pantskyle
Angry Ape
- Oct 1, 2007
- 128,348
- 133,039
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
13 will go to GC for Hickey anyway.
Brown WILL stay at WC long term.
Brown WILL stay at WC long term.
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Brown wants out!
- Thread starter steveo 188
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I would back is to keep him through a good rotation of the backline this year, then Glass's retirement in 1-2 years.
Hopefully he comes back from the US soon and we can get a bit more closure on this.
QS
Brownlow Medallist
A lot can happen in a season... Lets just see how he's used. I have a feeling they have plans for him, if they did not I think they would have been slightly more open to a trade.
Traaaaaaade him.
Go for Hooker, he's just as good as Mitch Brown who for some reason everyone has forgotten is a plodder who's been clogging up our list for 6 seasons already.
Cripps and 25.
It's totally overs but they might do it....
See if Essendon would take 41 for Hooker, or try and fashion Stevens for Hooker with the Dogs and the Dons.
Get rid of Brown, you're either 100% in or 100% out.
Go for Hooker, he's just as good as Mitch Brown who for some reason everyone has forgotten is a plodder who's been clogging up our list for 6 seasons already.
Cripps and 25.
It's totally overs but they might do it....
See if Essendon would take 41 for Hooker, or try and fashion Stevens for Hooker with the Dogs and the Dons.
Get rid of Brown, you're either 100% in or 100% out.
Carbine Chaos
See My Chess
- Apr 1, 2009
- 65,056
- 98,343
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
Yeah nah.
This is just going in circles. Why do we keep engaging with each individual Saint that comes over and wants to start again at the beginning? I know we've got an open board, but this is getting really tiring. If I'm getting notifications for this thread, I'd like it to be for some actual news.
Welcome to trade week! We got 4,000 posts of it in our thread.
PS. Sorry about the notification.
Carbine Chaos
See My Chess
- Apr 1, 2009
- 65,056
- 98,343
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
*Notification*
How much worse is it with the extended trade period? Surprised we haven't all torn each other's throats out yet.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
It would still remain as repetitive and circular as a Hawthorn-Geelong shitfight though.
So you say Brown is a "plodder" and about the equivalent of Hooker, yet you then say you want pick 25 AND Cripps for him and then you hope to get Hooker for 41?
Trade week at its best. I love it! 
I made the suggestion of Brown to us, Hooker to WC and a pick or two to Essendon, on the Essendon board (the thread about Hooker), earlier today and someone there suggested our pick 25 to Essendon and pretty much everyone there thought that was a fair and equitable trade all around and I agreed, because, like you, I see Hooker and Brown as roughly equivalent, so they cancel each other out and pick 25 seems about right for Brown/Hooker, for Essendon to receive for Hooker.
That way, you have someone the equivalent of Brown (Hooker), who wants to be at your club, as back-up for Glass and co for next year and to take over from Glass, when he retires, Brown gets to play footy next year, we have someone big for FB, Essendon get to balance their list out with someone shorter, who can play midfield, or whatever and everyone would most likely be happy.
I mean if they can be happy with that deal, even though Hooker has been playing mainly senior AFL footy for them, while Brown has been playing mostly WAFL footy and they are the same age and similar size, then I think your club ought to also agree that that is a fair deal all round.
Then the Cripps and Stevens deals get done separately (probably a 3-way deal with WB) and everyone would live happily ever after.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
It's a good theory. I don't know how much Hooker would want to play for us though, since he'd face the same problem Brown currently faces.
Well, the thing is that at Essendon they are looking like having a real squeeze for spots from next year on, as far as their key forward and key defence spots go. I think this is why Hooker has been getting shopped around (reportedly) for 12 months now. They know they won't have room for everyone and they want to get some value for him while he has the most currency.
Up forward they have to fit in all of Gumbleton, Ryder, Crameri and then probably Joe Daniher, who they reckon could play pretty much immediately.
That means Hurley probably goes to CHB, or FB, Jake Carlisle is the one they reckon is their next best option after Fletcher and that pretty much leaves both Pears and Hooker without spots, unless someone is injured.
So Hooker may be out of their team next year anyway and may not get back in in the following years, even after Fletcher retires in 2020, because Pears might get the job ahead of him.
At least if he goes to your club he knows that he'll pretty much be "guaranteed" a spot in the senior side long term, once Glass has retired and next year he could get as many games with you (depending on injury) as he would get at Essendon.
As I said, I see it as a win, or at least a draw-even, for all parties and is the sort of thing I think we should have presented to you from the start, so that you wouldn't freak out at the prospect of not having someone as back-up for Glass and co next year, or for Glass when he retires.
If Hooker really is on the table now, I think now is the time to do it. Get it done, get it sorted and let him settle in for 12 months, before he has to take over from Glass in 12 months. Someone like him (especially someone happy to move to WA) might not be on the table in 12 months and if Glass retires and Brown does walk on you then, you could be up shit creek if there aren't any other suitable options.
Why don't you guys just go after Hooker then? Sounds like he'd be a good fit.
That's a good question. You'd have to ask our recruiting team that, but for whatever reason, we chose Brown.
I'm not personally that familiar with either Brown, or Hooker, but I am confident that they are roughly "equivalent in value", so personally I wouldn't necessarily have any issue with us going and getting Hooker.
Maybe we're concerned with the "go-home-factor" with Hooker. Maybe we feel Brown is stronger and better suited to playing on the "gorillas". I believe Glass no longer necessarily plays on the "gorillas", so you don't necessarily need whoever replaces him to be able to either, so your club might not be that fussed whether you have Brown, or Hooker.
Neither are likely to be "elite", but they are both at least "serviceable to good" and both are certainly good enough to be playing regular senior AFL footy, not WAFL, or VFL, I would suggest.
You state you're not familiar with either and then continue to rate them as equivalent in value and categorise them as "serviceable to good". You're parroting other people's opinions. You're done on this topic.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
There's some logic to that. I suppose it depends on what Hooker's been told by the club about where he sits in the pecking order at Essendon, because he'd be sitting in the WAFL biding his time at West Coast until Glass retires.
As to how they compare I'd prefer to keep Brown (better the devil you know, possibly), but if he's set on leaving either now or in 12 months then Hooker is a pretty good alternative.
So you say Brown is a "plodder" and about the equivalent of Hooker, yet you then say you want pick 25 AND Cripps for him and then you hope to get Hooker for 41?
I was working under a best case scenario really, considering St Kilda are the ones trying to force a trade on a contracted player.
Admittedly, I'm not expert on Hooker's value at Essendon - I'd say WCE rate Brown higher than I do either way so they'll want overs if they are going to trade him.
Brown is a plodder, that's the one thing I am sure of.
Firstly, I said that I am not "that" familiar with them, which is different from what you just said that I'm "not familiar", which implies not at all. So that is your mistake. I have seen both of them play and have also seen Nathan Brown play and he is nothing super-special, yet is considered better than Mitch, so that gives me more to go by.
I've also read plenty of opinions about both of them on their own club boards and in both cases opinions are pretty firmly divided. Pretty much no-one has suggested that either are close to being "elite" and they are the ones who see them play possibly every game of footy they play at senior AFL level, so they are opinions I go by to a fair degree.
The fact Mitch Brown has been on an AFL list for 6 years and only played 50 games and the fact Essendon have reportedly been trying to sell Hooker also gives a fair indication of where they sit. I've also been told by someone I trust on these matters that in the "industry" Mitch Brown is not considered worth anywhere near a first round DP now. Also, when him being worth a top 20 DP was brought up on the trading board, pretty much all the "neutrals", who don't have any bias on the matter, went into hysterics, just as they had earlier that day at the suggestion Chris Dawes was worth a pick like 13. The trading board is where you'll generally get a more unbiased idea of what someone is worth on the open market, so that is something I went by to a small degree.
Secondly if you look at my original post again, you'll see that I edited it slightly, before you posted your post, to say that neither are "likely to be elite" which I stand by and I also added that they are "at least serviceable to good" and I stand by that as well.
Finally, if I had more of a personal opinion on them from what I had seen of them, would you think that is OK, but if I go by other's opinions, who have also seen heaps of him, that is not OK? Why is one opinion more important than another opinion? Like the one above for instance, by someone who supports your own club and calls him a "plodder", which is certainly not the first time I've seen that opinion by someone who follows your club and would likely know him better than someone who follows another club is likely to.
They are all opinions and they are just one of the factors that I used to come to the conclusions I came to.
So which of my statements that they are roughly "equitable in value", that neither are "likely to be elite", or that they are "at least serviceable to good" do you disagree with? Or are you just trying to be difficult?
You do know of course that he has been injured for a lot of that time (ACL, groin, broken thumb, amongst others), and Mackenzie was allowed to develop during his absence. I suspect that Brown would be more entrenched in the side, had the tables turned and Mackenzie missed a year
Carbine Chaos
See My Chess
- Apr 1, 2009
- 65,056
- 98,343
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
Watch any of him late this season, out of interest?
Your kidding?? Hickey for 13, GC would be laughing all the way to the bank. Goddard for hickey what a swap. Brown is more proven than Hickey
Of course, but that all comes into it when assessing what he is worth. Being injury plagued lowers your value, it doesn't increase it. Especially when one of those injuries was an ACL (as those who do one often end up doing at least one more) and your twin brother has also done one of them.
Maybe in your eyes. Not necessarily in ours. As he is contracted, all that matters is what we value him as.
Yep, I just don't see it though mate.
- Status
