Burgoyne nominates Hawthorn? (part II)

[FishingRick04]

3) Jay Nash and pick 10 for our pick 8

Is Nash that good? I would like to hold pick 8 if possible, 9 would be a plus.

At the end of the day.

Games need to be pushed into Hartlett, Broadbent, Trengove, Lobbe & Banner asap.

Can our team afford another 2 teanage recruits straight in there? Which is what Choc-o-late usually does with first round picks.

As for 9 and Schoey, what that does that do to our defensive structure? Chad, Chappy, Carlsile, Trengove, Shoey, how many do we need?

 

[Forzaport]

While Schoenmakers wouldn't be ideal for me personally, I can understand why Hawthorn would be loathe to let him go. I'd obviously do the deal as I think it's reasonable, but not sure if schoenmakers would be a regular in our 22 with pettigrew and stewart vying for the same spot.

 

[melanChronic]

The latest word out of the Ministry of Truth is that Port are greedy, because we asked for pick 9+Birchall+Brown.

 

[Portmanteau]

Can our team afford another 2 teanage recruits straight in there? Which is what Choc-o-late usually does with first round picks.

While you're right on the second point, I think we're almost perfectly situated to pick up a couple of young guns we can develop for a couple of years while the current youngsters actually get their turn and the likes of Tredders and Broges round out their careers.

A crack at a couple of top CHF/FF prospects (Butcher? Panos? Talia?) would be grouse. Even if one of them made it, it would be worth it.

 

[Natman]

Is Nash that good? I would like to hold pick 8 if possible, 9 would be a plus.

At the end of the day.

Games need to be pushed into Hartlett, Broadbent, Trengove, Lobbe & Banner asap.

Can our team afford another 2 teanage recruits straight in there? Which is what Choc-o-late usually does with first round picks.

As for 9 and Schoey, what that does that do to our defensive structure? Chad, Chappy, Carlsile, Trengove, Shoey, how many do we need?

No, Nash isn't that good - it's just a move to put Essendon ahead of Hawthorn in the ND - are we spiteful enough to do it though?

 

[Powerade 08]

While Schoenmakers wouldn't be ideal for me personally, I can understand why Hawthorn would be loathe to let him go. I'd obviously do the deal as I think it's reasonable, but not sure if schoenmakers would be a regular in our 22 with pettigrew and stewart vying for the same spot.

I would have thought he'd be competing with Westhoff, Salter, Tredrea, but I doubt he could do a worse job than Pettigrew in our defence.

 

[Forzaport]

A crack at a couple of top CHF/FF prospects (Butcher? Panos? Talia?) would be grouse. Even if one of them made it, it would be worth it.

Even if neither work out it's worth the punt.

 

[Mitch Power]

On one of the many AFL Trade 2009 websites (Mollyzine.com), there is a rumour that the 3rd club involved in the Burgoyne trade to Hawthorn is Sydney. I assume Hawthorn trade with Sydney and give Sydney player and pick 9 to Port. Pehaps Grundy?

 

[Powerade 08]

On one of the many AFL Trade 2009 websites (Mollyzine.com), there is a rumour that the 3rd club involved in the Burgoyne trade to Hawthorn is Sydney. I assume Hawthorn trade with Sydney and give Sydney player and pick 9 to Port. Pehaps Grundy?

If this is the case, the player that will go to Sydney is likely to be Kennedy. And the pick that the Hawks get in return (2nd or 3rd rounder) would then go to us.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I heard yesterday that he and his family have been hopeful all week of him being part of the trade.

According to our new best friend Paul Connors, Schoenmakers could think of nothing worse.

(c)Rowe and Cornes are going to try and get Schoenmakers' parents on the show to ask them. Well so they said anyway.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

First up thanks for the response Russ - not often someone manages to make it through one of my posts!

What are you saying, they like things kept simple over on the Hawthorn board?

Club hasn't told us per se, it's from a combination of a little too much information being given up at a canberra draft function a few years ago, and various reports/tidbits over the last couple of years.

I figured you had a fair grasp of things, but given my natural scepticism of footballer journalists and numbers, I wondered how much inside club info you had.

We front-ended initially to get up to 92.5 (I think Demons will do that this year), and then the next couple to use up what cap room we had. Makes sense - if you don't use it, it's gone. You either 'buy' a player, or you use it to pre-pay your senior players on 3 yr contracts.

That was estimate of totals on players. Boyle was on 220k or thereabouts, Dew about the same, and Campbell was on 280k. Rounded for simplicity.

None of those players had prepaid contracts AFAIK.

That makes sense and the figures for Boyle sound more realistic. Campbell seems very high, but that could be due to your lack of ruck stocks. Dew I'm still a little sceptical about. I would not have though he had a high base component, given his age, weight, potential soft tissue injuries possibility given his 12 months out of the game. I would have though he would have a lot heavier match payments component part of his total salary, compared to the normal player having a high base, given his unusual situation.

They were reserved for Mitch, Hodge, Franklin, Bateman, Lewis and Williams. I'd guess that Roughead, Sewell, Birchall and Rioli would probably join that group if we could still do it - but I believe players 'real' salary is over the 92.5% (ie without any prepayments).

In terms of average salary, we had 7 between 350 and 450, but none over 450. Croad was one of those 8. Sewell, Mitchell, Hodge, Franklin were in that bracket. Roughead and Lewis I'm guessing are the other two.

I'd be surprised if you didn't have at least one and maybe two of those 28 AFL players who earned $500k+ in 2008 and that wouldn't continue in 2009 and 2010.

Our 'premiership bonus' was on top of the AFL endorsed one and written into all players contracts.

I did say that as well.

We had room initially to offer Gibson 350 and Burgoyne 750 (1.1million) without losing any players. Since then Campbell (280k) has retired, and we might be using Williams (200+), Kennedy or McGlynn (100k each), and signed Gibson for 280k (essentially what Robbie was on.

I'm still a bit sceptical you had room for $750k if you are saying Mitchell and Hodge fitted into the "we had 7 between 350 and 450, but none over 450."

I think we offered a fair deal on day 1. Certainly 9 and McGlynn/Thorp/Tuck (think they were the three) is closer to the mark than Lewis/Birchall and 9. Even Ladson/Brown/Williams and 9 is well overs (but getting closer).

The Dowler/Kennedy/McGlynn tier is probably ideal to go with #9 to get it done. Whilst Port are mucking around with ridiculous offers, I think it's just reinforcing my (conspiracy theory only) idea that SB was always going to ND.

Sydney have commited to a kid with #6, Freo are probably the biggest threat of taking an overpaid player who doesn't want to be there....otherwise it's down to Port (8) and Hawks (9).

Given that, Port have to choose between 8 & 9 and paying a player 300k over value that doesn't really want to be there - or #9 and a decent 16-22 player.

With what other trades have gone for this year, #9 is almost spot on the mark. I think the Williams/Burgoyne/Picks deal is fair to all, and could have been completed much earlier in the week, but Port have wasted everyone's time.

(Williams and #24/40 to Essendon, #9 and #16/26 to Port, Burgoyne to Hawks)

Williams = 8 pick downgrade 16>24 or 14 pick 26/40
Burgoyne = #9 and upgrading 24 to 16 or 40 to 26.

I think Ford has summed up a lot of how I disagree with most of this part of your post. If there wasn't a lot of communication before trade week, then how would you have expected a deal to have been done before end of Tueday?

Lewis for Burgoyne I would have been pretty happy with, but if he was never going to come over or was an untouchable then it's pointless even discussing/arguing anything about him.

 

[FishingRick04]

While you're right on the second point, I think we're almost perfectly situated to pick up a couple of young guns we can develop for a couple of years while the current youngsters actually get their turn and the likes of Tredders and Broges round out their careers.

A crack at a couple of top CHF/FF prospects (Butcher? Panos? Talia?) would be grouse. Even if one of them made it, it would be worth it.

Is it just me but usually the ones that are gonna be stars command a spot st8 away.

The ones that have to grind for 3 or 4 years in the SANFL don't "usually" become stars.

So will they get the opportunities they need to prosper?

Will Tredrea make way if required?

 

[S.Patrol.G]

On one of the many AFL Trade 2009 websites (Mollyzine.com), there is a rumour that the 3rd club involved in the Burgoyne trade to Hawthorn is Sydney. I assume Hawthorn trade with Sydney and give Sydney player and pick 9 to Port. Pehaps Grundy?

That would be Hawthorn packaging Kennedy and something for Sydney's Pick 14 they received from Collingwood for Jolly. Then the Hawks would offer 9 and 14 for Burgoyne.

 

[bomberclifford]

According to our new best friend Paul Connors, Schoenmakers could think of nothing worse.

(c)Rowe and Cornes are going to try and get Schoenmakers' parents on the show to ask them. Well so they said anyway.

It seems that Tweedle Dee and Dum's hatred of all things Victorian is slightly more than their hatred of PAFC.

If only they were as supportive of the club during the year...

 

[SA HAWK]

Thank god there is only 1 more day of this left.

Trade week should be shortened to 2 days. One for talk and one for action.

 

[Powerade 08]

For anybody who isn't aware of this already Adam White (Reporter) has a twitter set up to keep us all up-to-date with latest trade news for all clubs.

Link: http://twitter.com/Whitey927

He suggests the AFL might get involved to mediate which would not surprise me.

 

[treefingers]

He suggests the AFL might get involved to mediate which would not surprise me.

Excuse my ignorance but what does that actually mean?

 

[FishingRick04]

Excuse my ignorance but what does that actually mean?

it means both parties are acting rationally eg a seperated couple and a third voice comes in to help bring some logic to the negotiations.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Excuse my ignorance but what does that actually mean?

Nothing. The AFL have a mediation process to proceed negotiations, but it has no power to enforce a trade.

 

[Powerade 08]

Excuse my ignorance but what does that actually mean?

That it wouldn't surprise me? I just think it's important for the AFL that this trade happens. I'm not sure of exactly how this works, but I guess the AFL will send someone in to make sure both parties are being reasonable about the trade.

If Burgoyne doesn't get to Hawthorn, the players association can make a case for free agency, which the AFL doesn't want.

 

[birdmanptr]

it means both parties are acting rationally eg a seperated couple and a third voice comes in to help bring some logic to the negotiations.

That wont work take this case for example Port want what they firmly believe is fair and thenits up to them and only them if they deviate from that.This is all to stressfull now for those involved with out getting some one else in on it

 

[Macca19]

White has suggested that it might be:

Burgoyne to Hawks, 9 & 16 to Port, Williams and our pick 24 to Essendon.

Essendon win big on this one so I wonder if Nash might end up involved as well?

Id take that, id be happy with 3 first round picks.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Before Hawthorn decided to turn him into a key defender Schoey played as a Ryan O'Keefe style running half forward, which we don't have. If we got him, that's probably where he'd play for us and he'd be a very valuable pick up.

 

[birdmanptr]

White has suggested that it might be:

Burgoyne to Hawks, 9 & 16 to Port, Williams and our pick 24 to Essendon.

Essendon win big on this one so I wonder if Nash might end up involved as well?

Id take that, id be happy with 3 first round picks.

Especially in a draft which most experts say dont go past 25-30

BTW which M.Williams is in the States Coach or Player

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

White has suggested that it might be:

Burgoyne to Hawks, 9 & 16 to Port, Williams and our pick 24 to Essendon.

Essendon win big on this one so I wonder if Nash might end up involved as well?

Id take that, id be happy with 3 first round picks.

5AA are saying we get 9 & 10, Williams to Essendon but not the side stuff. There is a fair bit of difference in the two scenarios.