Clark trade discussion #2 (please read opening post)

[charles202]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

What is it with Fremantle trading for guys who wear the No. 1 jersey for the Lions.....are they confused that this is actaully our ranking system.

This could be the start of our very own jersey 'curse'!!

 

[Milk Steak]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Was alot more posts here a second ago? Think I'm losing my mind

 

[POBT]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Was alot more posts here a second ago? Think I'm losing my mind

It was Grimmed.

 

[Milk Steak]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

It was Grimmed.

Haha, fair enough. Hard to keep on topic when there's bugger all trade news to speak about. Wish something would come out already so we can have a crumb to live off

 

[Football Pope]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Haha, fair enough. Hard to keep on topic when there's bugger all trade news to speak about. Wish something would come out already so we can have a crumb to live off

Yep.... Interesting listening to SEN this morning..Greg Denham had his say on the matter, stuff we all pretty much know..Harvey was more interested in Clark than Lyon.. they played JB's comments on it yesterday How the lions have been decimated by players going.. the Lions will be playing hard ball..every effort will be done to get Clark to WA (not Freo). but it would have to be in the Lions best interest...Denham believes this will be a very quiet trade period that only 8 trades to get done and a majority of those will be GWS on trading mature age players..mentioned WC being interested in Leon Davis & Brent Macaffer.....

 

[Swanny10]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Hurry up Trade week I'm over the speculation!

 

[Moo]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

It would appear from the Tom Tom drums at Freo that Mr Lyon appears happy to let Bondy & Co continue to drive trade/draft strategy.

If neither WA club put enough on the table - do you think Brisb and Clark could reconcile easily?

 

[Happy_Neale]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

It would appear from the Tom Tom drums at Freo that Mr Lyon appears happy to let Bondy & Co continue to drive trade/draft strategy.

If neither WA club put enough on the table - do you think Brisb and Clark could reconcile easily?

An interesting question indeed.

Most of us were resigned to losing him at the end of the season, so it's probably hard to judge if things had become untenable, or if he just preferred to move back home. I would think we could sort something in some way, in the best interests of both parties.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

I didn't think there was a falling out with the club, I thought he just genuinely wanted to go home. A trade will be done that I am certain of.

 

[whatboutbob]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

It would appear from the Tom Tom drums at Freo that Mr Lyon appears happy to let Bondy & Co continue to drive trade/draft strategy.

If neither WA club put enough on the table - do you think Brisb and Clark could reconcile easily?

Do we know what their opinion is of Clark?

I think Voss genuinely wants Mitch to stay. Most Brissy fans on here prob have a different opinion. I'm fed up with him playing like he wants to be elsewhere.

 

[Moo]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Do we know what their opinion is of Clark?

Honestly? ....don't know.

The word was Harves was quite keen on Clark, but the Footy Dept wanted to get a feel for the price range of the Jaegerbomb.

I don't read this as not keen, probably just a bit more careful.

We can not match what GC are supposedly going to offer, so that frees up some resources to bid for Clark.

We haven't traded a big name in under these guys - so we don't know what the hell they will do .....suicide bombers or folding chairs?

I am beginning to think the deal may depend on us moving someone early in the trade period.

 

[whatboutbob]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

So you think Freo will trade out a player who presumably Brissy doesn't want but who garners sufficient value to help satisfy the Lions? Duffield maaaaaaybe?

 

[FULACH]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

We should run a nearest the pin type competition with regards to Clarke trade!

Still plenty of time.

 

[pauldrc]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

We should run a nearest the pin type competition with regards to Clarke trade!

Still plenty of time.

Pick 16, straight up.

A loss to us unless we get very lucky in the draft....

 

[Moo]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

So you think Freo will trade out a player who presumably Brissy doesn't want but who garners sufficient value to help satisfy the Lions? Duffield maaaaaaybe?

No idea really but if we are unwilling to part with the picks you need and you don't want older players - it is one way we may get closer. For example a Kep to GWS may not be out of the question?

If Voss wants Clark, it may be in his best interests to play hard ball and scare us/WC off the chase ....Clark may want WA but you would think Qld would be his 2nd preference.

 

[cotter101]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/10366348/eskimo-joe-join-dockers-song-battle/

Fremantle's priority is understood to be snaring Brisbane big man Mitch Clark.

^ Thats all it says about Mitch Clark in the link.

 

[Bad Brain]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

I think most semi-sensible posters agree that Mitch's value is between 16 straight swap and 16 and a fringe player. (Hence the stalled discusssion on both boards).

So in the absence of actual news, I thought it might be interesting to see what sort of players Brissy can expect with pick 16. So since 2000:

Ben Jacobs – Port – 2010
Jasper Pittard – Port – 2009
Ryan Shoenmakers – Hawks – 2008
Mathew Lobbe – Port – 2007
Mitch Brown – West Coast – 2006
Richard Douglas – Adelaide – 2005
Adam Pattison – Richmond – 2004
Josh Willoughby – Geelong - 2003
Stephen Gillham – Port - 2002
Rick Ladson – Hawks - 2001
Scott Thompson – Melb - 2000

Probably Melb in 2000 were the only ones who got the best possible player available. Still with Brisbane's recent recruiting record you could expect to get a very good player.

 

[cotter101]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

I think most semi-sensible posters agree that Mitch's value is between 16 straight swap and 16 and a fringe player. (Hence the stalled discusssion on both boards).

So in the absence of actual news, I thought it might be interesting to see what sort of players Brissy can expect with pick 16. So since 2000:

Ben Jacobs – Port – 2010
Jasper Pittard – Port – 2009
Ryan Shoenmakers – Hawks – 2008
Mathew Lobbe – Port – 2007
Mitch Brown – West Coast – 2006
Richard Douglas – Adelaide – 2005
Adam Pattison – Richmond – 2004
Josh Willoughby – Geelong - 2003
Stephen Gillham – Port - 2002
Rick Ladson – Hawks - 2001
Scott Thompson – Melb - 2000

Probably Melb in 2000 were the only ones who got the best possible player available. Still with Brisbane's recent recruiting record you could expect to get a very good player.

I am perfectly fine with pick 16 and a maybe a player like Mayne Walters Ibbotson or Duffield. I have only watched Duffield closely. But I am hearing how good things about the other three. I would still prefer a 3 way trade with GWS.

 

[POBT]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

I think most semi-sensible posters agree that Mitch's value is between 16 straight swap and 16 and a fringe player. (Hence the stalled discusssion on both boards).

Unfortunately, the semi-sensible posters are being drowned out!

A few Freo supporters have posted that their compo pick + a player would be their preferred outcome. Whilst this has been scorned by some Lions posters, I don't think this is a terrible outcome and I'd accept it if that was the outcome, even if my preference is still for pick 16. We're pretty well stacked for draft picks this year and still have a compo pick to use next year. Another compo pick means that we'll maintain a good draft position in 2013 or, alternatively, we can stack picks for next year's super draft.

However, regardless of how future drafts play out, pick 16 is more valuable than a compo pick. The difference could be as little as 1 pick (which is negligible) or as many as 10-12 (which is more problematic). Obviously, if accepting the compo, the Lions would be accepting the risk that the pick could equal pick 28 in a future draft. They might want a slightly better player in order to offset that risk. It may well be that the quality of the player (if any) offered in addition to a pick may change depending on whether it is pick 16 or the compo pick. Both clubs might see Pick 16 + Walters as roughly equal to Compo pick + Roberton (just to throw 2 names out) - ie a more valuable draft pick with a less valuable player (and vice versa).

To be honest, despite the fact that the ambit claims continue to flow between Freo and Lions supporters, I don't think the clubs will take long to sort this. At this stage, it is a two way negotiation as the player's wishes are known. The options are pretty limited in terms of what Freo can offer. We're clearly talking about the choice between a couple of draft picks and the choice between maybe 2-3 players that Freo can live without and the Lions would want. We're hardly negotiating mining rights in Antarctica.

 

[Bad Brain]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

I am perfectly fine with pick 16 and a maybe a player like Mayne Walters Ibbotson or Duffield. I have only watched Duffield closely. But I am hearing how good things about the other three. I would still prefer a 3 way trade with GWS.

Mayne, Ibbo and Duff are all in our leadership group, so I'm not sure they'd count as fringe players, depsite the frustration of some Freo fans making it seem that way.

But yeah, it's a bit of a balancing act with 16 alone being a small loss to Brisbane and 16 + a fringe player (such as Walters or Van Berlo) being a small loss to Freo.

Still I think this is the price range. I'm putting all the other more silly trade suggestions down to angst on either side, speculating that Clark is going to get better or worse.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Mayne, Ibbo and Duff are all in our leadership group

Mitch is in ours (bafflingly).

 

[Ironmonger]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Both clubs might see Pick 16 + Walters as roughly equal to Compo pick + Roberton (just to throw 2 names out) - ie a more valuable draft pick with a less valuable player (and vice versa).

Just quietly, I'd definitely take compo pick + Roberton. Not sure I'd be thrilled about pick 16 + walters though.

 

[Bad Brain]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Unfortunately, the semi-sensible posters are being drowned out!

A few Freo supporters have posted that their compo pick + a player would be their preferred outcome. Whilst this has been scorned by some Lions posters, I don't think this is a terrible outcome and I'd accept it if that was the outcome, even if my preference is still for pick 16. We're pretty well stacked for draft picks this year and still have a compo pick to use next year. Another compo pick means that we'll maintain a good draft position in 2013 or, alternatively, we can stack picks for next year's super draft.

However, regardless of how future drafts play out, pick 16 is more valuable than a compo pick. The difference could be as little as 1 pick (which is negligible) or as many as 10-12 (which is more problematic). Obviously, if accepting the compo, the Lions would be accepting the risk that the pick could equal pick 28 in a future draft. They might want a slightly better player in order to offset that risk. It may well be that the quality of the player (if any) offered in addition to a pick may change depending on whether it is pick 16 or the compo pick. Both clubs might see Pick 16 + Walters as roughly equal to Compo pick + Roberton (just to throw 2 names out) - ie a more valuable draft pick with a less valuable player (and vice versa).

To be honest, despite the fact that the ambit claims continue to flow between Freo and Lions supporters, I don't think the clubs will take long to sort this. At this stage, it is a two way negotiation as the player's wishes are known. The options are pretty limited in terms of what Freo can offer. We're clearly talking about the choice between a couple of draft picks and the choice between maybe 2-3 players that Freo can live without and the Lions would want. We're hardly negotiating mining rights in Antarctica.

Totally agree. A third party would make it interesting to get the right fringe player to Brisbane, but back-up ruck Griffen is a party pooper and I don't see it happening. Also the Lions got a pretty good look at guys like Walters and Co, so I'd be surprised if they prefered someone else from GWS, Richmond or Port.

I think the lack of options are actually fueling some of the more crazy suggestions. I mean, once a basic price agreed what else is there to discuss? It's not like the Gunston Trade where the potential destination and compensation are all highly debateable.

 

[Bad Brain]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Mitch is in ours (bafflingly).

We tried the same thing with Michael Johnson in 2010...

 

[Bad Brain]

Re: Clark trade discussion (please read opening post) #2

Just quietly, I'd definitely take compo pick + Roberton. Not sure I'd be thrilled about pick 16 + walters though.

I'd wager it'll be the Lion's choice as to which pick they want out of 16 or Compo. You could argue for either but given your recent success drafting around this mark, and that you already have a tonne of compo's, I understand why most prefer 16.