IF - Pavlich was available?

[comrade]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

I hate to say this but I'd give up Boyd and Hill.

I feel dirty.

[Bornadog]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

I've sat around for years looking at Pavlich as the dream trade for the Dogs. With a KPF of that quality in the team we would be genuine premiership favourites for a long time. He would also be perfect for the development of the next generation of key forwards (there's a reason why sides with key forwards tend to develop others, while those without one, like the Dogs, can't seem to get any of their kids to the required standard.. success breeds success, and we don't have any key forward role models).

At only 27, Pav has a good 5-6 years left and we would be negligent not to chase this trade with everything possible. I would be willing to give up almost anything for this trade, as it really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this club up for the next two decades. I would argue he would be at least as valuable to the Dogs as Judd has been for Carlton.

First round draft pick (we have a good stock of youngsters from the last couple of drafts) + one first team player (no names) + one youngster/fringe player that fits Freo's requirements, or two draft picks and a mid-line player.

If Pav was determined to leave, it would strengthen our trading postion, and may be able to hang on to the first round pick, give up a bag of second and third round picks + a mid-line/young WA player. Freo's best strategy before GC17 come in is to stock up on youngsters via the draft anyway.

We really should be throwing everything we have at this possibility, and knowing David Smorgon, Campbell Rose and Rodney Eade, I know we will be.

The other issue is next year we have a couple of father/son potentials to take up ie Libba and Wallis, so we need to keep our first round pick.

[LostDoggy]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Only if they're good enough that is.

[LostDoggy]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

And WTF does Gary Lyon mean when he says it's 'hard to imagine Pav at the Dogs'? Geez Gary, get with the times.

[Bornadog]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Only if they're good enough that is.

Of Course

[LostDoggy]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

The other issue is next year we have a couple of father/son potentials to take up ie Libba and Wallis, so we need to keep our first round pick.

Actually, we only need to use our 'next available' pick. If we trade away our first round pick we only have to use our second round pick (if the player is nominated by another club).

That's why I always wondered why we didn't trade away our first round pick last year -- we had to use it on Ayce anyway. We could have just traded the pick for a good player (worth a first round pick!) and use our next available pick on Ayce. We may have missed out on Liam or Roughead, but would have gotten a ready-made gun player in return...

It's precisely in father-son years that we should just trade away the early picks because clubs will just force you to use them on the father-sons anyway (ala the saints last year), wasting the advantage of an early pick or the father-son rule. Just trade the early picks away for gun players and use the later available picks on the father-sons. That way you take advantage of the best of both rules.

[The Underdog]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Actually, we only need to use our 'next available' pick. If we trade away our first round pick we only have to use our second round pick (if the player is nominated by another club).

That's why I always wondered why we didn't trade away our first round pick last year -- we had to use it on Ayce anyway. We could have just traded the pick for a good player (worth a first round pick!) and use our next available pick on Ayce. We may have missed out on Liam or Roughead, but would have gotten a ready-made gun player in return...

It's precisely in father-son years that we should just trade away the early picks because clubs will just force you to use them on the father-sons anyway (ala the saints last year), wasting the advantage of an early pick or the father-son rule. Just trade the early picks away for gun players and use the later available picks on the father-sons. That way you take advantage of the best of both rules.

Pretty sure you have to commit the pick before trade week begins. Thus the pick is already spent.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Actually, we only need to use our 'next available' pick. If we trade away our first round pick we only have to use our second round pick (if the player is nominated by another club).

That's why I always wondered why we didn't trade away our first round pick last year -- we had to use it on Ayce anyway. We could have just traded the pick for a good player (worth a first round pick!) and use our next available pick on Ayce. We may have missed out on Liam or Roughead, but would have gotten a ready-made gun player in return...

It's precisely in father-son years that we should just trade away the early picks because clubs will just force you to use them on the father-sons anyway (ala the saints last year), wasting the advantage of an early pick or the father-son rule. Just trade the early picks away for gun players and use the later available picks on the father-sons. That way you take advantage of the best of both rules.

Not allowed. The father/son pick is sorted out before trade week.

Stop dreaming guys unless you're prepared to ante-up Cooney or Griffen. That's what it would take.

[jitboy]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

I have a feeling the asking price could be a Griffen or a Higgo for someone of Pavlich's "superstar" status.
Which I would think would not be workable from a club point of view.

If we could find a way to structure something like the Judd deal it would be great, but I don't see us (hopefully) having that a high a draft pick.

[Bornadog]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

I have a feeling the asking price could be a Griffen or a Higgo for someone of Pavlich's "superstar" status.
Which I would think would not be workable from a club point of view.

If we could find a way to structure something like the Judd deal it would be great, but I don't see us (hopefully) having that a high a draft pick.

I would give up Higgo for a Pavlich. KPP in the forward line of his calibre does not grow on trees.

[Rocket Science]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

I'd move heaven, earth and most of hell to get this bloke...but you'd suspect other clubs would be prepared to do the same.

It's for this reason, and Pavlich's obvious value as a player that any enticements had better be something vaguely befitting the term, otherwise if I'm Freo I don't bother returning your call.

Given the acres of print justifiably devoted to shitcanning their list management, at a bare minimum they'll want someone to assist with the rebuild meaning blokes south of 25 years old, and if you're serious about putting Pav into tricolours that don't involve the traditional footballing hues of purple or green it might pay to spend two minutes thinking about what they might actually need.

Skipper's 27 at the end of this year and simply not up to it, scratch him off...whereas Wight'll be 24 but they're already loaded with flaky, athletic talls who can't hold down a key position and are perennially in and out of the team. They're both the sort of tradebait you offer up if you're looking to get a giggle by insulting the other party and aren't fussed about talks progressing.

Someone mentioned Murph as possible tradebait...he'll be 27 next year. Quality player, but if you're Freo not sure I recognise the logic in moving Pavlich for a smaller bloke who plays a similar role and who's around the same age.

As for Giansiracusa, he's 28 next year...not sure they'd be all that interested as the centrepiece for a deal, and I feel he's more valuable to us than he typically gets credit for anyway. He stays and steps into the skipper's role once Johnno's done.

Besides, if we're angling for Pav because we're entering a premiership 'window', we're realistically not looking to deplete our flag squad by dealing the likes of Murph or Gia.

In light of Warnock's loss they're not exactly endowed with backup ruck options (Kepler Bradley's about it) so if they express any sort of interest (debatable) in Minson (24 next year) I'd be quite willing to put him on the table. Roughead won't be ready for anything more than a cameo next season but a #2 ruck slot's a lot easier to trade for than a premier forward in their prime.

They're also badly in need of crumbing forwards and blokes with some sort of work ethic, so if I'm the Dogs I'm hoping Jarrod Harbrow (21 next year) holds some appeal, who can also push up into the midfield as he further develops.

Others who may meet their criteria and could form part of a package, listed in order of prospective value, include:

- Tiller (23 next year) versatile semi-regular.
- Reid (20 next year) tough mid on the cusp.
- O'Keefe (20 next year) mid showing good VFL progress, but unproven.
- Wood (20 next year), solidly developing mid, but unproven.
- Stack (21 next year), ex-WA boy, supremely talented but unproven.
- Boumann (20 next year) raw big bloke, unproven.
- Mulligan (20 next season), unproven KP/ruck and extremely raw.
- Lynch (22 next year), talented but wayward, and unproven.

Unless they've taken a particular shine to one of them during their development I can't really see Freo falling over themselves to acquire anyone from that group, save for perhaps Reid, or maybe even Stack given his talent-level and origins. Realistically, unless anyone there advances their game and name this season, they're all throw-ins

So what else have we got to get them into bed with us?

Given the relative dearth of 'sexy' tradebait, and worth noting I don't dare raise these names until other avenues have been offically exhausted, if we're serious about landing Pavlich for 3-5 years I'm then willing to raise the spectre of moving one of Andrejs Everitt or (reluctantly) Josh Hill (both 21 next year)...They're the centrepiece names we fall back on after we go through the obligatory round of scoffing when they first drop Higgins' name.

I can see either, particularly Hill, getting their attention in a big way.

Musing further and am not suggesting I'd be comfortable with this, but if I'm Freo do I express any interest in Jarrad Grant?...and if so, with Pavlich in the fold and Cordy in the pipeline, do we blink? Positionally, he'd seem an all too obvious target for them given what they're losing, and if Grant ends up on the table, you'd have to assume we wouldn't be asked to cough up a great deal more.

All up, a fascinating prospect to ponder, but, it'll never happen...if he goes anywhere, Pav's going to Adelaide.

[Sedat]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Their list of prospective Bulldog names to be packaged into a trade for Pavlich would start and end with Cooney and Griffen, possibly Higgins if he keeps improving at his current rate. Otherwise Freo will look elsewhere.

[Rocket Science]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Griffen/Cooney are both roughly 5 years Pav's junior, and conceivably haven't peaked as players yet.

What club's likely to cough up a star in that age bracket with realistic scope to improve?

[Missing-Dog]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

To get some one good you have to give up someone good, plus maybe draft picks?.

That's exactly my point. What I would give up and what Freo would want are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I would not be prepared to lose any of our current and for that matter, future midfielders for a 28 year old.

[Mofra]

Re: IF - Pavlich was available?

Whatever Freo want will be over the odds for what we would be prepared to pay. Put simply, it is very rare for a quality KPP to be traded, and even less so when they are in their prime.

I dare say what Freo want for Pav would be enough to weaken our tilt at a flag so we would struggle with Pav to just hold ground, let alone take the next step.