Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

swoop42 wrote:Reports are that he is actually on rather more coin that what your basing your figures on though.

Might be wrong but some were suggesting he was actually getting more like $650,000 from us this season and not the $450,000 people thought it to be.

Who knows.

I heard his current contract is worth 350kpa, remember he signed his current deal in 2010 - 11, not saying I'm right just saying it's what I've heard-read.

This is the deal reported to have almost succeeded today:

Geelong: Clark, 30, 48
Melbourne: Lumumba
North: 25
Brisbane: Beams, Christensen
Collingwood: Varcoe, Greenwood, 5, 21

It seems the deal failed because the Cats weren't happy with 30 and 48 for Christensen.

I'm kinda pleased it failed. I'd not have been too happy with 5, 21 and 25 for Beams (we actually receive a bit less than that).

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... 14hbg.html

So if you take Christensen and 21 out of that why wouldn't it still work? Just means we keep 30 and 48. If we packaged those we would get a pick into the 20's anyway.

Not sure why this fell over

Latest rumour most likely BS is that Melbourne with offer pick 3 and 12 for Beams.

swoop42 wrote:Latest rumour most likely BS is that Melbourne with offer pick 3 and 12 for Beams.

Just about a fair deal I think (and it also highlights the gross inadequacy of the Lions deal).

I think you will hear a lot of rumors from both sides as they continue to maneuver.

Did the Lumumba/Clarke/Varcoe deal get done?

AN_Inkling wrote:This is the deal reported to have almost succeeded today:

Geelong: Clark, 30, 48
Melbourne: Lumumba
North: 25
Brisbane: Beams, Christensen
Collingwood: Varcoe, Greenwood, 5, 21

It seems the deal failed because the Cats weren't happy with 30 and 48 for Christensen.

I'm kinda pleased it failed. I'd not have been too happy with 5, 21 and 25 for Beams (we actually receive a bit less than that).

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... 14hbg.html

Because 21 is a valuable pick in a draft where the best 25 players seem quite highly touted as legitimate chances to be A-grade and the odds of getting a player at 30 and 48 are slim and none. think Broomhead vs Ramsey. I know their are diamonds in the rough, but as you saw with Langdon, you are just as likely to get those with pick 74 as you are with pick 30. Most teams have taken their favorite 2 by pick 30. most have only taken their favorite kid at pick 21. its a substantial difference.

Lumumba and Beams for Varcoe, Greenwood and 5 is not a cool trade when you consider that it sounds like we will likely get Greenwood for 30 (if we cant upgrade the pick), we could swap Varcoe and Lumumba any day of the week! If we don't get 21 as well, it basically means we are giving up Beams for pick 5 and 25! do you remember what we said to that trade????

E wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote:This is the deal reported to have almost succeeded today:

Geelong: Clark, 30, 48
Melbourne: Lumumba
North: 25
Brisbane: Beams, Christensen
Collingwood: Varcoe, Greenwood, 5, 21

It seems the deal failed because the Cats weren't happy with 30 and 48 for Christensen.

I'm kinda pleased it failed. I'd not have been too happy with 5, 21 and 25 for Beams (we actually receive a bit less than that).

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... 14hbg.html

Because 21 is a valuable pick in a draft where the best 25 players seem quite highly touted as legitimate chances to be A-grade and the odds of getting a player at 30 and 48 are slim and none. think Broomhead vs Ramsey. I know their are diamonds in the rough, but as you saw with Langdon, you are just as likely to get those with pick 74 as you are with pick 30. Most teams have taken their favorite 2 by pick 30. most have only taken their favorite kid at pick 21. its a substantial difference.

Lumumba and Beams for Varcoe, Greenwood and 5 is not a cool trade when you consider that it sounds like we will likely get Greenwood for 30 (if we cant upgrade the pick), we could swap Varcoe and Lumumba any day of the week! If we don't get 21 as well, it basically means we are giving up Beams for pick 5 and 25! do you remember what we said to that trade????

Yep, agree with you both. Glad that one fell through. It's pretty much swapping H and Beams for Greenwood and Varcoe with a couple of pick upgrades as a sweetener. Not good enough.

I'd take picks 3 and 12 from Melbourne for Beams though. If we don't rate McCartin, we could be a chance to swap 3 for 8 and 15 from the Suns and end up with 4 in the top 15.

Or what about picks 2 and 3 for Beams and H? Lots of options opening up now that the used car salesmen are out of the way.

^^I agree, without pick 21 it's an awful trade for us. I don't like it even with it; would have been a big win for Brisbane.

Reported that getting Varcoe is contingent on trading Beams due to salary cap pressures.

AN_Inkling wrote:^^I agree, without pick 21 it's an awful trade for us. I don't like it even with it; would have been a big win for Brisbane.

Reported that getting Varcoe is contingent on trading Beams due to salary cap pressures.

Little bit surprised by that. Hoping it's due to front ending Pendles, Reid and Cloke because we've got some young talent that will demand more money on their next contracts.

Not really fussed if we miss Varcoe.

I'll be pissed if we deal with Brisbane full stop, they had their chance, they didn't respect our deadline, how could we ever be taken seriously again if we make a deal with them now? It's just not on.

I'm proud of the stance we've taken.

Defender wrote:I'll be pissed if we deal with Brisbane full stop, they had their chance, they didn't respect our deadline, how could we ever be taken seriously again if we make a deal with them now? It's just not on.

I'm proud of the stance we've taken.

No, let's be grown ups. We are moving on and will be exploring other options, but if beams is still with us next week and Brisbane start acting like grown ups, then I would think we would listen.

If the Bears still wish to deal ,

-then the price has just gone up.





GO PIES

It wouldn't be a negotiation. It'd be them coming to us with what they now know to be a seriously acceptable offer. No damage to our cred in that scenario.

I reckon it's why we did the deadline thing.

Bit like an eBay second chance offer!

Damien wrote:It wouldn't be a negotiation. It'd be them coming to us with what they now know to be a seriously acceptable offer. No damage to our cred in that scenario.

I reckon it's why we did the deadline thing.

Bit like an eBay second chance offer!

we also need time to concentrate on other potential trades. We can't afford to hold off making a deal for Levi, just in case the draft picks we use are needed in the Beams trade.

If Brisbane have a change of heart they are going to have to manufacture an acceptable deal with whatever we have left.

If I were Peter Schwab, I'd be emailing Derrick Hyne this morning as follows:

Hey Decka,

Schwabby here. Been calling your mobile but I just keep getting voicemail and it tells me your message bank is full. I guess every other AFL club is now ringing you since 5pm yesterday. I just checked my Instagram account and I see Dayne Beams and Heater are having a blast over in the states ATM.

Anyway, call me mate, need to talk to you urgently. Hope you get this message before its too late.

PS: If you guys do the Varcoe deal would you be interested in packaging him up with Dayne and on-trading him to us?