back to Victoria and we weren’t going to stand in the way of that.

Brocky has a bit of work to do on himself and his footy but hopefully comes good and yes, a good example of two clubs getting a deal done early so both clubs could move onto the other trades with more difficult clubs. Can’t tell you how delighted I was to see D’Ambrosio have the season he did after crossing from Dildoro and co. EAD Essendon.

 

[Roddy]

No he’s not. Never been All-Australian (only made the 40-man once in 2022).

He’d be very handy, but frankly with Battle already coming over (unless Josh is going to play as a forward) we would be much smarter to go hard for a key forward who can strengthen our front half.

No point having a super backline if our key forwards get out marked routinely. We need balance at each end.

I don't give a rat's fat arse about the AA. He's unquestionably one of the best defenders in the game, and among the best of the last decade. On top of the fact that excellent tall defenders are ridiculously hard to come by.

When players of that calibre bob up, you grasp them with both hands.

Damn I'm glad 'HedgeFund' isn't in charge of our recruitment and list management....

 

[almuz]

In the very unlikely event the Barass deal doesn't get done - surely Petracca is gettable? He is exactly what we (and all other 17 teams) need.

 

[seysearles]

The deal for Barrass is already agreed that’s how this works he doesn’t nominate without having that surety. The only variable was where we finished but those contingent trades would have been agreed. No coach but especially a rookie one comes in and changes the list management strategy without club support. The eagles know they lack young talent this trade happens and early. The most likely scenario is 13 plus a future second with their r4 pick 59 coming back. A pick swap of r2/3 is only adding a late pick in terms of points value that’s not enough. I’m ok to overpay a little he’s a gun and we get battle for free so holistically viewed it works.

I dont know if i am just an idiot but I'm consistently baffled about how they value players.

I dont think it comes from a place of bias either as I thought we brought in Tom Mitchell too cheaply at the time. Pick #14 for a 23yr old ball magnet seemed ridiculously cheap and I probably would have valued him at Pick 3-7 or two late first rounders.

Scrimshaw also seemed ridiculously cheap at #52 given his age and the pick he was drafted at by Gold Coast. It made sense to me that he was worth a 1st rounder possibly #10-15, possibly more given his age.

On the flip side I thought we let go of Brad Hill much too cheaply (#23), given that he was a 23yr old 3 times premiership player, and that proved to be right given that they traded him for Blake Acres and #10 a few seasons later. I just found that insulting that they got so much more for him when he hadn't improved as a player and he was 3yrs older.

For me age is a huge factor with trades. You're rolling the dice on how a player performs at your club. You're never going to beat father time and an older player is always going to come at a reduced value. Brian Lake is a good example of that. He was a gun but because of the fact that he was 31yrs old we basically got him for peanuts (#43 and a 2nd pick slide of 6 spots).

This brings me to Barrass who we are all hoping is Brian Lake v2.0 (only 2.5 years younger than Lake at the time of trade). Lake turned out to be the missing piece of the puzzle for that team so we all see him as the messiah but this is truly a best case scenario version of Barrass's potential. I personally doubt he is going to have anywhere near the impact Lake had in his three seasons with us, even with his 2.5 extra years.

If you had asked me before the speculation had started what he was worth I would have almost put him in the Lake category of "we will take him of your books for you" with a second rounder. So this talk about two first rounders or even a concessionary 1st and future 2nd genuinely blows my mind. His age is just too big a consideration to have him anywhere near that value. By contrast we have Geelong getting charity trades like Jack Bowes and pick 7 for nothing and Bailey Smith for a pick in the 20's and it all feels just insulting. It makes the club look weak and pathetic frankly.

Something else that I feel also needs mentioning is the conciliatory trades we have previously made with West Coast for Sam Mitchell (2 x late pick slides) and Brockman (#44) where it felt like we just said "give is what you feel they're worth" and we walked away with peanuts to now being highballed seems to me to be very bad faith.

I know he's contracted but it also should be mentioned that the player wants out. There is also some unsavoury stuff about West Coast being happy for him to seek a trade which shows that they're not desperate to retain his services they just see him as a trading pawn. They know he has played the best games that he is going to play for them. All very unpleasant.

Does anyone else share my confusion and disappointment?

 

[Bugs1977]

I dont know if i am just an idiot but I'm consistently baffled about how they value players.

I dont think it comes from a place of bias either as I thought we brought in Tom Mitchell too cheaply at the time. Pick #14 for a 23yr old ball magnet seemed ridiculously cheap and I probably would have valued him at Pick 3-7 or two late first rounders.

Scrimshaw also seemed ridiculously cheap at #52 given his age and the pick he was drafted at by Gold Coast. It made sense to me that he was worth a 1st rounder possibly #10-15, possibly more given his age.

On the flip side I thought we let go of Brad Hill much too cheaply (#23), given that he was a 23yr old 3 times premiership player, and that proved to be right given that they traded him for Blake Acres and #10 a few seasons later. I just found that insulting that they got so much more for him when he hadn't improved as a player and he was 3yrs older.

For me age is a huge factor with trades. You're rolling the dice on how a player performs at your club. You're never going to beat father time and an older player is always going to come at a reduced value. Brian Lake is a good example of that. He was a gun but because of the fact that he was 31yrs old we basically got him for peanuts (#43 and a 2nd pick slide of 6 spots).

This brings me to Barrass who we are all hoping is Brian Lake v2.0 (only 2.5 years younger than Lake at the time of trade). Lake turned out to be the missing piece of the puzzle for that team so we all see him as the messiah but this is truly a best case scenario version of Barrass's potential. I personally doubt he is going to have anywhere near the impact Lake had in his three seasons with us, even with his 2.5 extra years.

If you had asked me before the speculation had started what he was worth I would have almost put him in the Lake category of "we will take him of your books for you" with a second rounder. So this talk about two first rounders or even a concessionary 1st and future 2nd genuinely blows my mind. His age is just too big a consideration to have him anywhere near that value. By contrast we have Geelong getting charity trades like Jack Bowes and pick 7 for nothing and Bailey Smith for a pick in the 20's and it all feels just insulting. It makes the club look weak and pathetic frankly.

Something else that I feel also needs mentioning is the conciliatory trades we have previously made with West Coast for Sam Mitchell (2 x late pick slides) and Brockman (#44) where it felt like we just said "give is what you feel they're worth" and we walked away with peanuts to now being highballed seems to me to be very bad faith.

I know he's contracted but it also should be mentioned that the player wants out. There is also some unsavoury stuff about West Coast being happy for him to seek a trade which shows that they're not desperate to retain his services they just see him as a trading pawn. They know he has played the best games that he is going to play for them. All very unpleasant.

Does anyone else share my confusion and disappointment?

It' easy to sit here after guys like Mitchell + Scrimshaw moved clubs and finally strung things together and say I think we got them way to cheap. The reality though is that Mitchell who was showing awesome form in the ressies just couldn't hold his spot at AFL level because he had others ahead of him.

Scrimshaw was a little different because from day dot he didn't want to be there and just couldn't settle which is hard when you're homesick and not enjoying your football. His ressies form also wasn't very consistent either but the talent was always there.

Point I'm trying to make is that pick 14 at the time was probably fair value for Mitchell who probably played one of his best games in his last game for the Swans in the GF loss. Scrimshaw's trade value was shot after only 4 games in 3 years and was traded for a F3 so that was just another one of many mishandled Suns players that was lucky not to be lost to the game.

 

[Roddy]

I dont know if i am just an idiot but I'm consistently baffled about how they value players.

I dont think it comes from a place of bias either as I thought we brought in Tom Mitchell too cheaply at the time. Pick #14 for a 23yr old ball magnet seemed ridiculously cheap and I probably would have valued him at Pick 3-7 or two late first rounders.

Scrimshaw also seemed ridiculously cheap at #52 given his age and the pick he was drafted at by Gold Coast. It made sense to me that he was worth a 1st rounder possibly #10-15, possibly more given his age.

On the flip side I thought we let go of Brad Hill much too cheaply (#23), given that he was a 23yr old 3 times premiership player, and that proved to be right given that they traded him for Blake Acres and #10 a few seasons later. I just found that insulting that they got so much more for him when he hadn't improved as a player and he was 3yrs older.

For me age is a huge factor with trades. You're rolling the dice on how a player performs at your club. You're never going to beat father time and an older player is always going to come at a reduced value. Brian Lake is a good example of that. He was a gun but because of the fact that he was 31yrs old we basically got him for peanuts (#43 and a 2nd pick slide of 6 spots).

This brings me to Barrass who we are all hoping is Brian Lake v2.0 (only 2.5 years younger than Lake at the time of trade). Lake turned out to be the missing piece of the puzzle for that team so we all see him as the messiah but this is truly a best case scenario version of Barrass's potential. I personally doubt he is going to have anywhere near the impact Lake had in his three seasons with us, even with his 2.5 extra years.

If you had asked me before the speculation had started what he was worth I would have almost put him in the Lake category of "we will take him of your books for you" with a second rounder. So this talk about two first rounders or even a concessionary 1st and future 2nd genuinely blows my mind. His age is just too big a consideration to have him anywhere near that value. By contrast we have Geelong getting charity trades like Jack Bowes and pick 7 for nothing and Bailey Smith for a pick in the 20's and it all feels just insulting. It makes the club look weak and pathetic frankly.

Something else that I feel also needs mentioning is the conciliatory trades we have previously made with West Coast for Sam Mitchell (2 x late pick slides) and Brockman (#44) where it felt like we just said "give is what you feel they're worth" and we walked away with peanuts to now being highballed seems to me to be very bad faith.

I know he's contracted but it also should be mentioned that the player wants out. There is also some unsavoury stuff about West Coast being happy for him to seek a trade which shows that they're not desperate to retain his services they just see him as a trading pawn. They know he has played the best games that he is going to play for them. All very unpleasant.

Does anyone else share my confusion and disappointment?

Don't be confused about player value, it's really quite simple. It's a similar principle to the value of properties in the real estate market. The value of the property is what the current market is willing to pay for it.

If someone puts a property up for sale, wanting $1.5mil for it, but repeatedly only get offers of $1.2mil, that's what the property is worth.

On the flip side, if someone puts a property up for auction, thinking they will get $1.5mil for it, but the bidding goes up to $1.7mil, that's what the market was saying the property was worth.

It's similar with AFL players.

Here endeth the lesson....

 

[seysearles]

Don't be confused about player value, it's really quite simple. It's a similar principle to the value of properties in the real estate market. The value of the property is what the current market is willing to pay for it.

If someone puts a property up for sale, wanting $1.5mil for it, but repeatedly only get offers of $1.2mil, that's what the property is worth.

On the flip side, if someone puts a property up for auction, thinking they will get $1.5mil for it, but the bidding goes up to $1.7mil, that's what the market was saying the property was worth.

It's similar with AFL players.

Here endeth the lesson....

This is a bad example unless the house is able to say "I'm done with you owning me and I want to be sold and you can only sell me to that one buyer". Barrass isn't on the open market at all. He has specifically requested to be traded to Hawthorn and West Coast have 2 options: 1. force him to stay and honour his contract or 2. trade him at the value we are willing to pay for him. It therefore boils down to what we are willing to offer vs what West Coast are willing to accept.

 

[H00t]

Get the Barass deal done, whatever it takes (within reason of course). He's a borderline generational defender, premiership defences are built around blokes like him, and he should have a good five years left in him.

Make it happen Hawk brains trust....

He’s a very good defender but he’s a generational defender in the same way Cam Rayner is a superstar. It’s just a load of hyperbole. He’s not even the best defender in his team.

I also can’t see him having 5 good years left either. Not with his back. I’d imagine the hope would be 3 years before he really drops off.

 

[Roddy]

This is a bad example unless the house is able to say "I'm done with you owning me and I want to be sold and you can only sell me to that one buyer". Barrass isn't on the open market at all. He has specifically requested to be traded to Hawthorn and West Coast have 2 options: 1. force him to stay and honour his contract or 2. trade him at the value we are willing to pay for him. It therefore boils down to what we are willing to offer vs what West Coast are willing to accept.

I'm trying to explain it to you holistically. Of course you can cherry-pick differences in the analogy with regard to a specific case if you try hard enough.

And again, I'm glad Bigfooty posters are not Hawthorn's list management. I remember the same, tired old lines being reeled out as we approached recruiting Lake, Burger, Gibbo, Goo, Titch (who a Charlie in our colours), Hale.................

 

[seysearles]

Of course you can cherry-pick differences in the analogy with regard to a specific case if you try hard enough.

And again, I'm glad Bigfooty posters are not Hawthorn's list management. I remember the same, tired old lines being reeled out as we approached recruiting Lake, Burger, Gibbo, Goo, Titch (who a Charlie in our colours), Hale.................

Dont forget JPK, Wingard, Omeara, O'Rourke, Patton, Vickery, Phllips, Lynch................. Mr Holistically

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I'm trying to explain it to you holistically. Of course you can cherry-pick differences in the analogy with regard to a specific case if you try hard enough.

And again, I'm glad Bigfooty posters are not Hawthorn's list management. I remember the same, tired old lines being reeled out as we approached recruiting Lake, Burger, Gibbo, Goo, Titch (who a Charlie in our colours), Hale.................

It's semantics and all, but he is not a "generational" defender.

Doesn't mean he still can't provide a few years of quality football for us and ultimately contribute to our success.

 

[HedgeFund]

I don't give a rat's fat arse about the AA. He's unquestionably one of the best defenders in the game, and among the best of the last decade. On top of the fact that excellent tall defenders are ridiculously hard to come by.

When players of that calibre bob up, you grasp them with both hands.

Damn I'm glad 'HedgeFund' isn't in charge of our recruitment and list management....

You called him a near “generational defender”!

He’s not even been the best KPD at his current club. Clearly that’s been McGovern.

As I said, he’d be very handy but with Battle already locked in, we shouldn’t be grasping a second KPD with both hands unless the deal is in our favour and we can’t get a KPF in.

At present we have Chol and Dear and minimal decent back up because Lewis won’t play and Gunston is on the decline.

Are you tell me our quality tall forwards stocks don’t need bolstering?

 

[OhhhhhCyril]

For those who know, how many players do we have out of contact as of right now?