Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

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.

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.

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.

Look at all you experts go ..... ^&$ amazing how good you all are at working out how trade period should work. Go put your CV in at all AFL clubs, ur amazing!

AN_Inkling wrote:

September Zeros wrote:
Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

It's worse than that. Crisp was pick 40 in the Rookie draft, not the National draft. So it's more like: 5, 25 and 130 .

Maxwell also came off the rookie list.

Means zilch in the scheme of things.

All that matters is what they can become and do become.

Harvey, I'd actually prefer Crisp and pick 23 to pick 17 alone. I know you said 25, but that would be with North getting 23 for Greenwood.

Give Hine 2 picks in the top 23 and he'll get us 2 good players. The draft is very even this year, so whoever we want at 17 might still be there at 23 and Crisp has a bit to like about him. I care about the player he is now, not what he was when taken at pick 40 in a rookie draft 3 years ago.

Skids - Thanks mate, we do our best

AN_Inkling wrote:

September Zeros wrote:
Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

It's worse than that. Crisp was pick 40 in the Rookie draft, not the National draft. So it's more like: 5, 25 and 130 .

5, 25 and 130 for 29 is a massive win for us

Crisp looks a likely type, big bodied 190cm mid forward.

I say get the deal done if beamsy doesn't want to be there.

We can pick up a star at 5.

With greenwood and Varcoe wanting to come we can on sell pick 25 to Roos and 30 to cats for Varcoe and try to get a lower second rounder for Harry from dees.

We have a superstar in Moore at pick 9.

I say get the deal done. Fait accompli.

Yep, lets just do it and move on.

AGREED. I'm over it and I think it's good considering he doesn't want to be there.

Crisp can't kick, like we need another list clogger who can't kick FFS, we are heading for rock bottom, Buckley has destroyed our club.

A better deal? This one sucks. We rejected pick 5 + 25. Adding in just about the lowliest player on their list does not make for much of a sweetener. A bag of crisps might be more attractive.

swoop42 wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote:

September Zeros wrote:
Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

It's worse than that. Crisp was pick 40 in the Rookie draft, not the National draft. So it's more like: 5, 25 and 130 .

Maxwell also came off the rookie list.

Means zilch in the scheme of things.

All that matters is what they can become and do become.

And Crisp hasn't become much yet.

If we trade Beams and Lumumba and come out of it with 5, 23/25, Greenwood, Varcoe and Crisp I can live with it.

We must not give up that pick in the 20's though.

It's the deal breaker for mine and has us receiving unders in a deal already borderline acceptable.

^^Agree. Even though the Lions still get a steal.

If we're getting unders for Beams we can't accept unders for Lumumba. And Clark or Varcoe is that.

Nor has Broomhead and on stats alone he's probably shown as much as him this season.

Not that I'd swap him for Broomhead.

princem007 wrote:Crisp looks a likely type, big bodied 190cm mid forward.

I say get the deal done if beamsy doesn't want to be there.

We can pick up a star at 5.

With greenwood and Varcoe wanting to come we can on sell pick 25 to Roos and 30 to cats for Varcoe and try to get a lower second rounder for Harry from dees.

We have a superstar in Moore at pick 9.

I say get the deal done. Fait accompli.

Speaking of Fait accompli, is there any chance we could snare Bottempelli from the Dogs next year?