Traded Jaeger O'Meara [traded to Hawthorn for pick 10 and GWS's 2017 2nd rd pick]

[00VicWard001]

We are talking about a unique circumstance here, not every high draft pick going where they want. You realise higher draft picks get higher pay, so that blows your theory out the water. Omeara did his stint bring drafted to a place he didn't want to go, is uncontracted and wants to come to this club.

Just because it's a club you and every other supporter hates with the wrath of a thousand suns doesn't mean we should give up our virginity, Sam Mitchell, and every draft pick for the next decade to get him here, especially when GC have zero leverage now. I'll take my chances in the draft rather than get bent over by an immature club, cheers.

Calm down little fella. I want to see the trade happen because I want our clubs to remain competitive. We have similar regeneration plans.

I'm just suggesting that Clubs will take a punt and won't want to be held to ransom.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

Don't forget Sam Mitchell's and his salary cap space.

That's fine that's a measure the club had to take to get T.Mitchell and Vickery to the club, completely seperate from this deal.

 

[00VicWard001]

You moron, we traded pick 14 for Mitchell, fair and square deal done the picks involved in that are not mentioned here and have zero bearing. Wtf does that have to do with any of the trades mentioned above? Damn your stupid...

It's you're stupid. Not your stupid.

Frothing at the mouth a fair bit aren't you?

 

[Iva Bigun]

We are talking about a unique circumstance here, not every high draft pick going where they want. You realise higher draft picks get higher pay, so that blows your theory out the water. Omeara did his stint bring drafted to a place he didn't want to go, is uncontracted and wants to come to this club.

Just because it's a club you and every other supporter hates with the wrath of a thousand suns doesn't mean we should give up our virginity, Sam Mitchell, and every draft pick for the next decade to get him here, especially when GC have zero leverage now. I'll take my chances in the draft rather than get bent over by an immature club, cheers.

Zero leverage, how so?

We will have 3 picks before pick 10, we could trade anyone of these to a Vic club for a player

 

[DERO]

What Hawthorn is doing could possibly be genius or it could also tear the fabric of the club. There is still a fair bit to play out but at this point it looks like Hawthorn might have to sell the farm to get in Jaeger.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

It's you're stupid. Not your stupid.

Frothing at the mouth a fair bit aren't you?

Nah although fingers are running a million miles an hour trying to quell the moronic responses coming in double time, getting thumb cramps over here, great response to an argument your not involved in though,

 

[00VicWard001]

That's fine that's a measure the club had to take to get T.Mitchell and Vickery to the club, completely seperate from this deal.

Oh is it? I didn't know that Mitchell's salary covered both those players salaries. That makes complete sense. It's like the time that a reigning best and fairest winner was traded for pick 88. Also made sense. Maybe you can package up pick 88 for O'Meara too?

 

[00VicWard001]

Nah although fingers are running a million miles an hour trying to quell the moronic responses coming in double time, getting thumb cramps over here, great response to an argument your not involved in though,

I like to protect the weak and point out grammatical errors on the internet.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

Zero leverage, how so?

We will have 3 picks before pick 10, we could trade anyone of these to a Vic club for a player

So you will further detriment your own club to prevent a player who will never play for you again going to the Hawks? Tell me legend, which quality players want to go to GC that have the currency of a top 10 pick? My initial guess, is **** all. GL with that.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

I like to protect the weak and point out grammatical errors on the internet.

Thanks for acknowledging that blokes argument was weak

 

[Tyler Hodges]

Oh is it? I didn't know that Mitchell's salary covered both those players salaries. That makes complete sense. It's like the time that a reigning best and fairest winner was traded for pick 88. Also made sense. Maybe you can package up pick 88 for O'Meara too?

Yeah there's that, and also the fact that three other players in our top 25% pay bracket also took significant pay cuts on new contracts to enable young talent to come here. But hey, by all means give AFL HQ a call to suggest Hawks are breaching the cap

 

[DAWESOME!!]

You moron, we traded pick 14 for Mitchell, fair and square deal done the picks involved in that are not mentioned here and have zero bearing. Wtf does that have to do with any of the trades mentioned above? Damn your stupid...

Was it you telling off people for tossing insults earlier. You're so upset you are having trouble making sense.

So, to be clear,
- because you traded 14 for Mitchell (fair and square, don't disagree with that)
- you didn't have a 2016 1st round pick to give GC
- so you had to trade for one, and did, getting pick 10 from the Saints at a hefty price.

How is the fact you had already traded away your first rnd pick on a quality player (which you received), and thus had to trade to get another one got anything to do with whether GC asking for that pick is "ridiculous".

That's like me taking my paycheck blowing it all on booze and then saying that my rent is unfairly high because I have to pawn stuff to meet it.

You would not have had to trade away all that stuff if you weren't trying to bring in two guns in one trade period.

The price being suggested is pick 10, Hartung and Whitecross. That's a fair price. No one cares about how you've had to scrabble to cobble it together.

Alternatively, while we're counting total cost, you should probably also include giving away Sam Mitchell for nothing and upsetting, maybe losing, Lewis in order to make cap space available.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Nah although fingers are running a million miles an hour trying to quell the moronic responses coming in double time, getting thumb cramps over here, great response to an argument your not involved in though,

* you're

 

[Tyler Hodges]

Was it you telling off people for tossing insults earlier. You're so upset you are having trouble making sense.

So, to be clear,
- because you traded 14 for Mitchell (fair and square, don't disagree with that)
- you didn't have a 2016 1st round pick to give GC
- so you had to trade for one, and did, getting pick 10 from the Saints at a hefty price.

How is the fact you had already traded away your first rnd pick on a quality player (which you received), and thus had to trade to get another one got anything to do with whether GC asking for that pick is "ridiculous".

That's like me taking my paycheck blowing it all on booze and then saying that my rent is unfairly high because I have to pawn stuff to meet it.

You would not have had to trade away all that stuff if you weren't trying to bring in two guns in one trade period.

The price being suggested is pick 10, Hartung and Whitecross. That's a fair price. No one cares about how you've had to scrabble to cobble it together.

Alternatively, while we're counting total cost, you should probably also include giving away Sam Mitchell for nothing and upsetting, maybe losing, Lewis in order to make cap space available.

Your basing this on the assumption that Omeara's trade worth is what Cochrane initially said, which was 2 high draft picks or a quality player and a high draft pick. So that is GC starting point of the negotiations.

Hawks starting point was their original pick 14 which they lost, fair enough good trade, so that was their starting point. No club gets what they want, and yes Hawks paid overs to get that pick 10. But they bought the leverage that pick entails, which is the plan B threat of taking Omeara in the national draft.

Yeah, there is a good chance Hawks won't get him in the draft, but there is also a good chance they will, so both sides have something to lose. If GC keep the hard line in commanding such a high price, they could legitimately end up with nothing which is unacceptable. If Hawks take the risk and fail to land him at the draft, it's a fail. We will, however, still have Hartung and Whitecross and can plan for a nice first round mid to build along side Mitchell.

If your opinion is the same as Cochrane's at the very start of negotiations that's fine, but it isn't realistic and won't end up happening.

Edit: btw wtf you talking about me telling people off?

 

[OB11]

Was it you telling off people for tossing insults earlier. You're so upset you are having trouble making sense.

So, to be clear,
- because you traded 14 for Mitchell (fair and square, don't disagree with that)
- you didn't have a 2016 1st round pick to give GC
- so you had to trade for one, and did, getting pick 10 from the Saints at a hefty price.

How is the fact you had already traded away your first rnd pick on a quality player (which you received), and thus had to trade to get another one got anything to do with whether GC asking for that pick is "ridiculous".

That's like me taking my paycheck blowing it all on booze and then saying that my rent is unfairly high because I have to pawn stuff to meet it.

You would not have had to trade away all that stuff if you weren't trying to bring in two guns in one trade period.

The price being suggested is pick 10, Hartung and Whitecross. That's a fair price. No one cares about how you've had to scrabble to cobble it together.

Alternatively, while we're counting total cost, you should probably also include giving away Sam Mitchell for nothing and upsetting, maybe losing, Lewis in order to make cap space available.

If they gave Swans a 2017 1st rd pick, they could have given the Suns 14 and kept 23 and 36

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Your basing this on the assumption that Omeara's trade worth is what Cochrane initially said, which was 2 high draft picks or a quality player and a high draft pick. So that is GC starting point of the negotiations.

Hawks starting point was their original pick 14 which they lost, fair enough good trade, so that was their starting point. No club gets what they want, and yes Hawks paid overs to get that pick 10. But they bought the leverage that pick entails, which is the plan B threat of taking Omeara in the national draft.

Yeah, there is a good chance Hawks won't get him in the draft, but there is also a good chance they will, so both sides have something to lose. If GC keep the hard line in commanding such a high price, they could legitimately end up with nothing which is unacceptable. If Hawks take the risk and fail to land him at the draft, it's a fail. We will, however, still have Hartung and Whitecross and can plan for a nice first round mid to build along side Mitchell.

If your opinion is the same as Cochrane's at the very start of negotiations that's fine, but it isn't realistic and won't end up happening.

So, I'm not a moron for pointing out the impact of the Mitchell trade on what you've had to trade any more?

 

[Tyler Hodges]

So, I'm not a moron for pointing out the impact of the Mitchell trade on what you've had to trade any more?

Oh your definately a moron

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Oh your definately a moron

This was a great meet-cute.

 

[The_Steadier]

You need to remember that this isn't GC trying to screw Hawthorn, this is GC trying to extract maximum value / get what they want

Trading pick 8 just so other clubs can draft him doesn't achieve them anything

Trading 8 achieves plenty, it takes away hawthorn's leverage they just bought today.

Plus by selling pick 8 this year for a 1st round pick next year, it helps solve their other issue they have at the moment.

Which is (especially after prestia is done), they have way too many high picks in this years draft to use without delisting half their team.

They WANT 2017 picks.

Regardless of what happens with jaeger- they are almost certain to trade at least one of their 3 (maybe 4) top 10 2016 picks for 2017 first round picks.

The saints with their 2 2017 first rounders are the obvious candidates to help them now.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

This was a great meet-cute.

Hmm might have to chuck it on always a good watch

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Hmm might have to chuck it on always a good watch

Apparently they're doing a life action remake. Can foresee problems getting the wisecracking meerkat to work with the reluctant hero lion.

 

[The_Steadier]

I doubt that Hawthorn would have done the trade for 10 without knowing that it was an acceptable basis for an O'Meara trade
The detail will come soon enough

Wright admitted this afternoon that they and GC hadn't spoken in 2 days.
It's some serious wishful thinking to suggest 2 days ago pick 10 was even considered an option by either club- let alone there was some sort of loose agreement.

The hawks have taken on a big risk trading big for 10.
They won't know if that risk will pay off yet

 

[SnowRoo]

Trading 8 achieves plenty, it takes away hawthorn's leverage they just bought today.

Plus by selling pick 8 this year for a 1st round pick next year, it helps solve their other issue they have at the moment.

Which is (especially after prestia is done), they have way too many high picks in this years draft to use without delisting half their team.

They WANT 2017 picks.

Regardless of what happens with jaeger- they are almost certain to trade at least one of their 3 (maybe 4) top 10 2016 picks for 2017 first round picks.

The saints with their 2 2017 first rounders are the obvious candidates to help them now.

Count North in on the 2017 1st round selling too.

Could use a good pick for the rebuild this year and our 1st rounder in 2017 could well be a very low pick!!!

 

[OB11]

Trading 8 achieves plenty, it takes away hawthorn's leverage they just bought today.

Plus by selling pick 8 this year for a 1st round pick next year, it helps solve their other issue they have at the moment.

Which is (especially after prestia is done), they have way too many high picks in this years draft to use without delisting half their team.

They WANT 2017 picks.

Regardless of what happens with jaeger- they are almost certain to trade at least one of their 3 (maybe 4) top 10 2016 picks for 2017 first round picks.

The saints with their 2 2017 first rounders are the obvious candidates to help them now.

The only issue with your argument is that GC would have had first dibs on Hawks 2017 1st rd pick and knocked it back so we were not too desperate to swap for 2017 picks.

We've got plenty of dead wood to delist so I imagine you will see a lot of fringe players with 1 year left on their contracts sent off at bargain basement prices next week , probably attached to deals like JOM and Prestia to free up senior spots.

 

[The_Steadier]

Count North in on the 2017 1st round selling too.

Could use a good pick for the rebuild this year and our 1st rounder in 2017 could well be a very low pick!!!

Agreed.
The saints and roos were the biggest risks to the hawks getting jaeger in the draft 24 hours ago.

Now here we are after hawthorn have just paid an absolute fortune for pick 10....

And saints and roos are still as big a risks to them getting jaeger at the draft as they were before.

Nothing has really changed except for hawthorn have spent even more to try and get jaeger, for no discernible increase in bargaining power.