-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
News Taylor Adams coming to Pies? Hine: "Yeah, I think so"
- Thread starter Enforcer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
wednesdaywarrior
Club Legend
Malibu,
I think most of us recognise that we would be getting the better deal in a straight swap but exchanging 6 for 14 would be too much of a drop in value. Pick six will almost certainly yield a high end talent (touch wood) and for a club like ours that hasn't seen that kind of top ten action for almost a decade it's simply asking too much. We have lost a lot of quality out the door this trade period and need to replace it.
One of our posters suggested a 10 for 14 swap recently which I thought was more realistic and plausible in weighting the difference in value between Shaw and Adams. Furthermore, for all his potential, Adams may end up being a lesser player than some of the top inside mids in this draft. Many on our board rate Crouch higher on potential and we could quite possibly get him around the 10-14 range.
Basic message: I don't think we're being unreasonable. Thanks for visiting
Call me crazy but something just doesn't add up. I'm sure the Haw Adams deal will go ahead and would probably be a straight swap, but there is something else.
GWS have been clear they are trying to bolster their list and also protect themselves from losing too many young players in their peak due to salary cap concerns. Thus they have looked to get some quality mature bodies with plenty of years left. They have made no bones about the fact that they'd happily trade the No. 1 pick if the deal was right. Now they have negotiated to have 1 and 2. For them to use these picks would seem odd as it will again contribute to salary cap pressure in 3-4 years when these players come into their own. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that there is a deal being looked at involving one of those picks and probably involving ne of the clubs who received Free Agency Compensation picks as it ahs been left till the last week...
Just saying..
GWS have been clear they are trying to bolster their list and also protect themselves from losing too many young players in their peak due to salary cap concerns. Thus they have looked to get some quality mature bodies with plenty of years left. They have made no bones about the fact that they'd happily trade the No. 1 pick if the deal was right. Now they have negotiated to have 1 and 2. For them to use these picks would seem odd as it will again contribute to salary cap pressure in 3-4 years when these players come into their own. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that there is a deal being looked at involving one of those picks and probably involving ne of the clubs who received Free Agency Compensation picks as it ahs been left till the last week...
Just saying..
privatopia
Senior List
By GWS taking Mummy for #35ish(?) that was going to be used for the Adams deal the swap was confirmed. Then we dealt with WC. Like a primary school lunch time scrap "they started it". Clever work Mr Hine, now get it done.
I'd cop the salary cap pressures and move on guys that haven't quite panned out as stars. ie if Patton can't get right and Boyd is looking good, lose Patton and salary cap pressure. That's just one example. No point not loading your list with quality when the AFL is making it so feasible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Tend to agree Jabbers, I think we are trying for something else and the Adams deal is already done.
Personally I'd prefer to keep Shaw but I suspect that isn't possible given where things are at now. I'd be saying to GWS that it's a straigt swap and sign by Tuesday or it's off. I don't know how hell bent of getting Adams we are but I wouldn't be upset if we didn't get him. Decent prospect but not what we need IMO. We need pace and footskills not grunt.
privatopia
Senior List
So you're suggesting the hold up with the Adams deal is to try to snare pick #1? At what cost me thinks
Lefthanded
Premiership Player
- Sep 9, 2013
- 3,621
- 2,437
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Have they said they are willing to trade pick 1 since Buddy went to Swans?
They'd have to be pretty sure of Patton from an injury perspective to give up on Boyd.
I agree with DWil6 view on salary cap pressure. They would also have already front ended likes of Scully, Ward, etc and would do same with Shaw, all of which helps offset the salary cap pressure when Cameron & others need big $$.
Why? This bemuses me, posters on an internet forum getting jumpy because things aren't moving quickly enough for them?
Or is there another reason you want it done by Tuesday?
- May 9, 2006
- 8,191
- 7,936
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- \m/ Babymetal \m/ New York Rangers
Because the GWS posters on here aren't offering us anymore.
Am I wrong but haven't we strengthened our negotiation position with pick 6?
We can now front end a contract and take Adams with pick 6 leaving GWS empty handed. In another scenario, GWS burn pick 1 or 2 redrafting him. St Kilda, Bulldogs or Gold Coast pay the front ended premium for Adams. Therefore jumping us up to pick 5 and 9 in the draft. We still get a trade for sure such as 15 from Geelong.
Sam Fisher not going to GWS also helps with the Shaw trade.
If we don't take Adams this week, what do GWS give us for Shaw? I am assuming pick 1 and 2 too high and pick 21 and 22 too low.
Which leaves our pick 10 which would mean GWS adding a player - Shaw + 10 = Adams + a player that we both agree too. I just can't see us giving Shaw + a player (Paine maybe) for Adams.
It just seems common sense would prevail and a straight swap happens.
We can swap our 67 and their 85 but would that matter?
Hine says both players want to come to each club so they just need to facilitate a trade.
Its been said before but if we end up with Adams, White, Karnezis, pick 6, 10 and rookie upgrade with competition between existing rookies for a spot like last year I will be very happy.
We can now front end a contract and take Adams with pick 6 leaving GWS empty handed. In another scenario, GWS burn pick 1 or 2 redrafting him. St Kilda, Bulldogs or Gold Coast pay the front ended premium for Adams. Therefore jumping us up to pick 5 and 9 in the draft. We still get a trade for sure such as 15 from Geelong.
Sam Fisher not going to GWS also helps with the Shaw trade.
If we don't take Adams this week, what do GWS give us for Shaw? I am assuming pick 1 and 2 too high and pick 21 and 22 too low.
Which leaves our pick 10 which would mean GWS adding a player - Shaw + 10 = Adams + a player that we both agree too. I just can't see us giving Shaw + a player (Paine maybe) for Adams.
It just seems common sense would prevail and a straight swap happens.
We can swap our 67 and their 85 but would that matter?
Hine says both players want to come to each club so they just need to facilitate a trade.
Its been said before but if we end up with Adams, White, Karnezis, pick 6, 10 and rookie upgrade with competition between existing rookies for a spot like last year I will be very happy.
I suppose the reason for waiting it done earlier rather then later is if GWS are not willing to deal for a straight swap then we still have plenty of time to shop Shaw off to other clubs.
Personally I would rather keep the better player in Shaw, seeing as Shaw has accepted an offer from GWS and Adems wants to get to the Pies I would be telling GWS straight swap or nothing and leave it for them to decide.
- Jan 17, 2013
- 8,015
- 9,218
- AFL Club
- GWS
What?
Thought that was Plain enough - we have achieved our objectives (picks 6 and 10) plus drafted White and will more than likely pick up Karnesis. You aren't getting 6 or 10 under any circs so you have the choice of a straight swap or send him to the draft - the rest is scenarios spinning from that.
I don't want it done at all. I'm not sold on Adams for our needs and I don't care about the timing at all.
However, in order to get it done on our terms, which importantly in the circumstances are very reasonable, I think we need to let GWS and Gubby know we are not going to budge. We need to put pressure on them to come to our terms and we need to tell them we will explore other options. Gubby knows Collingwood and we should know Gubby. We need to make sure we do not fold as he expects us to. Straight swap is over IMO as it is and had we not backed ourselves into a corner we be some chance at a better deal but that's life. Problem is, if Shaw has told them he won't make it easy for us we are somewhat hamstrung.
Old Spice
Norm Smith Medallist
Collingwood - Jaidyn Stephenson Player Sponsor 2018
Collingwood Magpies - James Aish Player Sponsor 2016
Collingwood - Taylor Adams Player Sponsor 2015
Collingwood - Ben Kennedy Player Sponsor 2014
Collingwood - Quinten Lynch Player Sponsor 2013
Collingwood Magpies - Alex Fasolo 2012 Player Sponsor
Collingwood Magpies - Alan Didak 2011 Player Sponsor
Collingwood Magpies - Alan Didak 2010 Player Sponsor
I think they are trading like this for precisely those reasons, so they don't have a list all coming into their earning prime at the same time. They are spacing the age of their list so they have A graders at a reasonable age & wage spread.
privatopia
Senior List
Read it again. And again for good measure
- Jan 17, 2013
- 8,015
- 9,218
- AFL Club
- GWS
We've got more trades to make... so what we have to offer now is not necessarily what we'll have by Friday. What do you mean we would 'burn a trade' using pick 1 or 2?????????? Why would we do that? Wait a minute... you're joking right?
I'm pretty sure they all know where they stand on it and what each side wants/expects out of the deal.
From the sounds of things it's all going okay as it is and looks like it'll be done without too much drama but that's the nature of negotiating there's a bit of too-ing and fro-ing to be done.
I'd be very surprised if ultimatums were one of our regular bargaining tools really.
Do try and keep up - or are you being deliberately obtuse? - I didn't mention anything of the sort, it was the other poster.
As for you having other trades to do, well so do we.
Anyway you seem a little abrupt and combative for someone who is a guest on this board so before I say something very descriptive and abrupt myself I'll wish you fair winds at your back as you sail away.
- Status
