Analysis Hawks 2022 Hypothetical trades (read the pinned post)

[Strapping Young Lad]

Firstly, the "No Kane Cornes

Kane Cornes

Age

42

Ht

183cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.5

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

11.0

5star

M

5.2

5star

T

3.3

5star

CL

2.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

13.0

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.2

3star

" Rule is back

 

[TheFourPillars]

Can't believe there's not more excitement from the media and Collingwood fans around what Tom Mitchell will do for them.

Mitchell could win a Brownlow next year. McRae will know exactly how to use him to his full potential, and he'll just be a clearance machine passing out to guys with better disposal and pace, which he can't do at Hawthorn.

Mate u took the words out of mouth

 

[HODGEYROAD]

It's a pretty dumb piece though, why would we care if pick 48 and 50 are equivalent to Pick 28. We're not matching any bids.

Also, why would we need cap space.

Exactly, now you're getting it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Exactly, now you're getting it.

But you're not, because the calculated value of picks was being discussed in regards to Giants handing over 3x first rounders for 1 top 10 pick, and what they'd also need coming back in order for it to look even remotely balanced so that the AFL would sign it off.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Unless we know a side will accept those two selections in the Mitchell trade as a package deal for a future second round pick in next years bigger draft, there isn't a chance we accept it.

 

[TylerDurden]

I'm angry at the stupidity of these people, suggesting we need cap space, or that we need pick 48 and 51 in a draft that's not going to go long passed 50 picks

Keep him.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

But you're not, because the calculated value of picks was being discussed in regards to Giants handing over 3x first rounders for 1 top 10 pick, and what they'd also need coming back in order for it to look even remotely balanced so that the AFL would sign it off.

You've just stated you think it's a bit of a gimmick by saying picks 48 and 50 aren't as good as pick 28 unless you're matching bids. Which is absolutely correct but the sham points system says otherwise.

I'm not saying what the AFL will and won't sign off on, just saying that the whole thing is a gimmick and only relevant to clubs that have academy or F/S prospects.

 

[RX Hawk]

Would Haynes come to us? Not clear where he’s fit in backline (without crowding out opps for DGB, Blanck, Jeka etc) and conflicting with Sicily.
Also seems on the decline - had a pretty average season.

What we are trying to get out of a deal like this is another first rounder via a salary dump.
So it is irrelevant whether Haynes or any other player coming with it play another game or not. Our focus is a first round pick using our cap space.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Unless we know a side will accept those two selections in the Mitchell trade as a package deal for a future second round pick in next years bigger draft, there isn't a chance we accept it.

But but the points system says it's just as valuable... where do I sign ?

 

[DannyJ]

Exactly, now you're getting it.

But its pick 28 in terms of value. Thats what the system says. Thats what clubs measure off.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[fpm84]

Sorry for the intrusion but Pies may end up with #25 (Henry) and #27 (Grundy)… surely you get one of those for Mitchell? I am seeing a bit of talk about accepting a pick in the 40s for him. Is there some fallout that I’m not aware of?

 

[HODGEYROAD]

But its pick 28 in terms of value. Thats what the system says. Thats what clubs measure off.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Hahahahahahahahah

 

[theiaofseed]

But its pick 28 in terms of value. Thats what the system says. Thats what clubs measure off.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

They don't, it only matters if a club is matching a bid.

no club is trading pick 13 for 40+41+42

 

[HODGEYROAD]

They don't, it only matters if a club is matching a bid.

DannyJ was being sarcastic.

 

[LunchboxLegend]

But its pick 28 in terms of value. Thats what the system says. Thats what clubs measure off.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

no, they dont.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

no, they dont.

It's nice some people understand it's a gimmick, but as I said above DannyJ is well aware and was being sarcastic.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You've just stated you think it's a bit of a gimmick by saying picks 48 and 50 aren't as good as pick 28 unless you're matching bids. Which is absolutely correct but the sham points system says otherwise.

I'm not saying what the AFL will and won't sign off on, just saying that the whole thing is a gimmick and only relevant to clubs that have academy or F/S prospects.

No I didn't state it was a gimmick, I stated we don't need picks to the value of 28 because we're not matching any bids.

The AFL would sign off on that deal because it looks fair using that system, but Hawthorn would not. We don't need picks to value of 28.

The key difference is that with the mooted Giants trade the AFL wouldn't sign off on it because it was completely unbalanced requiring something more to come back to the Giants, and the Giants wouldn't accept it ether for the same reason.

 

[RIOLINWITPUNCHS]

Sorry for the intrusion but Pies may end up with #25 (Henry) and #27 (Grundy)… surely you get one of those for Mitchell? I am seeing a bit of talk about accepting a pick in the 40s for him. Is there some fallout that I’m not aware of?

I think the problem is they are going to be prioritising deals for Fiorini, Frampton and whoever else they are chasing using those picks.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

No I didn't state it was a gimmick, I stated we don't need picks to the value of 28 because we're not matching any bids.

The AFL would sign off on that deal because it looks fair using that system, but Hawthorn would not. We don't need picks to value of 28.

The key difference is that with the mooted Giants trade the AFL wouldn't sign off on it because it was completely unbalanced requiring something more to come back to the Giants, and the Giants wouldn't accept it ether for the same reason.

I do agree the Giants wouldn't trade 3 1st rounders for 1 pick 6, but I don't need to look at a points system to work that out.

 

[LunchboxLegend]

Don’t do sarcasm in a forum. It doesnt work.

 

[A1fromDay1]

Maybe we can trade the pick we get for gunston pick 48 + the mitch picks 41 & 50 plus our own 52 & 65 which is 1313 points which is the points for pick 11!

We got pick 11 fellas!!!

 

[HairyO]

I think it's fine to read the bit about Mitchell.

Hawks accepting 41 and 51 to relieve cap space?

Honestly, happy to keep him if the usual chicken-s**t offers are coming in

Relieve cap space when surely we are struggling to get up to 95%...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I do agree the Giants wouldn't trade 3 1st rounders for 1 pick 6, but I don't need to look at a points system to work that out.

Of course you don't, but the pick system comes into play when you look at the calculator to see what those 3 picks are worth and it says the only way that trade is getting done is if there's another Pick inside 10 along with 6.

The points system gives clarity to trade scenarios. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Topiary]

What if the Giants agreed to trade Whitfield but they only offer their future first round pick? Would you do that deal?

Do it in a heartbeat, but why would they ??

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Do it in a heartbeat, but why would they ??

Nah they wouldn't obviously.

Be a super way for us to use cap space though, as opposed to overpaying average players or countless front ending of contracts.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Cal wrote that we were in line for Pick 40 from Lions for Jack, in the mega trade that got brought to a halt.