Mega Thread Trade Targets 2014

[slashin_velvet]

s

so if we gave you pick 47 for watson, you guys would be angry ?

If he wanted to leave, and was uncontracted, then i'd take it.

Look at what we took for Jeff Garlett.....

 

[blue healer]

I say we all keep an eye on free agents next year. I think if Sloane puts off talks he's ours.

We'll not have to give up any picks in this scenario.

I don't think you'll need to worry about posters on this board keeping an eye on FA's next year.

We've already had some proposing Boyd in 6 years time.

 

[HARKER]

The Dogs do have #37 now so it's up to us whether we sit tight on #28 or give it up for #37, Jones & Tutt.

I guess it will need to be balanced on the basis for loyalty to the players or what's best for the club.

Wouldn't be surprised should we do the right things towards the players we have courted.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I haven't been keeping up...
Was 28 even considered?
I would have thought just take it to PSD, 46 could still get us a decent player - we need all the picks we can get.

It wasn't considered by us. Dogs think #28 is fair value for Jones and might even do us a favour by throwing in Tutt. Aren't they generous?

 

[HBF]

Hope we hold on to pick 19. We have used previous picks in this region brilliantly over the years.

Hopefully we can get another Grigg, Hampson, Watson or Bootsma with it !!

Based on what i've seen this year of the kids coming through, #19 could deliver us a pretty good player.
Would well and truly hold onto this draft selection for sure.

 

[LordLucifer]

I haven't been keeping up...
Was 28 even considered?
I would have thought just take it to PSD, 46 could still get us a decent player - we need all the picks we can get.

#28 for Jones is simply ludicrous !!!

He is not worth that and never will be, the offer we have made is quite fair & reasonable given that (a) the Dogs have played him for the second half of the season in the VFL, & (b) they have already looked past Jones by bringing in Boyd.

 

[Dramoth]

so if we gave you pick 47 for watson, you guys would be angry ?

You guys are in no position to demand shit. You just gave away a club champion and former Brownlow medalist for pick 37 and you reckon that Jones is worth more than that?

 

[blue healer]

s

so if we gave you pick 47 for watson, you guys would be angry ?

We probably would be if he was contracted (as he is) but most would be happy with pick 47 if he'd opted out.

 

[JuddgementDay]

The Dogs do have #37 now so it's up to us whether we sit tight on #28 or give it up for #37, Jones & Tutt.

I guess it will need to be balanced on the basis for loyalty to the players or what's best for the club.

Wouldn't be surprised should we do the right things towards the players we have courted.

They'll get over it, just keep the pick
A stronger team would serve these two players better in the longer run

 

[Big Sim]

The Dogs do have #37 now so it's up to us whether we sit tight on #28 or give it up for #37, Jones & Tutt.

I guess it will need to be balanced on the basis for loyalty to the players or what's best for the club.

Wouldn't be surprised should we do the right things towards the players we have courted.

I could live with that.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The Dogs do have #37 now so it's up to us whether we sit tight on #28 or give it up for #37, Jones & Tutt.

I guess it will need to be balanced on the basis for loyalty to the players or what's best for the club.

Wouldn't be surprised should we do the right things towards the players we have courted.

Hmmm. Possibly.

It is not fair to make Jones particularly sweat. Tutt was always going to be a late pick.

That's an Everitt like deal right there.

#19, #28, Jones, #61, Tutt or
#19, #37, #46, #61, #65, Jones, Tutt

Would we trade #46 and #37 for #28? Maybe not.

I am interested in who might slide to #28 but having #19 makes this deal more palatable. I'd do that deal I think.

If we could offload Robbo and #37 to move back up a few spots, even better.

 

[Heres Waite]

s

so if we gave you pick 47 for watson, you guys would be angry ?

Not at all. I'd be disappointed that he didn't make it at the Blues, but if we were to trade, 47 would be what he is worth.

Same with Jones. He is worth a pick in the 40's. I can't see why that isn't fair considering that as a key forward he only averages a goal a game and played a large chunk of this year in the VFL.

 

[HARKER]

They'll get over it, just keep the pick
A stronger team would serve these two players better in the longer run

That's not the way to go about things.

Jones & Tutt would like to be Carlton players today and not hold out just hoping nothing else gets in the way of that happening.

Wouldn't be surprised should we trade the #28 for the #37 in the deal, even though I'd sooner we didn't.

 

[Mr_Plow]

I can't justify downgrading from 28 to 37 for Jones. Everitt was a best 22 player for the Swans and we got him for less.

46 or PSD.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's not the way to go about things.

Jones & Tutt would like to be Carlton players today and not hold out just hoping nothing else gets in the way of that happening.

Wouldn't be surprised should we trade the #28 for the #37 in the deal, even though I'd sooner we didn't.

I think this deal favours us. We would use #28 and #37. Makes it easier to fill our list if we aren't keeping Ellard, McLean and Lucas as well.

 

[HBF]

I can't justify downgrading from 28 to 37 for Jones. Everitt was a best 22 player for the Swans and we got him for less.

46 or PSD.

And really, we have Henderson, Casboult (Watson & KJ) as forwards
Jamo, Rowe and White down back.

No way should we pay overs for Jones. Tell the Doggies it's 46 or we'll walk away.

 

[Azul]

If we could offload Robbo and #37 to move back up a few spots, even better.

Time's running out - how many deals are we logistically capable of doing the last hour?

37, 65 and Lucas for 34 (freo) ?

 

[KnobHead]

s

so if we gave you pick 47 for watson, you guys would be angry ?

No one would give pick 28 for Watson, but if they did i'd take it in a heartbeat!

Last year, Doggies gave up around pick 25 for Crameri who played just about every game at Essendon, who made finals before being rubbed out.

Doggies just gave up Cooney for pick 37

This is why pick 28 for Jones, who is struggling to get a game in a team that is crying for forwards, looks very high.

You could chuck Tutt in as well, but he's worth less than Jones. Put it this way, would you give up a first round pick for 4 or 5 players that are fringe, just because that's a large number of players? No, you'd prefer to give a large number of lower picks based on each player's worth

 

[Blues_1864]

Have we tried adding a player? #46 + Robinson for Jones is beyond fair (even if the Dogs don't want Robinson).

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Time's running out - how many deals are we logistically capable of doing the last hour?

37, 65 and Lucas for 34 (freo) ?

Or West Coast #32. Wouldn't give #65 and Lucas to go up 3 spots late in the second round though.

#46 and Lucas for #32? Eagles have looked at him. We can't do it until the Dogs blink though. No point securing #32 or #34 and then giving it up for Jones.

 

[Mr_Plow]

And really, we have Henderson, Casboult (Watson & KJ) as forwards
Jamo, Rowe and White down back.

No way should we pay overs for Jones. Tell the Doggies it's 46 or we'll walk away.

We aren't crying out for talls like we were a few years back; Jones would be great, but we are hardly desperate.

 

[Sheephead]

The Dogs do have #37 now so it's up to us whether we sit tight on #28 or give it up for #37, Jones & Tutt.

I guess it will need to be balanced on the basis for loyalty to the players or what's best for the club.

Wouldn't be surprised should we do the right things towards the players we have courted.

If we are that keen on Jones and Tutt as Rogers has indicated, then do this trade. 9 pick downgrade for two players we are interested in. As long as we keep 19. Who knows what can occur between now and the PSD in relation to both kids heads. Just get it done I say. Still have 19, 37, 46, 61.

Is 28 going to get you a much better player than 37 or 46??? I dont think so...

 

[HARKER]

Have we tried adding a player? #46 + Robinson for Jones is beyond fair (even if the Dogs don't want Robinson).

I understand that we may have offered up a straight swap of Robinson for Jones.

Still think that whoever gets Robinson (even if it's us) will have a new player next year, at least.
Could easily become a bargain for someone and I'm surprised that GC haven't seriously looked at him.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It was a big thing for Jones to up and leave, choose us and agree to terms. Baulking for #28 is fine. Baulking on more reasonable deals is not. It is hanging him out to dry and is a bad look when attracting players down the track.

 

[Wickzki]

Still think that whoever gets Robinson (even if it's us) will have a new player next year, at least.
Could easily become a bargain for someone and I'm surprised that GC haven't seriously looked at him.

I'm more surprised GWS haven't looked at him given the AFL demand that they improve quickly. They took on Shaw last year warts and all.