Geelong should be giving their second round (pick 35) to Melbourne in that scenario. No way is Varcoe worth Clark plus 48. I would argue Varcoe is the least valuable of the three players in that trade.swoop42 wrote:Your deal while good has a few variables in it I could see not coming off.
Melbourne wanting more for pick 23 and Clark than 30 and Lumumba is the main problem that I can see.
North not willing to give up Greenwood for Lumumba in a straight swap could cause problems if they want pick 30 as well. Pick 48 would be no problem.
I can live with giving up pick 30 for Varcoe as long as we get to keep pick 23/25.
Right now though the proposed deal sees us not ending up with pick 23 or 25 and that seems unders for us to me.
Your proposed deal is how it should be. Nothing less.
I can see a three-way where:
Collingwood lose: H, pick 30, pick 48
Collingwood gain: Pick 23, Varcoe
Melbourne lose: Clark, pick 23
Melbourne gain: H, pick 30, pick 35
Geelong lose: Varcoe, pick 35
Geelong gain: Clark, pick 48
This deal would be contingent on Beams leaving and securing us two early picks. Ideally it needs to be 2 first rounders rather than Brisbane's current offer of 5 and 25. Maybe they can convince Essendon to trade pick 17 (Ryder pick) to them for Crisp and 25. I can probably accept pick 5+17 as compensation for Beams.
This will leave us with an overall position of:
Lose: Beams, H, 30, 48
Gain: 5, 17, Greenwood, Varcoe
Not great but at least we can say we got two first rounders. If we take three early live selections to the draft (including Moore) plus upgrade Frost, it means we'll need to delist someone to fit in Crisp. And I'm not sure I'd prefer Crisp over anyone on our list tbh.