Opinion Non-Crows AFL 11

[FR0GGY]

So basically unless Port get their hands on another first rounder they will have to ask the AFL permission to trade another future 1st.

So basically Port really have no option other than to trade Houston.

There's no way will the AFL allow them to use a future first if they're refusing to trade Houston for a fare trade.

So where are those Port supporters who were telling me that I was wrong?

Chris Davies said a week ago that they would have to ask permission, not sure why anyone would dispute that.

 

[ams4crows]

So basically unless Port get their hands on another first rounder they will have to ask the AFL permission to trade another future 1st.

So basically Port really have no option other than to trade Houston.

There's no way will the AFL allow them to use a future first if they're refusing to trade Houston for a fare trade.

So where are those Port supporters who were telling me that I was wrong?

Are gold coast wanting pick 13 to go to Collingwood or Carlton so it can go to Port so that Port can give it back to Gold coast??

 

[BRL121]

Are gold coast wanting pick 13 to go to Collingwood or Carlton so it can go to Port so that Port can give it back to Gold coast??

Is that legal?

 

[bonehilda]

Are gold coast wanting pick 13 to go to Collingwood or Carlton so it can go to Port so that Port can give it back to Gold coast??

They want Port to use pick 13 this year so they can get Port’s F1

 

[relapse]

Are gold coast wanting pick 13 to go to Collingwood or Carlton so it can go to Port so that Port can give it back to Gold coast??

I think Gold Coast are wanting Port's future 1st, but GC know that Port need a first round pick in order to do that so they're trying to do what they can to get Pick 13 to Port to free up their future 1st.

 

[CharlieCrow]

What are Port giving GC (or to anyone else) to get Lukosius and Pick 13? Surely they don't expect that back for trading Houston.

 

[FR0GGY]

I think Gold Coast are wanting Port's future 1st, but GC know that Port need a first round pick in order to do that so they're trying to do what they can to get Pick 13 to Port to free up their future 1st.

Every chance their F1 is around 13 in a worse draft?

 

[relapse]

Chris Davies said a week ago that they would have to ask permission, not sure why anyone would dispute that.

There was a couple of them in the Luko thrad trying to argue that they had met the draft pick criteria and that I was wrong.

I won't name and shame them, but I shouldn't be surprised that Port supporters don't understand the rules or think that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

 

[relapse]

What are Port giving GC (or to anyone else) to get Lukosius and Pick 13? Surely they don't expect that back for trading Houston.

No, they're trying to facilitate a trade of Pick 13 to either Collingwood or Carlton which will then be on-traded to Port for Houston.

Once Port have a first round pick for this year it unlocks their future first for trading which they will trade to GC for Luko.

 

[Redline]

If the end result is Port get Luko and a later 1st round pick this year for Houston and their future 1st then they have done well in my opinion.

Houston is a big out but they will get Farell back. Key forwards are hard to find especially those in their mid 20's. He should team up well with Georgiadis. That had to be their priority.

 

[tinman]

Are gold coast wanting pick 13 to go to Collingwood or Carlton so it can go to Port so that Port can give it back to Gold coast??

That’s how I’m reading it. That they prefer to deal with a club that’s going to trade it (indirectly) back to them for Luko.

Edit: or allow Port to trade their first rounder next year to GC

 

[relapse]

Every chance their F1 is around 13 in a worse draft?

I'd love to see 13 go back to GC.

That way it will work out that Houston was pretty much a straight swap for Luko which would be hilarious when Port supporters were talking up 2 first round picks for Houston and claiming that they were going to get Luko for peanuts.

 

[FR0GGY]

I'd love to see 13 go back to GC.

That way it will work out that Houston was pretty much a straight swap for Luko which would be hilarious when Port supporters were talking up 2 first round picks for Houston and claiming that they were going to get Luko for peanuts.

Still reckon GC cave, their 13 is more valuable than ports F1 in my opinion

 

[Apsaalooke]

That's actually a funny exercise

I did a random redraft and got the following results

Pick 16 (Jordan Gallucci) -> Pick 48 -> Darcy Cameron
Pick 44 (Myles Poholke) -> Pick 57 -> Matt De Boer
Pick 51 (Elliott Himmelberg) -> Pick 68 -> Timm House
Pick 62 (Matt Signorello) -> Rookie Pick 24 -> Henry Schade
Pick 75 (Ben Davis) -> Rookie Pick 33 -> Zach Guthrie

Ten random results for the Gallucci pick that were available to us
Darcy Cameron
Zac Fisher
Mitch Lewis
Ollie Hanrahan
Mitch Hinge
Dion Johnstone
Jarrod Berry
Matthew Taylor
Robbie Fox
Kym Lebois

2016 gets worse

Lyons to GC for junk pics
Henderson delisted, picked up by Hawks
2016 2nd rounder traded out for Curtley Hampton in 2015
Sam Shaw re-rookied
Ben Jarman rookied

 

[50BC]

No Garcia for Porrr pear

Surely they had no interest after Richards agreeing to cross over. Limit to how many small forwards they can play. Richards makes 9 on their list not counting mid/fwds although I think 2 are currently out of contract.

 

[50BC]

Is that legal?

No it's not legal, a pick can't be traded back to the club it came from in the same trade period

 

[Crow till I die]

Surely they had no interest after Richards agreeing to cross over. Limit to how many small forwards they can play. Richards makes 9 on their list not counting mid/fwds although I think 2 are currently out of contract.

https://i1.wp.com/media2.giphy.com/media/1hacLdf6ZimqeDt6d6/giphy.gif

 

[skam85]

No it's not legal, a pick can't be traded back to the club it came from in the same trade period

yes it can

 

[ams4crows]

Still reckon GC cave, their 13 is more valuable than ports F1 in my opinion

It is and they know that, the issue is if they do want it back for Lombard purposes once Port have it then Port hold all the power and can say you can have a F1st we want to keep pick 13

Assuming Collingwood or Carlton give their future 1st in exchange for 13 in the first place. To then get Port's future 1st leaves them with at least 3 1st rounders next year. They may want to keep one in this year's draft as they are already giving 6 away for Rioli

 

[FR0GGY]

No it's not legal, a pick can't be traded back to the club it came from in the same trade period

I’d say as long as it passes through 2 clubs there’d be no issues.

 

[ams4crows]

No it's not legal, a pick can't be traded back to the club it came from in the same trade period

It can if it goes through another clubs hands first can't it ? As long as it a fully seperate deal?

 

[footy4ever]

Some of their football opinions are so dumb that you can't help but laugh.

It's generally accepted that Butters, JHF and Rozee are better than Houston therefore if Houston is a Top 10 player, then they must all be in there.

So according to that logic that means that Port have four of the top 10 players in the league

Peak #portlogic

They must have around 4 of the top ten. Look at all those premierships they've won recently.

We might have only one of the top ten, or there abouts, and we've recently won the same number of premierships.

 

[50BC]

yes it can

 

[50BC]

I’d say as long as it passes through 2 clubs there’d be no issues.

Yeah, I just looked up the rule. A pick can't be traded directly back to the club it came from but it looks like it can go to a 3rd party and then go back to its point of origin.

 

[relapse]

Yeah, I just looked up the rule. A pick can't be traded directly back to the club it came from but it looks like it can go to a 3rd party and then go back to its point of origin.

So how does that work with future picks given that we've just traded Melbourne's pick back to them that they traded to us for McAdam?