Traded Cameron McCarthy [traded to Fremantle with picks 7, 33 and 71 for pick 3]

[The Fid]

Fair enough (pretty sure I called at at the time so no hindsight from me) , but refusing trades by taking the "high moral ground" is a long standing bugbear of mine. StKilda could have had pick 30 and Goldsack/Wellingham for Ball but instead we got him for free with the same pick we were offering and all three were premiership players. There are a host of examples through the ages, this is just the latest.

And I'm sure it won't be the last. I'm only new here so I'm not familiar with what you said at the time, but if you predicted that Freo were going to slide that bad, can you come to the races with me on Saturday hahahaha

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

And I'm sure it won't be the last. I'm only new here so I'm not familiar with what you said at the time, but if you predicted that Freo were going to slide that bad, can you come to the races with me on Saturday hahahaha

No I'm pretty sure I predicted that not trading McCarthy was a dumb idea and that GWS would get a far worse trade 12 months later (or at best similar but with a wasted year....same same) . Freos ladder position has nothing to do with it

 

[The Fid]

No I'm pretty sure I predicted that not trading McCarthy was a dumb idea and that GWS would get a far worse trade 12 months later. Freos ladder position has nothing to do with it

We have to disagree there, because the Giants would have traded him last year if we knew we were getting pick 3, I don't doubt that for a second.From GWS point of view Freo's ladder position has everything to do with it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We have to disagree there, because the Giants would have traded him last year if we knew we were getting pick 3, I don't doubt that for a second.From GWS point of view Freo's ladder position has everything to do with it.

I'd trade 3 to get 7 34 and 72 in an instant. Thats a fair pick switch.

And thats without getting McCarthy. Hes a freebie. Please dont try and invent a lie that McCarthy was worth pick 3...

 

[dlanod]

I'd trade 3 to get 7 34 and 72 in an instant. Thats a fair pick switch.

And thats without getting McCarthy. Hes a freebie. Please dont try and invent a lie that McCarthy was worth pick 3...

He's talking about Freo's 2015 and 2016 first rounder offer last year (he specifically says "last year"), not the trade that just went through.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He's talking about Freo's 2015 and 2016 first rounder offer last year (he specifically says "last year"), not the trade that just went through.

Noted.

It was a perfectly good offer regardless. Freo always likely to slide a bit (predicted to be just in or out of the eight ) and a top 12 pick likely.

 

[Sully90]

Yep, McCarthy, Kerston, Taberner, Walters, D.Pearce, Yarran/Balla is starting to look like quite a formiddable forward line being fed by Fyfe, Neale, S.Hill, B.Hill, Bennell, Mundy - I think Freo will be next years biggest riser and head straight back into the 8 (assuming they get a fair run with injuries).

Our depth will be pretty average with all the delistings we've made, especially around the defence line. We'll rise but top8 will be a bit lucky I think.

 

[The Fid]

I'd trade 3 to get 7 34 and 72 in an instant. Thats a fair pick switch.

And thats without getting McCarthy. Hes a freebie.

From a Collingwood perspective, yeah, of course you would.

However, from a GWS point of view, Pick 72 is an arbitrary number. To be honest, neither side really has a use for it. It has intrinsic value, sure, but at the end of the day it is pretty much worthless.

It's really McCarthy, 7 & 34 for Pick 3, which is better for our list as it gets us into the upper echelon of the draft in order to get a free swing at the high-end talent that is going to be available at 3, that wouldn't be there at 7, as well as our Academy kids.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's really McCarthy, 7 & 34 for Pick 3, which is better for our list as it gets us into the upper echelon of the draft in order to get a free swing at the high-end talent that is going to be available at 3, that wouldn't be there at 7, as well as our Academy kids.

Its a laughable stretch to say you wouldnt have landed high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.

 

[garlic munchers]

From a Collingwood perspective, yeah, of course you would.

However, from a GWS point of view, Pick 72 is an arbitrary number. To be honest, neither side really has a use for it. It has intrinsic value, sure, but at the end of the day it is pretty much worthless.

It's really McCarthy, 7 & 34 for Pick 3, which is better for our list as it gets us into the upper echelon of the draft in order to get a free swing at the high-end talent that is going to be available at 3, that wouldn't be there at 7, as well as our Academy kids.

If the McCarthy non-trade last year goes down as GW's worst trading blunder then as far as blunders go, I bet there are a lot of clubs that wish they could replace some of their howlers with this terrible result.

Upside was that it showed GWS wasn't going to be bent over, much to the chagrin of the established footy world.

 

[Nickos66]

However, from a GWS point of view, Pick 72 is an arbitrary number. To be honest, neither side really has a use for it. It has intrinsic value, sure, but at the end of the day it is pretty much worthless.

It's really McCarthy, 7 & 34 for Pick 3, which is better for our list as it gets us into the upper echelon of the draft in order to get a free swing at the high-end talent that is going to be available at 3, that wouldn't be there at 7, as well as our Academy kids.

We'll use 72. We've hacked away almost a quarter of our list, and will probably lose a couple more, We'll bat deep into this years draft.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Upside was that it showed GWS wasn't going to be bent over, much to the chagrin of the established footy world.

Yet they just got bent over....

Just like StKilda tried to prove they woudlt be bent over in 2009.

 

[The Fid]

Its a laughable stretch to say you wont land high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.

We wouldn't get a free hit at a high-end talent outside of our academy if we didn't trade up from 7 to 3. Setterfield sits around the 8-12 mark, and we would match a bid if one came for him at 6 and beyond (Essendon aren't stupid enough to bid on him at Pick 1) so we wouldn't have really "gained much" this draft / trade time.

But now we can get our hands on a McLuggage or a McGrath or an Ainsworth as well as Setterfield and Perryman and the other academy kids along with clearing cap space. It could have been a disaster for us, but I think we've come out alright.

 

[dlanod]

Its a laughable stretch to say you wouldnt have landed high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.

There's a fair chance pick 7 was just going to be used by a Setterfield bid. Pick 3 guarantees GWS will get a top talent plus their academy graduates. Pick 7 didn't.

 

[DaTBird187]

Its a laughable stretch to say you wouldnt have landed high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.

I'm sure they will cry into their soup, while they pick three more top ten talents this year, after making a prelim.

The AFL has created a monster and it will get worse and worse.

 

[FreoMonocle]

If decling to trade a contracted player is holding anyone to ransom, no doubt you'd be happy for the Pies to trade us any contracted player we wanted?

But clubs do trade players for the players sake - and not the clubs sake. Dylan Roberton asked to be traded back to Victoria for personal reasons. We shopped him around to no effect, would happily have kept him for our best 22, but delisted him so he could be picked up as a delisted free agent.

Would have preferred that the Saints who had their eye on him, trade for him rather than get a freebie, but for Dylan's sake, was happy to see him run around in the Saints colours and that we weren't campaigners.

 

[mightymouse75]

Dylan is a classic example. We have needed him the last 3 years. We got burnt. campaigners we are not.

 

[mightymouse75]

It was just odd that gws decided to make a stand on cam. But anyway. Move on. Nothing more to be said.
Between cams manager young, and gubby it was always going to get uncivilized

 

[Bender571]

We have to disagree there, because the Giants would have traded him last year if we knew we were getting pick 3, I don't doubt that for a second.From GWS point of view Freo's ladder position has everything to do with it.

I'd doubt it. GWS were looking to make a stand last year.
If they weren't happy with Freo's offer they could've told Freo what would've made them happy, whether that be a player or to go find a lower pick from someone else. But GWS' actions were consistent from what they said as soon as McCarthy requested a trade, 'We will not trade Cameron McCarthy under any circumstances".

 

[freo_leo29]

LOL! It's been Freo who has approached us year after year about him, not the other way around.

No, we approached him once in 2013 and asked the question since then Black has been approaching Freo, we don't want him...
we dodged a bullet, listen to his manager from trade radio on Monday

 

[masai]

With hindsight, yes it was. But you can't trade with hindsight. You can only do what you think is best for your list at the time. There are a lot of clubs out there that have made bigger blunders at draft / trade time than the Giants trying to hold on to Cam McCarthy last year.

Those comments brought back terrible trading / drafting memories from 20 years ago ...............

" with hindsight "

 

[masai]

Its a laughable stretch to say you wouldnt have landed high end talent at 7 . Its the best deal you could muster but its basically been a disaster for GWS.

GWS need to learn the value of picks.

Extract silver spoons from mouth.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Off topic but couldnt find a thread on Patful.

Has retired and will be re rookied as a non playing player.

The only "valid" reason I can think for this is if he is still contracted and the Giants are at/over their salary cap and cant afford an extra rookie as they would have to carry Patful in the cap anyway.

Not sure if anybody in the know can shed any light on this?

 

[dlanod]

Off topic but couldnt find a thread on Patful.

Has retired and will be re rookied as a non playing player.

The only "valid" reason I can think for this is if he is still contracted and the Giants are at/over their salary cap and cant afford an extra rookie as they would have to carry Patful in the cap anyway.

Not sure if anybody in the know can shed any light on this?

That's roughly my interpretation of it, though I don't think can/can't afford extra rookies came into it.

Patfull triggered an automatic contract extension during the year, so was under contract in 2017. GWS presumably couldn't afford his retirement payout under the 2016 cap, so was going to have to include it in the 2017 cap. Given that was going to be the case anyway, moving him to the rookie list lets them save 50% off the salary for a team that has a lot of spare rookie spots.

 

[dlanod]

Good trade. His mo has gotten worse.