#35,#16 Oliver Henry
Moderator: bbmods
Pick 33 would cover the cost of the Mitchell trade, could be used in trade for a future 2nd round selection or bundled with another pick to try and make our way up this years draft board.
Effectively we could turn Henry in to pick 25 and Mitchell or 25 and Hill (because we restored the future 2nd used on him).
Not the result we were after originally but forcing Geelong to trade away some flexible KP depth in Esava would be a little win.
No way should we accept pick 25 on it's own.
Effectively we could turn Henry in to pick 25 and Mitchell or 25 and Hill (because we restored the future 2nd used on him).
Not the result we were after originally but forcing Geelong to trade away some flexible KP depth in Esava would be a little win.
No way should we accept pick 25 on it's own.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
How bad do Geelong want Henry? Would they only deal Esava to get Ollie? (Seems like Port are ok to give up #33).
What if the Cats deal and then we say "no thanks"? They lose their player but don't get Henry - would feel good, but make it hard to deal with them in future.
If we had #16, #25, #27 (Grundy), #33, #41 could we do something better with that before draft night? Presume maybe #33 goes out for Mitchell if Grundy goes. Fiorini? #41? We go to the draft with 16, 25, 27?
Would we try and trade out #27 for a second rounder next year (which would restore us back to having all our future picks? Would depend who to suppose.
Anyway - I am getting off topic.
What if the Cats deal and then we say "no thanks"? They lose their player but don't get Henry - would feel good, but make it hard to deal with them in future.
If we had #16, #25, #27 (Grundy), #33, #41 could we do something better with that before draft night? Presume maybe #33 goes out for Mitchell if Grundy goes. Fiorini? #41? We go to the draft with 16, 25, 27?
Would we try and trade out #27 for a second rounder next year (which would restore us back to having all our future picks? Would depend who to suppose.
Anyway - I am getting off topic.
It's never as good/nor bad as it seems...
piffdog wrote:How bad do Geelong want Henry? Would they only deal Esava to get Ollie? (Seems like Port are ok to give up #33).
What if the Cats deal and then we say "no thanks"? They lose their player but don't get Henry - would feel good, but make it hard to deal with them in future.
If we had #16, #25, #27 (Grundy), #33, #41 could we do something better with that before draft night? Presume maybe #33 goes out for Mitchell if Grundy goes. Fiorini? #41? We go to the draft with 16, 25, 27?
Would we try and trade out #27 for a second rounder next year (which would restore us back to having all our future picks? Would depend who to suppose.
Anyway - I am getting off topic.
It's Geelong's job to do the heavy lifting and satisfy the Pies and Henry's choice. If they want to go to market and turn 25 & 33 into a sub 15 draft pick and pass onto us, great. NOT OUR JOB to turn shit into champagne
Last edited by inxs88 on Tue Oct 11, 2022 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum
-
magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
Hopefully #50 and or #51 will get us Fiorini.
If we have to take #27 and #33 for Ollie we can then use #33 for Mitchell or even #41.
Leaving us with #16 #25 #27 #33 or #41 and maybe #50 or #51
Im not happy to accept #25 and #33 but would rather have that if the bridges are burnt between Henry and the club. Best case scenario is he stays a pie.
If we have to take #27 and #33 for Ollie we can then use #33 for Mitchell or even #41.
Leaving us with #16 #25 #27 #33 or #41 and maybe #50 or #51
Im not happy to accept #25 and #33 but would rather have that if the bridges are burnt between Henry and the club. Best case scenario is he stays a pie.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
And all that is exactly how the footy dept should be thinking.swoop42 wrote:Pick 33 would cover the cost of the Mitchell trade, could be used in trade for a future 2nd round selection or bundled with another pick to try and make our way up this years draft board.
Effectively we could turn Henry in to pick 25 and Mitchell or 25 and Hill (because we restored the future 2nd used on him).
Not the result we were after originally but forcing Geelong to trade away some flexible KP depth in Esava would be a little win.
No way should we accept pick 25 on it's own.
Any climb up the draft order won’t likely be seen during the trade period but if it proves we don’t have the cap room to bring in more players, you might as well have the picks to make a move up the draft order ( providing you have some picks in the first place, of course )
-
AN_Inkling
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
Pick 33 is pick 33 (well, possibly 36 when it's pushed back).swoop42 wrote:Pick 33 would cover the cost of the Mitchell trade, could be used in trade for a future 2nd round selection or bundled with another pick to try and make our way up this years draft board.
Effectively we could turn Henry in to pick 25 and Mitchell or 25 and Hill (because we restored the future 2nd used on him).
Not the result we were after originally but forcing Geelong to trade away some flexible KP depth in Esava would be a little win.
No way should we accept pick 25 on it's own.
What we do with it doesn't make the deal any better. If we want Mitchell (not bothered myself) we could find a way to get that done easily enough without involving the Henry deal. Though with Gunston and now potentially O'Meara leaving, Hawks may no longer be so set on trading Mitchell.
Losing a pick 17, we want to get a single pick as close to that as possible, not spread it out over multiple picks. 33 (or 36) isn't really a sweetener to us this draft I don't think. Not impossible we'd accept it, but it's definitely not what we'd want.
Well done boys!
-
Piesnchess
- Posts: 26202
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
- Has liked: 229 times
- Been liked: 94 times
The position remains that Collingwood must obtain a high first-round pick (below the pick with which we took Henry, since he's had two years of development and demonstrated that he can actually play, unlike many first-round picks) or else Geelong should be told to go **** themselves. It is simply unacceptable - given the soft mindset it signifies - to allow Geelong to get Henry in a deal by which we "cut our losses". The long-term damage to our standing as a trade negotiator would far outweigh the benefit of having a pick that would allow us to recruit the next Ryan Cook, Jarrad Blight or Jay Rantall.