Analysis Hawks 2022 Hypothetical trades (read the pinned post)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2
Firstly, the "No Kane Cornes" Rule is back




 
Last edited by a moderator:
What’s up with the dees and port pick trade - pick 27 for 33, 43, 53? Seems a big win for port sliding back 6 spots for two 3rd rounders. Why can’t we ever find these sort of deals?

The freo trade to north looks decent - Logie, tucker and freo F3 for north F2, F3, F4 (especially as north likely bottom 2 and freo F3 not much different from a north F4). Trading relatively fringe players for decent picks is good business. Richmond do a lot of it too.
 
If he chooses the Handbaggers then I want it noted that I am happy with that. :D

Sure we get pick 7 but have to pay a guy a truckload of money usually
reserved for superstars, not to mention pick 7 may never actually play a game.
How many pick 7's never play a game?

Iunno leaving another trade period with a bucket load of cash and taking our standard picks to the draft seems very meh
 
Odd Pick swap from the dees, makes me think pies wanted that pick for Grundy... And maybe that's because we want that pick for Mitch?

Pies: Mitchell
Dees: Grundy
Hawks: 27

Would we accept that?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Odd Pick swap from the dees, makes me think pies wanted that pick for Grundy... And maybe that's because we want that pick for Mitch?

Pies: Mitchell
Dees: Grundy
Hawks: 27

Would we accept that?
Wrighty has never done a trade that neat in his life.

There will be 3rd and fourth rounders flying everywhere if those three clubs get in a trade.

He's a bloody lunatic with late round picks
 
What’s up with the dees and port pick trade - pick 27 for 33, 43, 53? Seems a big win for port sliding back 6 spots for two 3rd rounders. Why can’t we ever find these sort of deals?

The freo trade to north looks decent - Logie, tucker and freo F3 for north F2, F3, F4 (especially as north likely bottom 2 and freo F3 not much different from a north F4). Trading relatively fringe players for decent picks is good business. Richmond do a lot of it too.

Dees weren't planning on using 43 and 53
 
If he chooses the Handbaggers then I want it noted that I am happy with that. :D

Sure we get pick 7 but have to pay a guy a truckload of money usually
reserved for superstars, not to mention pick 7 may never actually play a game.
Geelols pick 7 is almost guaranteed to be used elsewhere for a proven player... (who, granted could break down and never play a game again...)
I would be surprised if they took pick 7 to the draft (assuming it pans out that they get Bowes)
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wouldn’t….. I’m trying to get my head around the incompetence of GC to get into this position of needing to offload pick 7.

Are they going to be over the cap next year…. it’s over the top to give up pick 7 so you can offload a player now to “be able to bring in free agents in few years” (when his contract will be expiring anyway).

They are already getting money that would have been earmarked for Rankine off their books from next season onwards.

Flip it around the other way if they have room in their cap next season…. pay him some of Rankine’s cash next year….$1.3m in 23 and $300k in 24….that would already free up $500k by the next trade period and the full amount the year after…. while keeping pick 7 and adding more high end talent into the club.

I can’t believe there isn’t a better option somehow than what they are doing.

It’s no different from Collingwood a couple of years ago. They want these shiny new toys, pay top dollar, then want more shiny new toys, before too long overshooting their budget.

In GCS paying top dollar for crap, as no one wants to be there unless well compensated, so have to have a bargain basement sale, where everything goes. I’m pleased that we never had that issue, we always managed to stay within budget
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top