Merged Tarrant Trade Threads

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Jolly was contracted.
Tarrant isn't.

So you're basically saying Tarrant can walk into the ND/PSD and Jolly couldn't....

Forgive me, but of the 3 (afaik) clubs that are interested, how many of them have first and second round, aswell as PSD picks, prior to Collingwood, and would be willing to use them on recruiting Tazza???

Correct answer: D) All of the above.

If Tazza is as important to you as MM clearly made out on OTC (and let's be honest, he answered before the Q was finished. The only time I've seen a grown man finish before it all starts, is when I'm in the bedroom ) a few days ago, Collingwood will not for a split second entertain the notion of a (hypothetical) club like Hawthorn trading C. Brown for C. Tarrant + some big talk.

Collingwood wants Tarrant, but are playing low low ball. If Freo HQ has the minerals to stand their ground, I'll bet Collingwood will pay the fair price.

 

[The Panther]

So you're basically saying Tarrant can walk into the ND/PSD and Jolly couldn't....

Sydney had the bargaining power in whatever deal they decided to do with Collingwood owing to Jolly's contract status.

Fremantle have no bargaining power given Tarrant is uncontracted.

That's why they got picks 14 and 46.

You cannot win.

 

[hedgehog]

So Fremantle only approached McPhee after the trading period? Hmmm.

I would assume so, but even if not, McPhee never said he'd retire if he didn't end up with us. Essendon were also not prepared to offer a 3 year deal, whilst we were. Poor comparison.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Sydney had the bargaining power in whatever deal they decided to do with Collingwood owing to Jolly's contract status.

Fremantle have no bargaining power given Tarrant is uncontracted.

That's why they got picks 14 and 46.

You cannot win.

Please entirely address both of my posts.

 

[Furn]

Sydney had the bargaining power in whatever deal they decided to do with Collingwood owing to Jolly's contract status.

Fremantle have no bargaining power given Tarrant is uncontracted.

That's why they got picks 14 and 46.

You cannot win.

but would you call using ur second rounder and pay tarrant 500k a year winning?

 

[The Panther]

but would you call using ur second rounder and pay tarrant 500k a year winning?

AFIK, Collingwood's 2nd Rounder is off the table.

The monetary side of Tarrant's contract is irrelevant given his contract will be halved in the 2nd year owing to his Vets status.

Freo are delaying the inveitable. They are trying to chest beat & give the impression they don't keel over in trades. If Harvey is too arrogant to accept this, Ross Lyon has a trading plank waiting for him.

 

[Furn]

AFIK, Collingwood's 2nd Rounder is off the table.

The monetary side of Tarrant's contract is irrelevant given his contract will be halved in the 2nd year owing to his Vets status.

Freo are delaying the inveitable. They are trying to chest beat & give the impression they don't keel over in trades. If Harvey is too arrogant to accept this, Ross Lyon has a trading plank waiting for him.

how you gonna get him then?

Hawks and Blues are very interested and will take him as will Freo in either draft unless he nominates ridiculous terms now that his retiring threat is gone.

The guy isnt going to face financial ruin beacuse he couldnt get to the pies and i doubt youll be offering up cash 4 lawyers when your no chance of getting him.

 

[The Panther]

how you gonna get him then?

Hawks and Blues are very interested and will take him as will Freo in either draft unless he nominates ridiculous terms now that his retiring threat is gone.

The guy isnt going to face financial ruin beacuse he couldnt get to the pies and i doubt youll be offering up cash 4 lawyers when your no chance of getting him.

The same way we got Luke Ball.

Hawthorn's salary cap is already at bursting point.

All Tarrant has to do is set his pay scales in his contract like Luke Ball did & he is ours for "free". There is nothing a lawyer can do to stop this.

The vets list in 2012 means Tazz can leverage his contract so that Collingwood are the only ones who can afford to take him.

 

[Furn]

The same way we got Luke Ball.

Hawthorn's salary cap is already at bursting point.

All Tarrant has to do is set his pay scales in his contract like Luke Ball did & he is ours for "free". There is nothing a lawyer can do to stop this.

yeh luke ball was a bargain cos u fluked a flag

in the draft u nominate years and money u cant scale it, if a team can match that they get u. If Tarrant retires hes gonna get sued.

 

[hedgehog]

The monetary side of Tarrant's contract is irrelevant given his contract will be halved in the 2nd year owing to his Vets status.

Still means you have to pay him the money.

They are torying to chest beat & give the impression they don't keel over in trades.

No. What you are offering is so minimal that the trade not going through is not actually a loss for us. The player who we're looking at with the Pick 55 you'd give us will still be there at Pick 61, which is probably our last live pick, since we're upgrading 4 rookies (Barlow, deBoer, Silvagni and van Berlo).

Ross Lyon has a trading plank waiting fr him.

See post which you still have not replied to regarding the use of this phrase.

 

[The Panther]

in the draft u nominate years and money u cant scale it, if a team can match that they get u. If Tarrant retires hes gonna get sued.

"Delisted" players (contract ends in October) have the right to nominate contractual & pay terms in the draft. Your understanding is vague to say the least. Luke Ball frontended his contract in 2009 & no club could touch b/c of this, that is why he lasted so long.

 

[hedgehog]

All Tarrant has to do is set his pay scales in his contract like Luke Ball did & he is ours for "free".

From 20 or so pages ago

If we can't achieve a suitable deal, why would we let him get to you for free? Our PSD pick is before you, we'll take him with it. He retires. We upgrade a rookie for the season. Next year we get an extra pick.

Tarrant definetly won't play for us next year, therefore he retires on the spot, therefore we don't have to pay him.

 

[refresh]

"Delisted" players (contract ends in October) have the right to nominate contractual & pay terms in the draft..

My understanding is that you can't nominate pay terms. Collingwood supporters seem to think you can. Both sides wanting to believe what suits their agenda.

Does anyone have a link to the facts as opposed to opinion

 

[Pies time is NOW]

WTF

Get the deal done Pies.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/chris-tarrant-in-limbo/story-fn69a32t-1225936468808

COLLINGWOOD has vowed to keep an eye to the future as it refuses to part with draft pick No.43 for veteran Fremantle defender Chris Tarrant.

The Dockers have requested the second-round selection, but look increasingly likely to lose the stopper for nothing if they don't accept the Pies' No.55 pick instead.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

WTF

Get the deal done Pies.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/chris-tarrant-in-limbo/story-fn69a32t-1225936468808

COLLINGWOOD has vowed to keep an eye to the future as it refuses to part with draft pick No.43 for veteran Fremantle defender Chris Tarrant.

The Dockers have requested the second-round selection, but look increasingly likely to lose the stopper for nothing if they don't accept the Pies' No.55 pick instead.

Why would we? If we can get him for 55, why give them 43? If they don't want to get anything for Tarrant then fine, he will go to the National Draft and we will see who wants to take the risk and recruit him. I mean it sounds like he wont play for anyone else but Collingwood, why would any other team want a guy who doesn't want to play for them, is 30, and would cost them a bit of salary.
Teams interested solely on making life difficult for others off the field are really focusing on the wrong things.

This situation sucks for the Dockers, we have them over a barrel. It's unfortunate, and I don't think Tarrant's attitude is great for that side, but at the same time it is great for Collingwood that he is so desperate to return to us...seems like his heart never really left.

It doesn't really matter what Tarrant is or isn't worth, because its not his onfield ability that is determining his worth, it is his off field reluctance to play for anyone else.

When teams from interstate lose a player going back to SA or WA they have 2 teams to trade with...in Victoria we have 10. If one of those teams are not wanting (for example) a small forward, then we have one team to deal with...as a result they would have us over a barrel.

TO freo fans, I understand it's frustrating because you have no power, yes none, don't think Freo would actually waste their time drafting Tarrant in the national draft in spite. And the decision makers at all other clubs would not waste a pic before 55 for him when they know he is unlikely to play for them, and if he does his heart wont be in it, oh and he's 30, oh and he's coming off a season when he was injured all year. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

TO COllingwood guys worrying we are not trading fair, what is Tarrant worth if he retires this time next year? Which is entirely possibly considering he missed a lot of this season with injuries, and let's face it, when guys get over 30 and get injured, they seem to get injured again, regularly.

It's ridiculous. I'm happy we are going to screw you over Freo, because of this thread and the amazing value that FReo fans place on a 30 year old with so many question marks.

What's Mathew Scarlett worth right now??

 

[Pies time is NOW]

That is not FAIRANDBALANCED

 

[G-Mo77]

What's Mathew Scarlett worth right now??

A lot more than pick #55, a hell of a lot more!

 

[SolidTiger]

WTF

Get the deal done Pies.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/chris-tarrant-in-limbo/story-fn69a32t-1225936468808

COLLINGWOOD has vowed to keep an eye to the future as it refuses to part with draft pick No.43 for veteran Fremantle defender Chris Tarrant.

The Dockers have requested the second-round selection, but look increasingly likely to lose the stopper for nothing if they don't accept the Pies' No.55 pick instead.

What I find interesting is the comment from the Web site said "Tarrant will retire if any other club, such as Hawthorn or Carlton, look to select him." but in the actual paper it says "Tarrant has said he will retire if any other club, such as Hawthorn or Carlton, look to select him".

Now assuming that the actual paper is correct and Tarrent actually said that he will retire if he is not selected from Collingwood, isn't that considered draft tampering? If it's not, then what is exactly need to be done to breach the draft tampering rule?

If Tarrent or his manager hasn't exactly said that and indirectly indicate to other clubs they are not interested I guess it won't be in breach if the rules because that is what happened with Ball last year.

Either way I would like to know what it takes for the rules to be breached.

I Tarrent goes into the draft I hope Richmond pick Tarrent with pick 50 just to screw him and Collingwood. The price he puts on his head won't matter because as soon as he quits or retires it will no longer count in the salary cap and the club won't have to pay him.

 

[Bay Pie]

If Tarrent or his manager hasn't exactly said that and indirectly indicate to other clubs they are not interested I guess it won't be in breach if the rules because that is what happened with Ball last year.

Either way I would like to know what it takes for the rules to be breached.

I Tarrent goes into the draft I hope Richmond pick Tarrent with pick 50 just to screw him and Collingwood. The price he puts on his head won't matter because as soon as he quits or retires it will no longer count in the salary cap and the club won't have to pay him.

Fraser Gehrig did exactly the same thing a few years ago when he retired got delisted then had a rethink. He indicated he'd retire if he didn't get to St.Kilda.

Bolded bit straight from the Richmond draft book. He decides to actually play and you have a 30 year old guy soaking up big $$ of cap space when you window wont be open for another 10 years.

Just give them pick 43. It's a good deal. We can get a player of very similar ilk at pick 55 then 43.

 

[SolidTiger]

Bolded bit straight from the Richmond draft book. He decides to actually play and you have a 30 year old guy soaking up big $$ of cap space when you window wont be open for another 10 years.

So would he retire if another club picks him or not? If is isn't going to retire then there should be no problem with another club who is genuinely interested in picking him. I'm getting mixed messages here.

Beisde what draft pick up did Richmond do previously just to spite another club, for you to mention it's straight from Richmond draft book?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I would assume so, but even if not, McPhee never said he'd retire if he didn't end up with us. Essendon were also not prepared to offer a 3 year deal, whilst we were. Poor comparison.

He didn't need to, you had leverage with the earlier PSD pick.

 

[you idiot sheehan]

Not interested in draft picks? Then why'dya get 3 late picks (currently 55, 78, 95) from GC? You've lost 9 players from your senior list as per below and added 2 in Andrew Krakouer and John Ceglar with a third in Blair a chance to be elevated. By my mathematics that'd be 6 draft picks you'd be using which for mine would indicate a rather large interest in draft picks.

Sean Rusling (retired)
Shane O'Bree (retired)
Jaxson Barham (delisted)
Jarrad Blight (delisted)
Ryan Cook (delisted)
Anthony Corrie (delisted)
Paul Medhurst (retired)
Tarkyn Lockyer (retired)
Josh Fraser (Gold Coast)

if you read what I was talking about it was in the context of trading premiership players for early draft picks. The only person we've traded for draft picks is Fraser - 28 yo who wasn't in the side.

Everyone needs draft picks to fill up their list. But that wasn't what I was talking about.

 

[Breakthelines]

What I find interesting is the comment from the Web site said "Tarrant will retire if any other club, such as Hawthorn or Carlton, look to select him." but in the actual paper it says "Tarrant has said he will retire if any other club, such as Hawthorn or Carlton, look to select him".

Now assuming that the actual paper is correct and Tarrent actually said that he will retire if he is not selected from Collingwood, isn't that considered draft tampering? If it's not, then what is exactly need to be done to breach the draft tampering rule?

If Tarrent or his manager hasn't exactly said that and indirectly indicate to other clubs they are not interested I guess it won't be in breach if the rules because that is what happened with Ball last year.

Either way I would like to know what it takes for the rules to be breached.

I Tarrent goes into the draft I hope Richmond pick Tarrent with pick 50 just to screw him and Collingwood. The price he puts on his head won't matter because as soon as he quits or retires it will no longer count in the salary cap and the club won't have to pay him.

The above quote in bold makes me think that your club is less important to you than making sure another club misses out!

Your club is on the rebuild, they finished in the bottom 3 yet again, have less valuable picks due to the gold coast factor and you would like to see your club WASTE one of your picks on a bloke that would retire?

I think the tigers should be guarding all their picks with their lives, as they have proved this tarde week........got picks for Tambling & swaped only a player with Carlton.

 

[HFF]

Hahahaha this is hilarious really.

It's really upto Freo. Connors and Collingwood know they can get him for nothing in the draft, hence the low-balling.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yep, not a lot of point in a bottom-eight club ruining their own list management in order to (slightly) screw over the reigning premier. One would think you'd have more important things on your minds.