Chris Knights

[Blue and Silver]

For the record Nick Stevens suffering from a very serious neck injury that effectively eliminated his desire to ever come into contact with another player (not that he was that into it anyway) made him the player we all remember. Before that was quite good, very definetly screwed Port over.

 

[Hawks2009]

what would you guys want from hawthorn for knights, we have picks 19+36.

not sure if we want him but i see our 3rd mid forward spot in need of some attention, we have only 2 goal kickers.

I would love to have him.

 

[TORRES_9]

For the record Nick Stevens suffering from a very serious neck injury that effectively eliminated his desire to ever come into contact with another player (not that he was that into it anyway) made him the player we all remember. Before that was quite good, very definetly screwed Port over.

The year Nick left we won the flag, so he didnt screw us over too badly.

 

[Invigoration]

The year Nick left we won the flag, so he didnt screw us over too badly.

He still screwed you over, regardless of how you went after he left...

 

[King Elvis]

He screwed them, but at the same time, Port made a strong stand that has no doubt paid dividends.

Hawks - #19 and a good player.

 

[Hawks2009]

which player would it involve?

 

[Brent Prismall#9]

Apparently the Hawks first pick is off the table.

Quote:
HAWKS' FIRST PICK OFF THE TABLE

Hawthorn has ruled out trading its first-round trade pick after giving up early selections last year to secure Shaun Burgoyne and Josh Gibson.

Last year the club's first pick was No.39, and it is aware it needs to keep bringing young talent into the club.
Now it has picks 19 and 36 and is keen to keep both.

It is aware that second pick is closer to what used to be a third-round selection, but such is life in the brave new world.

Link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-buzz-take-a-pay-cut-fev/story-e6frf9jf-1225914748147

 

[Hawks2009]

Very interesting article, and im happy we are keeping our picks

 

[Kaiser Powser]

You could do that, but at the moment Essendon doesn't have one, which was my point. Why would you bring a hypothetical pick you don't even have yet into the equasion? Which club will you be getting this pick off? What will you be giving up to secure it? The discussion is pointless without those details.



NFI because I didn't take into accound that hypothetically Essendon could get an appropriate pick off an un-named club for an un-named cost? Right.

Collingwood are going to draft Gorringe. How? Why by getting a top 5 pick, DUH!

You do realise this is all hypothetical.

The discussions in the draft/trades board are generally all hypothetical, none of us have any say in reality here. By your view all these discussions are pointless. End of the day, Essendon has more chance of acquiring a later first round pick (they will change hands this year) than they do of picking up Chris Knights. So which hypothetical is more far fetched?

If you are so adverse to hypothetical situations, I would steer clear of the trading board if I were you.

 

[DaVe86]

Yer Hawthorn would be foolish to part with their first pick. They traded away a lot last year to score Burgoyne and Gibson...so they have to get a first rounder this year at minimum. You can still get something of quality at their pick which is still a top 20.


Knights is another incredibly tough player to gauge. Typically, these sort of deals never go through because one club rates too highly, and the other club isn't willing to part with anything of quality.


Knights could be anything. He has shown a lot. Unfortunately injuries drag his value down. Also, he hasn't played as a pure midfielder for a while, so if you recruit him it is as a mid-size forward flanker.


Something around pick 15-25 sounds about right, perhaps with a bit of negotiation with other picks or a player as a sweetner etc.


I can't see Collingwood in the picture unless Medhurst or Jack Anthony are on the table.

 

[GordonBlue]

I can't see Collingwood in the picture unless Medhurst or Jack Anthony are on the table.

You've got the perfect two players to use right there... a combo of both should definitely get it done...i would think

 

[DaVe86]

You've got the perfect two players to use right there... a combo of both should definitely get it done...i would think

I wouldn't give both...but would couple 1 with our pick 25.

Anthony in particular could suit considering Bock has left and Rutten and Stevens are getting on in age. Although they have Davis developing and Otten returns from a knee. They got a few others coming through as well and they wouldn't need Jack as a forward with Tippett and Walker.


I don't think medhurst would interest them because Porplyzia is a better player...although they may look to use him more in the midfield. Plus Knights is kind of like Medhurst in terms of role in the side...so it's a nothing trade.

 

[WALL-e]

Neither interest me to be honest.

Medders doesn't work hard on defence and plays selfishly.

Anthony isn't a natural backman, and doesn't do enough as a forward. We're also stacked at the KPP roles.

 

[DaVe86]

Neither interest me to be honest.

Medders doesn't work hard on defence and plays selfishly.

Anthony isn't a natural backman, and doesn't do enough as a forward. We're also stacked at the KPP roles.

agree that neither may interest you...but have to take you up on the line "anthony isn't a natural backman".

I'd say he isn't a natural forward. Remember he was recruited as a defender...we turned him into a forward. Since moving into defence, he has looked very comfortable and actually is winning more of the ball. That was my criticism of him as a forward...he didn't get into games.

To me that shows he is a natural backman...not a forward.


But agree that you may not be interested because as you say you have KPP depth....and Medhurst is not what you'd be after. You'd just keep Knights if that was the case.

 

[WALL-e]

I agree he's looked solid at VFL level as a defender, but he tends to panic at AFL level against bigger opponents. He still spends too much time in your VFL team as a forward, needs to go one way or the other. I don’t think he’s quick enough to take Jarrad Grant like forwards and I don’t think he’s strong enough in the air or can read aerial contests good enough to take pack forwards.

Does his best work moving towards the ball, where he has control and he doesn’t have to watch his man. Good lead up player, but don’t think he has the tank to play high half forward/CHF.

Really in-between player for my liking, but a good depth player or Mr Fix it. Would think the Pies would ask a bit too.

 

[Zahki]

The discussions in the draft/trades board are generally all hypothetical, none of us have any say in reality here. By your view all these discussions are pointless. End of the day, Essendon has more chance of acquiring a later first round pick (they will change hands this year) than they do of picking up Chris Knights. So which hypothetical is more far fetched?

You're not the brightest thing on two legs either by the look of it. The point is you can say Essendon will trade a pick in the range of 15-25 to get Knights, but it's completely meaningless and pointless without detailing how you intend to secure a pick in that range and from which club. Much like me saying Collingwood will trade pick 8 for Knights without explaining how Collingwood are going to get that pick in the first place.

If you're going to say "Yeah we'll get a pick round there" you've got to at least say where you're getting it from and for what. Otherwise we can get onto serious trades like Collingwood trading picks 1, 2 and 3 for Lance Franklin.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

You're not the brightest thing on two legs either by the look of it. The point is you can say Essendon will trade a pick in the range of 15-25 to get Knights, but it's completely meaningless and pointless without detailing how you intend to secure a pick in that range and from which club. Much like me saying Collingwood will trade pick 8 for Knights without explaining how Collingwood are going to get that pick in the first place.

If you're going to say "Yeah we'll get a pick round there" you've got to at least say where you're getting it from and for what. Otherwise we can get onto serious trades like Collingwood trading picks 1, 2 and 3 for Lance Franklin.

You really are a moron.

I never proposed a trade, or for that matter was remotely interested in devising a strategy to get Knights (whom I do not want), I simply responded to your stupid post that the only way Essendon could get Knights was to trade pick 8 for him.

If you really are stupid enough to believe it is impossible for Essendon to acquire a pick in the range of 15-25, then I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you.

 

[jackster83]

You really are a moron.

I never proposed a trade, or for that matter was remotely interested in devising a strategy to get Knights (whom I do not want), I simply responded to your stupid post that the only way Essendon could get Knights was to trade pick 8 for him.

If you really are stupid enough to believe it is impossible for Essendon to acquire a pick in the range of 15-25, then I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you.

I'd be interested to see what Essendon would be offering if they were to pursue a first round pick, or Knights directly. You would have to give up a lot more than a Winderlich, Monfries or Houli calibre player.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I'd be interested to see what Essendon would be offering if they were to pursue a first round pick, or Knights directly. You would have to give up a lot more than a Winderlich, Monfries or Houli calibre player.

Who knows, Saints may want Winderlich, Stanton may walk.

Every BF keyboard expert said we would never get a decent pick for Lovett last year, all were proven wrong. So I am not particular concerned that no one on these boards rate our players.

 

[Zahki]

If you really are stupid enough to believe it is impossible for Essendon to acquire a pick in the range of 15-25, then I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you.

Not impossible, just very unlikely. Will Essendon trade Hurley, Watson, Gumbleton, Melksham or Ryder? No? Then your chances of convincing another club to part with their first rounder is slim to none. Go ahead and poll the boards on which Essendon players they'd part with their first pick for, guaranteed the listed names would all be considered untouchable to you.

Which brings us right back to what Essendon currently have, a second rounder won't be enough since if they don't use their first rounder another club will, so logic dictates if Essendon want Knights then pick 8 is their only bargaining chip. If that's too high a price (And I agree that it is) then they won't get him.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Not impossible, just very unlikely. Will Essendon trade Hurley, Watson, Gumbleton, Melksham or Ryder? No? Then your chances of convincing another club to part with their first rounder is slim to none. Go ahead and poll the boards on which Essendon players they'd part with their first pick for, guaranteed the listed names would all be considered untouchable to you.

Which brings us right back to what Essendon currently have, a second rounder won't be enough since if they don't use their first rounder another club will, so logic dictates if Essendon want Knights then pick 8 is their only bargaining chip. If that's too high a price (And I agree that it is) then they won't get him.

As I don't really want Knights, I am not going to wrack my brain coming up with hopeful plans for it to happen, but you can rest assured that if Knights wanted to come to Essendon and Essendon wanted him, a deal could be made not directly involving pick 8.

As I mentioned above: St Kilda could part with their late first rounder for Winderlich. Essendon could trade 8 and 31 for Mundy and 21. GC could get Stanton and we get compensation or a direct trade with GC. Who knows, this shit is complicated, so to sit there and say it can't happen is pretty ignorant.

 

[CrowHop]

Apparently the Hawks first pick is off the table.

Quote:
HAWKS' FIRST PICK OFF THE TABLE

Hawthorn has ruled out trading its first-round trade pick after giving up early selections last year to secure Shaun Burgoyne and Josh Gibson.

Last year the club's first pick was No.39, and it is aware it needs to keep bringing young talent into the club.
Now it has picks 19 and 36 and is keen to keep both.

It is aware that second pick is closer to what used to be a third-round selection, but such is life in the brave new world.

Link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-buzz-take-a-pay-cut-fev/story-e6frf9jf-1225914748147

So just out of curiosity, what is the definition of 'young' ?

Knights has just turned 24, so I assume a lot younger than that ?

I find it bizarre when clubs say things like that before they know exactly who/what will be offered up in exchange.

 

[The Donners]

You've got the perfect two players to use right there... a combo of both should definitely get it done...i would think

Betts and Jacobs.

 

[The Donners]

You're not the brightest thing on two legs either by the look of it. The point is you can say Essendon will trade a pick in the range of 15-25 to get Knights, but it's completely meaningless and pointless without detailing how you intend to secure a pick in that range and from which club. Much like me saying Collingwood will trade pick 8 for Knights without explaining how Collingwood are going to get that pick in the first place.

If you're going to say "Yeah we'll get a pick round there" you've got to at least say where you're getting it from and for what. Otherwise we can get onto serious trades like Collingwood trading picks 1, 2 and 3 for Lance Franklin.

2 options just off the top of my head:

1. Winderlich to the Saints, pick 25.
2. Stanton to the Gold Coast, compensation pick.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

2 options just off the top of my head:

1. Winderlich to the Saints, pick 25.
2. Stanton to the Gold Coast, compensation pick.

Nah, I put those two scenarios forward and Zahki still thinks the only possibility is pick 8

We finish the year poorly and all of a sudden we only have 5 players worth a pick under 26. gotta love Bigfooty.