Talking trades

[Twodogs]

Disappointed as I believe he was a player may have wanted and the I believe the Hawks used the pick we gave them in the Lake deal.

Yeah. Dalrymple will sigh and cross another name off his list. That's Martin, Hogan and Anderson gone now.

[Cyberdoggie]

Hawthorn got him for a steal really.

Trading a 28 year old in Gilham who is coming off an ACL, picking up Anderson plus slight downgrad in their picks.

Bargain.

[Cyberdoggie]

Hawks are getting the slightly downgraded picks in that deal so maybe it was GWS that was posturing

I read it the other way, confusing the draft tracker format.

Still a good bargain for the hawks i think.

[bornadog]

Yeah. Dalrymple will sigh and cross another name off his list. That's Martin, Hogan and Anderson gone now.

We had no hope of getting Hogan or Martin and we don't know whether we had any interest in Anderson.

[bulldogsman]

We had no hope of getting Hogan or Martin and we don't know whether we had any interest in Anderson.

According to Emma Quayle we were interested in Anderson.

[bornadog]

According to Emma Quayle we were interested in Anderson.

Oh well, one fail

(excluding Dawes and Gumbleton )

[Bulldog Revolution]

31 trades completed - record is 33 in 2000 and will be broken.

It slowed down after you posted this didn't it

[bornadog]

It slowed down after you posted this didn't it

I think at least 6 more after that

[Bulldog Revolution]

I think at least 6 more after that

Fair enough, felt like it slowed down more than I thought it would

I expected Tippett, Brown etc to be traded

[azabob]

Fair enough, felt like it slowed down more than I thought it would

I expected Tippett, Brown etc to be traded

It seems like the AFL wouldn't have approved the Tippett trade due to all the shonky deals between him and the crows.

[Sockeye Salmon]

According to Emma Quayle we were interested in Anderson.

GWS wanted a big defender, surely they would have preferred Markovic over Gilham?

[bulldogsman]

GWS wanted a big defender, surely they would have preferred Markovic over Gilham?

Maybe we didn't want to let go of Markovic after losing Lake?

[bornadog]

Am I right in saying Hawthorn got rid of 3 defenders (Gilham, Murphy and Young), 2 of them tallish after we traded them Lake?
Just highlights how badly we were dudded there.

Not sure what you mean?

Gilham - Injury prone and couldn't get a game this year.

Murphy - average at best, couldn't make two GF teams

Young - Free Agent and got a better deal.

[Sedat]

Not sure what you mean?

Gilham - Injury prone and couldn't get a game this year.

Murphy - average at best, couldn't make two GF teams

Young - Free Agent and got a better deal.

Meaning they were desperate for a real key defender, not the imposters masquerading as key defenders on their list (ie: Shoey, Gilham, Murphy). And because they were desperate for one, we gave them Lake far too easily - I don't think that is in any doubt in AFL circles that we gave him away for unders (even if quite a few posters here, as is their right, are happy as larry with the Lake trade).

[Throughandthrough]

Am I right in saying Hawthorn got rid of 3 defenders (Gilham, Murphy and Young), 2 of them tallish after we traded them Lake?
Just highlights how badly we were dudded there.

How does that make any sense at all?

Obviously Hawthorn thought Lake was a better option then what they allready had or they wouldnt have taken him.