Early Trade Ideas thread

[josh the gent]

Travis Boak

Geelong and Carlton have had their names bandied around as possible landing areas for Travis Boak, should he choose not to renew his contract with Port.

We would have to give up something to get him (unders though given he's out of contract), but do you think he is a player we should target?

His particulars:

• #5 pick, 2006 draft.
• Turns 24 in August.
• Played 99 games.
• B&F winner at Port once (in 2011).

He would add quality to our midfield, and would beef up the age area of our list that is lacking...

 

[cammo78]

Re: Travis Boak

We would have to part with a Dahlhaus, Wallis, etc to get him.

No thanks.

 

[Igloo]

Re: Travis Boak

Nope. We don't need the sort of player he is really. He'd be a good player to have, but we'd need to give up too much.

 

[Igloo]

Hey guys, if you want to talk trades, who the club can look at to get with free agency, players who don't look happy at their club and might want out, homesickness, etc, keep it in this thread.

There are going to be a lot of options thrown around, so we don't want thousands of threads

 

[Dazb86]

IMO we should develop our own.

 

[stefoid]

I would trade for Danyle Pearce if he was cheapish.

 

[100action]

Some players on the outer:

Nic Suban
Chris Knights
Alex Silvagni

wouldn't mind the Freo duo.

 

[josh the gent]

Re: Travis Boak

We would have to part with a Dahlhaus, Wallis, etc to get him.

No thanks.

Really?

Remember Boak is out of contract at year's end, so Port don't really have a strong bargaining position.

That said, he will probably be sought after by Carlton, who might give up their first rounder to get him (would be around pick 16)...

 

[Igloo]

Re: Travis Boak

Port would want more than pick 16. Boak wont want to go to the PSD, since he would be picked up by Melbourne, GC or GWS. So Port are ok in bargaining power. Not at any risk of his walking, I wouldn't think.
There was an article the other day, how he will be listening to what his family wants, and doing what is right by them. They are from Geelong, so if he does end up leaving, that will be his first preference you'd imagine.
He says he's happy at Port though, so if his family is fine, he'll stay there.

He's a good player, and one of Port's best. They wont want to get a bad deal for him, if he does end up leaving.

 

[Igloo]

Re: Travis Boak

and in recent news, Boak will go home over the bye weekend to discuss the matter.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/137455/default.aspx

PORT Adelaide coach Matthew Primus says he wants Travis Boak to inform the Power as soon as he can of his intentions regarding his future at the club.

Boak will go home to Melbourne over the bye weekend to talk his playing future over with his family and Primus said that he expected an answer soon after.

 

[dogwatch]

Re: Travis Boak

Have heard that Macca's wants to develop his own talent. Hallelujah, brother! We have had some good recycled players over the years but a lot of duds as well. With careful recruiting I think the odds favour the club that recruits and develops 18yo players. Also you have them for longer. The only exception being if you need one more star to win a flag eg Ball or Mooney or Hall (we hoped!)

On that basis let's pick our own midfielders. Didn't we go for the extra pick this year because it's a deep draft? Why would we pay a steep price for a good midfielder if the draft is so good?

 

[Butane]

Re: Travis Boak

Good clubs are consistently trying lure good players from other clubs - in every football code/league in the world. We'd be very close minded to just develop our own players especially considering that we only have access to 1/18th of all AFL players.

Just saying. Doesn't hurt to ask any player that would be a start up best 22 player for us as long as they have at least 5 years in them.

 

[dogwatch]

Re: Travis Boak

Good clubs are consistently trying lure good players from other clubs - in every football code/league in the world. We'd be very close minded to just develop our own players especially considering that we only have access to 1/18th of all AFL players.

Just saying. Doesn't hurt to ask any player that would be a start up best 22 player for us as long as they have at least 5 years in them.

So are bad clubs.

Agree it doesn't hurt to ask. I am not saying we should close our mind and I'd love Boak at the WO but I think we should be looking at this supposedly rich draft in 2012 and not trades, unless our hand is forced (someone is determined to leave us) or the trade is ridiculously good in our favour (say Boak for pick 48, although I know it wouldn't happen).

I'd prefer we looked for trades in years of shallow drafts.

 

[Mutt]

Re: Travis Boak

So are bad clubs.

Agree it doesn't hurt to ask. I am not saying we should close our mind and I'd love Boak at the WO but I think we should be looking at this supposedly rich draft in 2012 and not trades, unless our hand is forced (someone is determined to leave us) or the trade is ridiculously good in our favour (say Boak for pick 48, although I know it wouldn't happen).

I'd prefer we looked for trades in years of shallow drafts.

If we are looking to trade, I'd prefer we do so with a view to improving our draft pick order and then back ourselves to develop our kids. I like what I'm seeing from McCartney in terms of teaching many of the players to modify their game to suit our new style and gameplan.

 

[100action]

Re: Travis Boak

I think we should consider the Geelong method where they split a higher pick into 2 lower but still decent draft picks given the depth of this years draft:

Cheeky Geelong did the following:
2009 Picks 33 and 97 for Picks 40, 42, 56
2011 Pick 26 for Picks 32 and 34

Say we decide to keep pick 8 to pick the best available (Stringer or Whitfield would be nice). We split our pick 9 compo into lower picks say picks 16 and 18 (Port were willing to give up picks 8 and 9 for Richmonds pick 3 remember). We used our second rounder which will probably be around pick 28 and split that into picks 35 and 39.

Out
Picks 9 and 28

In
Picks 16, 18, 35 and 39.

These kind of picks in a quality draft can really finalize and set the wheels of our rebuilding well and truly in motion.

 

[Igloo]

Re: Travis Boak

I like the idea

 

[Mutt]

Re: Travis Boak

I think we should consider the Geelong method where they split a higher pick into 2 lower but still decent draft picks given the depth of this years draft:

Cheeky Geelong did the following:
2009 Picks 33 and 97 for Picks 40, 42, 56
2011 Pick 26 for Picks 32 and 34

Say we decide to keep pick 8 to pick the best available (Stringer or Whitfield would be nice). We split our pick 9 compo into lower picks say picks 16 and 18 (Port were willing to give up picks 8 and 9 for Richmonds pick 3 remember). We used our second rounder which will probably be around pick 28 and split that into picks 35 and 39.

Out
Picks 9 and 28

In
Picks 16, 18, 35 and 39.

These kind of picks in a quality draft can really finalize and set the wheels of our rebuilding well and truly in motion.

Nice!

That is the other way to go, instead of trying to upgrade 2 picks, turn 2 picks into 3 or 4 fairly high picks. Thanks 100action.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

In a draft that is reputed to be deep, I would rather we went for young talent. For shallow draft's would rather we went for youngish players ie 23/24 in a trade.

I like Boak, but he is meant to be injury prone, I don't think we could afford another mistake after what happened to Cooney.

 

[dogwatch]

Splitting a high pick for two slightly lower ones is fine if we have the gaps in our list, but do we? There's already been some debate here about who we might de-list. Splitting a draft pick means more de-listings.

 

[Morris Major]

I like Boak, but he is meant to be injury prone, I don't think we could afford another mistake after what happened to Cooney.

Cooney was a once off incident with a permanent effect, not sure it's the right example. He was perfectly fine before that.

 

[pumpter]

Surprised about the negativity of picking up Boak. The kids a gun midfielder, of which every team needs 3,4 or 5 to compete for a flag. We'll have probably picks 8 and 9, and i'd be happy to give up either or those picks for Boak. He's only 23, already a B & F winner, and has 10 years of high quality footy ahead of him - not sure why we wouldn't chase him.

And please don't use the term recycled. A recycled player is someone who is discarded by an AFL club and picked up by another. Port are desperate to keep Port, and he certainly doesn't fit into the Steven Koop/Andrew McDougal recycled player category. He is a gun.

 

[mrbewbs]

I wouldn't mind going after Boak but I don't see us getting him. Will either stay at Port or go to Geelong. Would rather see us trade for draft picks.

How many needs to be delisted before the draft? As I can only see 2 that I wouldn't mind seeing getting either traded away or delisted.

 

[Gghippo]

Re: Travis Boak

We would have to part with a Dahlhaus, Wallis, etc to get him.

No thanks.

No way we would have to part with Dahl or Wallis for this trade. Someone like Higgins might get it over the line, if Boak is dead set on leaving Port.

 

[Ridley This]

I would trade for Danyle Pearce if he was cheapish.

I think we should put up that guy we picked at 49 in the last draft. Forget his name right now, but it seems like a balanced trade...

 

[stefoid]

Splitting a high pick for two slightly lower ones is fine if we have the gaps in our list, but do we? There's already been some debate here about who we might de-list. Splitting a draft pick means more de-listings.

I get the idea that pick 7 and 8 in this draft have a fair chance of be future elite midfielders. You dont throw away opportunities like that for a fair chance of picking up 3 or 4 good average players.

We already have a lot of good average players, we need more cream to top it off.