The "What do we get for Beams?" thread

[Rexy17]

Swap H for Greenwood and keep all picks, we don't need Varcoe. Not sure who Crisp is, never heard off him. Let Geelong and Melb sort out the Clark deal

[AN_Inkling]

If we can get H and North together this is the best deal we can get out of this pretty crappy situation:

Geelong: Clark
Melbourne: 30
North: Lumumba
Collingwood: Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, 5, 25
Brisbane: Beams

If we're doing a direct swap of Lumumba for Greenwood (I doubt this, we will probably have to add in a pick) then there's no way we should be happy to settle for a Lumumba-Varcoe swap. I'd probably just take Varcoe out of the deal, but if we want him that's how it could go.

[woftam]

If we can get H and North together this is the best deal we can get out of this pretty crappy situation:

Geelong: Clark
Melbourne: 30
North: Lumumba
Collingwood: Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, 5, 25
Brisbane: Beams

If we're doing a direct swap of Lumumba for Greenwood (I doubt this, we will probably have to add in a pick) then there's no way we should be happy to settle for a Lumumba-Varcoe swap. I'd probably just take Varcoe out of the deal, but if we want him that's how it could go.

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

[Rick]

Too many different threads with about 100 pages to sift through, but the AFL website is reporting the Lions have offered picks 5, 25 and Jack Crisp for Beams. No word if it's Beams and pick 30. If it's for just Beams I reckon it's a great deal, as we can trade on 25 for Greenwood.

Essentially its Beams for pick 5, Crisp and Greenwood.

Great deal?

No way we'll be giving pick 30 to Brisbane, the deal is already a weak one. It's the deal we rejected last week (5 + 25) with the addition of a player worth a 4th rounder at best. That does not back up our tough talking.

Maybe it could be considered "great" in an alternate universe where Crisp is more than a delist candidate. That may be a bit harsh, he's still young enough to become something, but the fact is he's not yet.

Well it's a deal I'd be happy with. We would've off loaded a guy that does not want to be there, we would've picked up a guy that's just came runner up in a B&F for side that made a prelim and a kid with size and kicking penetration.

I'm happy to back our development to turn him into a player.

The Lions aren't coughing up pick 5 and one of their top liners. At least we'd be getting a top liner from another club to help cover the loss of Beams.

[thebaldfacts]

If the deal is 5, 25 and Crisp, then what a weak effort by the Pies. Have pulled the rug on Brisbane only to cave for some Mickey Mouse player who is lucky to be in their best 30.

Until there is something official, I refuse to believe it.

Surely Hine and Co. are better than that.

[AN_Inkling]

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

There are a number of possible variations. But the article mentions that Lumumba to North was still a possibility, as the Melbourne move had some complications - that was mostly if we weren't trading Beams and could not bring in Varcoe; also that Melbourne may use their second round pick in a Trengove deal.

Those are all minor parts of the deal anyway. The major piece is 5, 25 and Crisp for Beams, and if that's what we end up with, then it's a weak effort from a club that's been talking tough.

[swoop42]

Thought I'd take all the emotion out of it and compare Crisp to Adams and Thomas in season 2014.

Granted his 6 games this season isn't a great sample size.

Disposal averages
Adams 19.17
Crisp 18.83
Thomas 17.23

Goals
Crisp 1.0
Thomas 0.62
Adams 0.17

Marks
Crisp 5.83
Adams 2.83
Thomas 2.54

Clearances
Adams 2.75
Crisp 2.17
Thomas 2.15

Tackles
Thomas 3.92
Adams 3.58
Crisp 2.83

Inside 50's
Crisp 4.33
Thomas 2.85
Adams 2.17

Rebound 50's
Crisp 1.5
Adams 1.08
Thomas 1.08

[jackcass]

If we can get H and North together this is the best deal we can get out of this pretty crappy situation:

Geelong: Clark
Melbourne: 30
North: Lumumba
Collingwood: Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, 5, 25
Brisbane: Beams

If we're doing a direct swap of Lumumba for Greenwood (I doubt this, we will probably have to add in a pick) then there's no way we should be happy to settle for a Lumumba-Varcoe swap. I'd probably just take Varcoe out of the deal, but if we want him that's how it could go.

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

Me to.

[Bob Sugar]

If the deal is 5, 25 and Crisp, then what a weak effort by the Pies. Have pulled the rug on Brisbane only to cave for some Mickey Mouse player who is lucky to be in their best 30.

Until there is something official, I refuse to believe it.

Surely Hine and Co. are better than that.

I agree 100%, if this deal goes ahead we lose all credibility IMO.

[swoop42]

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

There are a number of possible variations. But the article mentions that Lumumba to North was still a possibility, as the Melbourne move had some complications - that was mostly if we weren't trading Beams and could not bring in Varcoe; also that Melbourne may use their second round pick in a Trengove deal.

Those are all minor parts of the deal anyway. The major piece is 5, 25 and Crisp for Beams, and if that's what we end up with, then it's a weak effort from a club that's been talking tough.

In fairness Ink Beams might have flat out refused to be traded to any club outside of Brisbane/QLD and the suns mightn't have the space available to accommodate his large pay demands.

At the moment we are flying blind to what options the club has in trading Beams.

I'll be furious if Beams was open to GWS and we didn't go knockin but in reality that hardly seems likely.

Just as we are playing hardball over Beams he might be holding a gun to our head.

[swoop42]

If we can get H and North together this is the best deal we can get out of this pretty crappy situation:

Geelong: Clark
Melbourne: 30
North: Lumumba
Collingwood: Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, 5, 25
Brisbane: Beams

If we're doing a direct swap of Lumumba for Greenwood (I doubt this, we will probably have to add in a pick) then there's no way we should be happy to settle for a Lumumba-Varcoe swap. I'd probably just take Varcoe out of the deal, but if we want him that's how it could go.

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

Me to.

Me three.

If it has to be Crisp then I don't want Varcoe.

If it has to be Varcoe then I don't want Crisp.

[thebaldfacts]

Thought I'd take all the emotion out of it and compare Crisp to Adams and Thomas in season 2014.

Granted his 6 games this season isn't a great sample size.

Disposal averages
Adams 19.17
Crisp 18.83
Thomas 17.23

Goals
Crisp 1.0
Thomas 0.62
Adams 0.17

Marks
Crisp 5.83
Adams 2.83
Thomas 2.54

Clearances
Adams 2.75
Crisp 2.17
Thomas 2.15

Tackles
Thomas 3.92
Adams 3.58
Crisp 2.83

Inside 50's
Crisp 4.33
Thomas 2.85
Adams 2.17

Rebound 50's
Crisp 1.5
Adams 1.08
Thomas 1.08

That is the question. Why could he only mange 6 games in a poor side??

[Domesticated_Ape]

Lumumba has already nominated Melbourne as his preferred club. I'd rather North take Varcoe & we have a pick instead.

There are a number of possible variations. But the article mentions that Lumumba to North was still a possibility, as the Melbourne move had some complications - that was mostly if we weren't trading Beams and could not bring in Varcoe; also that Melbourne may use their second round pick in a Trengove deal.

Those are all minor parts of the deal anyway. The major piece is 5, 25 and Crisp for Beams, and if that's what we end up with, then it's a weak effort from a club that's been talking tough.

In fairness Ink Beams might have flat out refused to be traded to any club outside of Brisbane/QLD and the suns mightn't have the space available to accommodate his large pay demands.

At the moment we are flying blind to what options the club has in trading Beams.

I'll be furious if Beams was open to GWS and we didn't go knockin but in reality that hardly seems likely.

Just as we are playing hardball over Beams he might be holding a gun to our head.

If this is true then let him try and pull the trigger. We'll just be in a similar position next trade period, though without the advantage of him being contracted. Take the crap deal in 2015, not now. It'll end up being less or maybe even nothing, but at least we'll be a club that doesn't roll over.

Your point above about not wanting both Crisp and Varcoe is a good one too. How many free spots on the list is there going to be? Frost, Moore, picks 5 and 25, Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp - that's 7 new players. So it might mean that we have to de-list someone else and I think I'd want to keep the likes of Ramsey and Oxley for another year at least.

[swoop42]

Personally I see Crisp and Varcoe potentially competing for the same spot so I don't see the reason for needing both especially so when we have players like Seedsman, Karnezis, Freeman, Kennedy and Broomhead all looking for senior opportunity next year.

Perhaps Crisp and pick 30 to Essendon for pick 20?

[Johnno75]

Although the GWS/Bulldogs deal is no where near a done deal, I would be gutted if the dogs got 4 and 7 for Griffen and we could only get 5, 25 and a fringe player for Beams.