News Mitch McGovern nominates Carlton

[Faz 2000]

Guy can seriously play.

Nice.

It's a bloody great highlights package. Want.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

I would have preferred we kept our two 20 something picks given this year is meant to be a super draft, instead of swapping for MM...But, totally trust SOS.

Yeah. I think we had to get rid of the second rounders. We’ve got setterfield so I think bringing in 2 more 18 year olds on top of pick 1 is just too many kids to have on a list. Unfortunate timing as this year is a supposed *super draft*.

We’ll see. Time to get a move on with the kids we have now. You’re right, let’s trust SOS.

 

[Opine]

Hey Marty.

How do you feel about the latest prospective developments?
Would you find them acceptable?

 

[Pafloyul]

Yeah. I think we had to get rid of the second rounders. We’ve got setterfield so I think bringing in 2 more 18 year olds on top of pick 1 is just too many kids to have on a list. Unfortunate timing as this year is a supposed *super draft*.

We’ll see. Time to get a move on with the kids we have now. You’re right, let’s trust SOS.

Yeah, given Setterfield is also 18 (sarcasm) and we have to make three selections anyway. Can't have too many good juniors.

 

[marty36]

Hey Marty.

How do you feel about the latest prospective developments?
Would you find them acceptable?

Hahahaha all I can say is I'm not eating humble pie and I told you so

Its overs but I was only quoting the great man in SOS that you need to pay overs for a contracted player

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

In a previous post I said I rated McGovern between 12-15. Anyone thinking we were going to get a contracted player for pick #102 and Graham was in denial.

I think people just need to have a look around at the other boards on this site.
Just coming here can be like an echo chamber where they keep seeing hypothetical trades one after another of us completely bending teams over and start thinking it's reality.
It only sets you up for disappointment.
Same as how people started saying we weren't chasing him that hard, we would walk away if we don't get him cheap and it was more about him wanting to come here. It's crazy talk.

 

[ImBlue]

What about Setterfield? How we bringing this guy in without those second rounders. Futures maybe?

 

[Opine]

If true, I think both clubs should walk away thinking it's a solid trade. He's definitely worth 2 second rounders in my opinion. And if you think it's a bit overs, then there is the fact he's contracted. McAdam is a very speculative pick also. See what happens tomorrow.

If its a bit overs, it's not because he's contracted; its because both clubs negotiated in good faith despite the possibility that he might not be contracted.
Good result for all.

 

[F_therest]

I would have preferred we kept our two 20 something picks given this year is meant to be a super draft, instead of swapping for MM...But, totally trust SOS.

The 'super draft' comments seem to only really relate to the top 7 or so kids...not kids in the late 20's.

 

[Opine]

Hahahaha all I can say is I'm not eating humble pie and I told you so

Its overs but I was only quoting the great man in SOS that you need to pay overs for a contracted player

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

FFS, am trying to have a reasonable conversation with you; not interested in your humble pie antics.
Will you be happy with that trade if it eventuates?

 

[marty36]

FFS, am trying to have a reasonable conversation with you; not interested in your humble pie antics.
Will you be happy with that trade if it eventuates?

100% I am, would rather have kept him but if he had to go it was a good result not fantastic but definitely in our favor

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mr Blonde]

We’re paying slight overs for McGovern and Adelaide paid slight overs for Gibbs. Fair is fair.

Hopefully this settles any bad blood between the two clubs going forward.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Opine]

100% I am, would rather have kept him but if he had to go it was a good result not fantastic but definitely in our favor

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm glad your happy

 

[LanceRomance]

Could we not go to GWS to get their mid teen pick?

 

[SurreyBlue]

I'd be surprised if we didn't get pick 33 or 38 as well as pick 13 from Sydney for our 2nd's.

I'll just add - then we would on trade 13 & McAdam for 40 & McGovern. I can live with that...for now.

 

[Pafloyul]

I can't use my constructive argument skills when this forum resembles people sipping tea in a war zone. I want some honest consensus, it's overpaying and ripping in to our ability to make further changes. We're on our way to making three decent list changes whilst into the bargain probably taking a large dent to next years trading currency to acquire Setterfield. It's not good enough with our lack of depth and the amount of attrition we are going through.

 

[Opine]

Could we not go to GWS to get their mid teen pick?

Heard an interview with GWS footy boss earlier. Cameron said that GWS strategy is to take advantage of need to balance salary cap; by going to the draft and regenerating with some young talent. Doubt they would give away any picks unless they were getting a better pick in return.

 

[ctwenty1]

He has goal sense, can't help but feel the Bolton's gameplan of not kicking goals will stifle his development

Lol, but for all the wrong reasons

 

[Zlatan]

I think people just need to have a look around at the other boards on this site.
Just coming here can be like an echo chamber where they keep seeing hypothetical trades one after another of us completely bending teams over and start thinking it's reality.
It only sets you up for disappointment.
Same as how people started saying we weren't chasing him that hard, we would walk away if we don't get him cheap and it was more about him wanting to come here. It's crazy talk.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[rezzi]

I can't use my constructive argument skills when this forum resembles people sipping tea in a war zone. I want some honest consensus, it's overpaying and ripping in to our ability to make further changes. We're on our way to making three decent list changes whilst into the bargain probably taking a large dent to next years trading currency to acquire Setterfield. It's not good enough with our lack of depth and the amount of attrition we are going through.

I don't get at what point this trade isn't overs. Pick 20 and McAdams? Pick 24 and McAdams? The trade can only exist if Adelaide come to the party. We are in no position where we are holding all the cards here, not at all. He's contracted. We need him more than Adelaide need to get rid of him. If it's taking 24 and 26, fine. We can't win them all, and we aren't even getting rorted. Going to the draft at the second round when we need established forwards and established mids is not going to help us. State League is a lottery, one we can't afford to play when the option is Mitch or Wild Card.

 

[Wayne Swan]

I'd be surprised if we didn't get pick 33 or 38 as well as pick 13 from Sydney for our 2nd's.

I'll just add - then we would on trade 13 & McAdam for 40 & McGovern. I can live with that...for now.

Maaate, Swans doing you a favour giving 13 for 26 & 28, only an extra 197 points that could well be whittled away as those picks get pushed out on draft night. There's no more picks coming your way, in fact WCE are right now looking at getting pick 13 for 20 & 22 so they can get the Kelly deal done!

 

[SurreyBlue]

Maaate, Swans doing you a favour giving 13 for 26 & 28, only an extra 197 points that could well be whittled away as those picks get pushed out on draft night. There's no more picks coming your way, in fact WCE are right now looking at getting pick 13 for 20 & 22 so they can get the Kelly deal done!

Well then, if it was me, I would say - deal with WC. They have better picks than us anyhow.....sorry maaatee

 

[HereComesJuddy]

I can't use my constructive argument skills when this forum resembles people sipping tea in a war zone. I want some honest consensus, it's overpaying and ripping in to our ability to make further changes. We're on our way to making three decent list changes whilst into the bargain probably taking a large dent to next years trading currency to acquire Setterfield. It's not good enough with our lack of depth and the amount of attrition we are going through.

Judge the trade period as a whole when done. Not 2 days in

 

[The Smoking Gun]

Lol, no way we are over paying for this guy.
And I mean that we are doing right thing. He is a gun.

No he's not a gun, but has the potential to be. Only played 12 games this year averaging 13 disposals & 1.3 goals per game. Played 13 games the year before averaging 11 disposals & 1.3 goals per game in 2017. Charlie & Harry are 3 years younger and already boast more scoreboard impact per game from much less Inside 50s. He's also highly susceptible to soft tissue injuries and got dropped this year due to poor form.

Classic case of getting sucked in by a Youtube highlights package without digesting the substance of fact. Would I like him??? Sure, but one 2nd Rounder and McAdam is plenty........contracted or not.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

Lol, no way we are over paying for this guy.
And I mean that we are doing right thing. He is a gun.

Yep.
As much as I’d love to come here and stir the pot, I can’t cause Mitch is great, our win percentage with him in the team vs no is hugely increased. He’s young, athletic, sticky hands, good jump timing when confident runs both ways with FWD defensive pressure.
If only we’d had him in the GF.