Page 250 of 271
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:11 pm
by thompsoc
5 from the wing on debut wrote:thompsoc wrote:think positive wrote:
If it's not costing us anything, (and it shouldn't) play hard ball. He really wants out, shop him around. Let's face it, who wouldn't want to join a team that just won a premiership. if they get him that cheap I guess they figure he's worth the gamble. Or they are smarter than us and know he is.
I'd still like someone to explain to me as simply as they line why we, in 12th don't have a spot for him, and the premiers do.
True TP
but lots of posters love throwing plenty of players under the bus.
it seems to be some kind of pagan ceremony.
As for The Dogs.
Their forward line isn't the greatest.
They score a lot of scrappy goals.
I imagine they will play him as a very high forward.
But if they are getting him for pick 79 and a low salary then they would just be dancing in the street.
Have you ever posted a comment about Blair whilst you were visiting Stonehenge?
I have been throwing Blair under the bus for 5 years now.
It looks like I will be doing it for another 2 years.
Trav kicked more goals than Blair in 2016.
And he played a lot less games.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:14 pm
by mooretreloar
think positive wrote:mooretreloar wrote:Cam wrote:79. Tell em they're dreamin'!
Whilst that is probably the beginning of the bidding process, its insulting to both the club and Travis' worth.
The pick Jay Clark mentioned was 71. Not sure how they can give us 71 when they don't have it, it belongs to Gelelong.
Bulldogs 1st 4th round pick is 59 (received from Carlton for Liam Jones, they also have 67 and 69 (received from Sydney for Michael Talia) in the 4th round.
Their 5th round pick is 85.
We can argue whether Cloke has good football left in him or not. My view is he is done, as is the view of a lot of experts.
The facts are that he played 50% of his time in the VFL in 2016, whether you believe he should have played there or not, whether you believed he was treated well or not. Thus, taking opinions out of the equation if you take on face value that the reason he played VFL that is form wasn't good enough, then his starting value is not high.
The Bulldogs are only picking him up for coverage. Jason McCartney their list manager confirmed the reason that they are looking at Cloke is that they lack coverage in that area. This is because Redpath did his ACL and will be out until mid season 2017. I would very much doubt any other club is interested, yes Richmond was mentioned, but given the state of their list and their need to rebuild, I believe this is only media speculation.
The other factors to consider are that Collingwood doesn't want him, nor want his salary as part of its salary cap and Cloke doesn't want to play for Collingwood.
Putting this all together, you have a player that played 50% VFL in 2016, who most experts consider is done, who doesn't want to play with us and there isn't much interest in. We do not want him or his salary. If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect Collingwood to use a 2nd or 3rd pick for such a deal?
Consequently, if we get pick 59 we are doing well, but I would suggest it is likely to be 67 or 69.
If the deal isn't done, eitherthe dogs pull out or we balk at the price, why don't you think Richmond would take him at $250,000? Or do you think he will only agree to that to play for a top 8 side?
They could take him, but their list needs to be rebuilt and I don't think a 29 year old would help their build, especially seeing there is talk Deledio is on the trade table and he is 29.
Based on history, when a player nominates a club they generally get there, so I would be surprised if the deal between the Dogs and us fall through. I believe our main aim is to get his salary off our books to bring in players that the club believes will improve us. For example: Will Hoskin-Elliott is contracted to the Giants next year for $400k, so we will need to take all or part of this salary to complete the deal.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:23 pm
by Boogie Knights
I don't think this trade has anything to do with the draft pick received back. Sure we'd like as high as possible (to be usable), but in reality, the trade for us is all about clearing Cloke's salary off the books. As it sits currently, it is an albatross on the books... In the NBA to clear a bad contract off the books, you generally have to throw in a draft pick. The pick coming our was is potentially inconsequential (although could provide F/S points)... it is compulsory to get a deal done.
I won't debate the relative merits of what Cloke is or isn't capable of at this point. All I will say is that he has been an outstanding servant of the club and a premiership player. I will forever remember the looks on my boys faces at Maroochy in the preseason of this year when they got to meet him, seeing how big of a bloke he was/is, and they are now relentless in their pursuit of muscle (being 7 and 9 - it's quite funny to watch). But I thank Trav for all he has done and wish him all the success in his move... against all but us.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:32 pm
by mooretreloar
Boogie Knights wrote:I don't think this trade has anything to do with the draft pick received back. Sure we'd like as high as possible (to be usable), but in reality, the trade for us is all about clearing Cloke's salary off the books. As it sits currently, it is an albatross on the books... In the NBA to clear a bad contract off the books, you generally have to throw in a draft pick. The pick coming our was is potentially inconsequential (although could provide F/S points)... it is compulsory to get a deal done.
I won't debate the relative merits of what Cloke is or isn't capable of at this point. All I will say is that he has been an outstanding servant of the club and a premiership player. I will forever remember the looks on my boys faces at Maroochy in the preseason of this year when they got to meet him, seeing how big of a bloke he was/is, and they are now relentless in their pursuit of muscle (being 7 and 9 - it's quite funny to watch). But I thank Trav for all he has done and wish him all the success in his move... against all but us.
Well said Boogie Knights.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:33 pm
by RudeBoy
It's official now. Cloke is worthless. Collingwood is effectively giving him away for nothing, because not a single club reckons he's worth anything. I'm just surprised that the Bulldogs didn't ask for a draft pick from us to get them to take him off our hands.
The advantage for us of letting him go is that it frees up salary cap space, which we need to pay for Wells, Mayne and especially Wills Hoskin-Elliott.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:36 pm
by think positive
RudeBoy wrote:It's official now. Cloke is worthless. Collingwood is effectively giving him away for nothing, because not a single club reckons he's worth anything. I'm just surprised that the Bulldogs didn't ask for a draft pick from us to get them to take him off our hands.
The advantage for us of letting him go is that it frees up salary cap space, which we need to pay for Wells, Mayne and especially Wills Hoskin-Elliott.
hahahahahahaha bang goes Rudey!!
well now this thread really was getting a little to feel good hey!!
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:37 pm
by think positive
Boogie Knights wrote:I don't think this trade has anything to do with the draft pick received back. Sure we'd like as high as possible (to be usable), but in reality, the trade for us is all about clearing Cloke's salary off the books. As it sits currently, it is an albatross on the books... In the NBA to clear a bad contract off the books, you generally have to throw in a draft pick. The pick coming our was is potentially inconsequential (although could provide F/S points)... it is compulsory to get a deal done.
I won't debate the relative merits of what Cloke is or isn't capable of at this point. All I will say is that he has been an outstanding servant of the club and a premiership player. I will forever remember the looks on my boys faces at Maroochy in the preseason of this year when they got to meet him, seeing how big of a bloke he was/is, and they are now relentless in their pursuit of muscle (being 7 and 9 - it's quite funny to watch). But I thank Trav for all he has done and wish him all the success in his move... against all but us.
nice post! kudus to your boys, muscles are good!!
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:15 pm
by Pies4shaw
Piesnchess wrote:Johnno75 wrote:I was at the MCG open day on Sunday having shots from 15m out on various angles but no wider than the point posts. It's actually harder to miss than to kick the goal.
That's even with having to worry about being clocked in the head with 1 of the 100 footballs flying around the place by others.
Still cant work out how he misses so many sodas.
Yes, I watched that Drawn GF doco last night on youtube. Had Cloke kicked those two absolute soda goals just prior to halftime, we would have gone in seven goals up, with the saints broken. His inane misses nearly cost us a flag, a hairs breath away from utter despair, sure he got a late one and saved it then, but his very costly misses nearly destroyed our winning chances. It would have been over at half time, but for his incredible inaccuracy.
Well, leading by 5.4 (9.6 to 4.2), at the most (Cloke kicked the two behinds to take Collingwood from 7.6 to 7.8 ). Of course, the second behind, as irritating as they both were, might not have been scored if he'd kicked a goal the first time, so that the ball went back to the centre.
Another observation, of course, is that Cloke was Collingwood's only multiple goal-kicker in the drawn GF and had equal-fourth most kicks for Collingwood (after Heater, Daisy, Steele and Swanny) that day. So, if he hadn't played, the 'Pies would likely have lost the game.
It's a matter of perspective, I suppose - I always thought that Collingwood would have won the first game if either Davis or Beams had played a competent AFL-standard game. I suppose that was never actually going to happen and I fully recognise that it's easier (if stupider) to blame the guys who got into the game on the day and had an influence.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:37 pm
by Boogie Knights
RudeBoy wrote:It's official now. Cloke is worthless. Collingwood is effectively giving him away for nothing, because not a single club reckons he's worth anything. I'm just surprised that the Bulldogs didn't ask for a draft pick from us to get them to take him off our hands.
The advantage for us of letting him go is that it frees up salary cap space, which we need to pay for Wells, Mayne and especially Wills Hoskin-Elliott.
I wouldn't say Cloke's trade value is nil... I would look at is a trading Cloke for pick 1009 (or similar) plus Mayne, Wells, and possibly WHE (with picks/players required to go the other way yet to be determined).
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:02 pm
by Dark Beanie
Travis has never been interested in going to Richmond, even during those protracted contract negotiations in 2012. It was all smoke behind the mirrors.
The Bulldogs are the only team to show any real interest and now it appears because they feel they can get him for a rock bottom price.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:06 pm
by watt price tully
mooretreloar wrote:watt price tully wrote:mooretreloar wrote:
........
We can argue whether Cloke has good football left in him or not. My view is he is done, as is the view of a lot of experts.
.
Who are so called
"experts" who say he is "done".
Robert Walls said he was done 2 years ago.
David King says the same.
Jason Dunstall said at the end of 2015 we should have traded him at the end of 2015.
Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Nathan Buckley said in early 2016 that Cloke's form slump was oot a new thing, it had been apparent for 18 months.
Robert Walls - I thought he was in France 2 years ago.
David King - pls find the source
Dunstall trade views were right but that doesn't say he is done just what his value was at the time
Leigh's views that you've quoted doesn't mean he's done
That Bucks couldn't get the best out of him is another matter
So really you have possibly 2 names in that list, not plenty of experts
The freeing up of his salary however combined with a form slump & as Cloke Senior was quoted as saying recently playing for a coach that believes in you is another matter.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:14 pm
by RudeBoy
Boogie Knights wrote:RudeBoy wrote:It's official now. Cloke is worthless. Collingwood is effectively giving him away for nothing, because not a single club reckons he's worth anything. I'm just surprised that the Bulldogs didn't ask for a draft pick from us to get them to take him off our hands.
The advantage for us of letting him go is that it frees up salary cap space, which we need to pay for Wells, Mayne and especially Wills Hoskin-Elliott.
I wouldn't say Cloke's trade value is nil... I would look at is a trading Cloke for pick 1009 (or similar) plus Mayne, Wells, and possibly WHE (with picks/players required to go the other way yet to be determined).
Hmmm......except the Bulldogs are giving us pick 79 for him, which is nothing in anyone's language. The fact that we may then be able to use the salary cap space to pay for other players has nothing to do with what the Bulldogs have given us for him, which is sweet f a.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:24 pm
by thompsoc
watt price tully wrote:mooretreloar wrote:watt price tully wrote:
Who are so called "experts" who say he is "done".
Robert Walls said he was done 2 years ago.
David King says the same.
Jason Dunstall said at the end of 2015 we should have traded him at the end of 2015.
Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Nathan Buckley said in early 2016 that Cloke's form slump was oot a new thing, it had been apparent for 18 months.
Robert Walls - I thought he was in France 2 years ago.
David King - pls find the source
Dunstall trade views were right but that doesn't say he is done just what his value was at the time
Leigh's views that you've quoted doesn't mean he's done
That Bucks couldn't get the best out of him is another matter
So really you have possibly 2 names in that list, not plenty of experts
The freeing up of his salary however combined with a form slump & as Cloke Senior was quoted as saying recently playing for a coach that believes in you is another matter.
Well said.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:08 pm
by Piesnchess
RudeBoy wrote:Boogie Knights wrote:RudeBoy wrote:It's official now. Cloke is worthless. Collingwood is effectively giving him away for nothing, because not a single club reckons he's worth anything. I'm just surprised that the Bulldogs didn't ask for a draft pick from us to get them to take him off our hands.
The advantage for us of letting him go is that it frees up salary cap space, which we need to pay for Wells, Mayne and especially Wills Hoskin-Elliott.
I wouldn't say Cloke's trade value is nil... I would look at is a trading Cloke for pick 1009 (or similar) plus Mayne, Wells, and possibly WHE (with picks/players required to go the other way yet to be determined).
Hmmm......except the Bulldogs are giving us pick 79 for him, which is nothing in anyone's language. The fact that we may then be able to use the salary cap space to pay for other players has nothing to do with what the Bulldogs have given us for him, which is sweet f a.
BINGO !!!! Yep, the friggin PREMIER team wants a possible, not likely, but possible KPP, for sweet bugger all from US, that's the bottom line, they want him for nearly zilch, this stinks more than a four day old fish left in the fridge.
Tell em to get cattle trucked.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:17 pm
by MightyMagpie
A player's trade value is essentially his market salary value less his contracted salary. In Cloke's case he has a negative value based on his Pies 2017 salary and has had to agree to restructure his contract with WBD for them to even take him. It's a salary dump for the Pies and we'll get SFA in return - the Bulldogs suggestion of pick 71 seems entirely fair.