List Mgmt. Mitch Brown up for trade

[Ikan Bodoh]

No trolling intended got a lot of respect for this football club but would #41 be enough to secure Brown or do you guys have your heart set out on landing at bar minimum a pick in the 20-30 category?

Fair to say 41 won't cut it. (1) we can't use it (will be upgrading a rookie) so is useless to us (2) Brown is contracted so we would keep him anyway if 41 is all we can get

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No trolling intended got a lot of respect for this football club but would #41 be enough to secure Brown or do you guys have your heart set out on landing at bar minimum a pick in the 20-30 category?

I doubt it. If he was out of contract, maybe. This same sort of scenario probably ended up backfiring on us in 2012 with an (in hindsight) good offer from Hawthorn for Tom Gillies. But it was still the right move to hang on to him, because it wasn't an amazing offer, by any stretch (better than #41 though). If an agreement isn't reached and Brown only plays a few games next year, the compensation we'd receive for him to leave as a free agent wouldn't be much worse than #41 anyway. And there's just as good a chance that he plays 12-15 games, kicks 20-odd goals and puts his value in the teens or early 20s. So there's no reason for Geelong to rush into a trade.

 

[iameviljez]

No trolling intended got a lot of respect for this football club but would #41 be enough to secure Brown or do you guys have your heart set out on landing at bar minimum a pick in the 20-30 category?

None taken.
To answer your question, in normal circumstances, #41 wouldn't be enough in isolation. However, it depends on how desperate Balmey & Co are to clear him out and get Rivers, as we are feeling the pinch for list spaces. I - and many on this board, I think - am perplexed that we're essentially trying to swap him for a player who hasn't set the world on fire and is seven years his senior. If #41 does get it done, it won't be until the end of the trading period.

 

[vinum coupe]

I'd be amazed if they took anything higher than 30 for him.
And I reckon that is significant unders. We just have so much invested in him.

Some tough decisions being made.

 

[adam10]

Yeah fair enough. It's a similar situation with us and Jarrod Grant's worth, when teams ask us what we want, in other teams eyes it's complete overs.

 

[Footy Smarts]

No trolling intended got a lot of respect for this football club but would #41 be enough to secure Brown or do you guys have your heart set out on landing at bar minimum a pick in the 20-30 category?

Chances are 41 might not even be used by us. If we're willing to get him away on the cheap something like your pick 21 for our 36 would probably be considered.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Yeah fair enough. It's a similar situation with us and Jarrod Grant's worth, when teams ask us what we want, in other teams eyes it's complete overs.

...The issue being that, if we're not floored by the generosity of the deal (and I assume the Bulldogs are the same in Grant's case), the club is more than happy to not do a deal. Brown isn't a free agent, so we're not in danger of losing him for nothing (not yet, anyway).

I love it how opposition supporters get their noses out of joint about these discussions (certainly not referring to you; just a general observation). The same thing happened last year with Tom Gillies. I think Hawthorn was offering something like pick #32 (pretty fair value in hindsight). But with Scarlett's imminent retirement, Milburn already retiring, Hunt and Enright on the wrong side of 30 by Round 1, Marcus Drum's retirement through chronic injuries...he was worth more to us than that. Chances are, we would have got another Gillies-type with that pick and then been three years' worth of development behind where we'd been had we just kept him. So it was the right move, at the time.

It's like if you had an authentic 1954 Footscray premiership guernsey, worn in the game by Ted Whitten and signed by the entire team. Someone asks you how much you want for it. Your response is that you're not really looking to trade it, so the offer would have to be massive; don't even bother for less than 50k. They are outraged with your terms, saying a similar sort of guernsey from St Kilda's 1966 premiership sold for 8k recently and that they're not offering you anything more than 10k. So, do you trade, because their offer is 'fair'? Of course you don't. It's your property and you are under absolutely no obligation to give it up, whatever the offer is. And that's similar to how it is with contracted players, who request a trade.

 

[JunkyardDog33]

I can't see a deal getting done here. Brown is important to our future and we've put a great deal of development into him. We'll never be paid what he's worth to us and therefore a deal won't get done.

 

[footscore]

I can't see a deal getting done here. Brown is important to our future and we've put a great deal of development into him. We'll never be paid what he's worth to us and therefore a deal won't get done.

+1

Hopefully this turns out to be somewhat of a wake up call for Brown. not implying he's slack or anything but we did similar to Johnson in 06 and he got stuck down and mastered his craft to perfection so Brown could get a great shot to make something special of himself.

 

[iameviljez]

I can't see a deal getting done here. Brown is important to our future and we've put a great deal of development into him. We'll never be paid what he's worth to us and therefore a deal won't get done.

Yes, but we do need to do the sums here.
Out: Gillies, Scarlo, Hogan, Wojak, Byrnes
In: Caddy, 3*Draft Picks, McIntosh (presumably)...

This then means that if we take Rivers, we'd have to lose Brown (in which case, personally, I'd prefer to keep Brown).

 

[AM]

Yes, but we do need to do the sums here.
Out: Gillies, Scarlo, Hogan, Wojak, Byrnes
In: Caddy, 3*Draft Picks, McIntosh (presumably)...

This then means that if we take Rivers, we'd have to lose Brown (in which case, personally, I'd prefer to keep Brown).

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that. However I agree that I'd prefer Mitch to remain with us if that was the equation, subject to him being fully committed.

 

[iameviljez]

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that. However I agree that I'd prefer Mitch to remain with us if that was the equation, subject to him being fully committed.

I think it may well be, as I forgot Stringer is coming in as well. In other words, players can't come in without others moving out, and we need to maintain a minimum presence at the draft.

 

[DanA]

It's like if you had an authentic 1954 Footscray premiership guernsey, worn in the game by Ted Whitten and signed by the entire team. Someone asks you how much you want for it. Your response is that you're not really looking to trade it, so the offer would have to be massive; don't even bother for less than 50k. They are outraged with your terms, saying a similar sort of guernsey from St Kilda's 1966 premiership sold for 8k recently and that they're not offering you anything more than 10k. So, do you trade, because their offer is 'fair'? Of course you don't. It's your property and you are under absolutely no obligation to give it up, whatever the offer is. And that's similar to how it is with contracted players, who request a trade.

The key difference is we are dealing with peoples lives not an object you own. If we can get a fair deal which has minimal disruption, and he wants us to go, we should let him.

 

[footscore]

The key difference is we are dealing with peoples lives not an object you own. If we can get a fair deal which has minimal disruption, and he wants us to go, we should let him.

Players are only a piece of meat made to earn their wage and are as dispensable as toilet paper imo.

You only need to look at Chapman asking for two years on his contract after all he has sacrificed and provided to the Geelong footy club to realize, deep down...they don't give a shit as long as they say goodbye in an appropriate manor (nice meal and a few beers).

 

[thejester]

I think it may well be, as I forgot Stringer is coming in as well. In other words, players can't come in without others moving out, and we need to maintain a minimum presence at the draft.

Stringer as an upgraded rookie counts as a draft pick.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I think it may well be, as I forgot Stringer is coming in as well. In other words, players can't come in without others moving out, and we need to maintain a minimum presence at the draft.

Unless I'm mistaken, Stringer can be counted as one of the 3*Draft Picks. So you are still right, assuming Gillies is gone, we have to lose one more player to get both of Hmac and Rivers.

So as the picks stand at the moment, I reckon it could be something like this...

Scarlett -> Pick #15
Wojcinski -> Pick #55
Byrnes -> Stringer (upgraded using pick #73)
Hogan -> Caddy
Gillies -> Rivers
????? -> McIntosh (traded for pick #36)

Like others have said, the delay in completing the Caddy trade is could be waiting to see what GCS end up with, and then either be an upgrade of #55, or #15 for two in the 20's/30's, and we don't use #55. Unless of course we can get McIntosh for #55, or another player leaves?

 

[iameviljez]

Unless I'm mistaken, Stringer can be counted as one of the 3*Draft Picks. So you are still right, assuming Gillies is gone, we have to lose one more player to get both of Hmac and Rivers.

So as the picks stand at the moment, I reckon it could be something like this...

Scarlett -> Pick #15
Wojcinski -> Pick #55

Byrnes -> Stringer (upgraded using pick #73)
Hogan -> Caddy
Gillies -> Rivers
????? -> McIntosh (traded for pick #36)

Like others have said, the delay in completing the Caddy trade is could be waiting to see what GCS end up with, and then either be an upgrade of #55, or #15 for two in the 20's/30's, and we don't use #55. Unless of course we can get McIntosh for #55, or another player leaves?

???? = Big O, methinks.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Stringer as an upgraded rookie counts as a draft pick.

lol, I was a bit too slow.

 

[Conan Troutman]

???? = Big O, methinks.

Yeah I agree. Harsh on him, and his family, but I'm not sure who else it could be. I really hope it's not Brown.

 

[The rabbi]

Stringer as an upgraded rookie counts as a draft pick.

Jester, do you think that Cowan could be in some danger given his LTI?

I think that they have a reasonably high opinion of him. I may have answered my own question here.

 

[Reg Hickey]

I can't see a deal getting done here. Brown is important to our future and we've put a great deal of development into him. We'll never be paid what he's worth to us and therefore a deal won't get done.

Naive. He's asked to be considered for trade, and our history suggests that in those circumstances we'll be more inclined to do it. Especially when we need the list space.

That said, if McIntosh comes in I would much rather trade/delist the Big O. That to me would seem to be the much smarter move. But I guess I'm not the one making that decision.

 

[Reg Hickey]

Jester, do you think that Cowan could be in some danger given his LTI?

I think that they have a reasonably high opinion of him. I may have answered my own question here.

I think you have answered your own question. I think the club loves him.

 

[Moggy]

Players are only a piece of meat made to earn their wage and are as dispensable as toilet paper imo.

You only need to look at Chapman asking for two years on his contract after all he has sacrificed and provided to the Geelong footy club to realize, deep down...they don't give a shit as long as they say goodbye in an appropriate manor (nice meal and a few beers).

I think that's too strong, and I am not sure you completely believe that yourself - not that I know you at all.

I think it is fairer to say that the future is everything for a successful club and that respecting the past and former champions is (only?) important because it sets the tone for the future.

Of course, fans can be more sentimental.

 

[Megaman123]

Unless I'm mistaken, Stringer can be counted as one of the 3*Draft Picks. So you are still right, assuming Gillies is gone, we have to lose one more player to get both of Hmac and Rivers.

So as the picks stand at the moment, I reckon it could be something like this...

Scarlett -> Pick #15
Wojcinski -> Pick #55
Byrnes -> Stringer (upgraded using pick #73)
Hogan -> Caddy
Gillies -> Rivers
????? -> McIntosh (traded for pick #36)

Like others have said, the delay in completing the Caddy trade is could be waiting to see what GCS end up with, and then either be an upgrade of #55, or #15 for two in the 20's/30's, and we don't use #55. Unless of course we can get McIntosh for #55, or another player leaves?

Lets assume we don't get Rivers, we will get a compo pick for Byrnes. I'm hoping end of second round. Be an improvement on 55 any way. Interest lays for me in what the GC pick swap is for Caddy.

 

[DanA]

Unless I'm mistaken, Stringer can be counted as one of the 3*Draft Picks. So you are still right, assuming Gillies is gone, we have to lose one more player to get both of Hmac and Rivers.

So as the picks stand at the moment, I reckon it could be something like this...

Scarlett -> Pick #15
Wojcinski -> Pick #55
Byrnes -> Stringer (upgraded using pick #73)
Hogan -> Caddy
Gillies -> Rivers
????? -> McIntosh (traded for pick #36)

Like others have said, the delay in completing the Caddy trade is could be waiting to see what GCS end up with, and then either be an upgrade of #55, or #15 for two in the 20's/30's, and we don't use #55. Unless of course we can get McIntosh for #55, or another player leaves?

I think as things stand it's Stephenson but there is a possibility we trade Brown for a draft pick in which case it's Brown. Though it's possible we still could take three in the draft and offload Stephenson anyway.