I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

[Rocket Science]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

What's Gibson honestly done to realistically net a top-ten pick despite doing a job on Buddy a couple of times? He's a versatile, middle of the road defender who's athletic but not particularly good at anything.

I understand North wanting full value for a player they'd rather not lose altogether, and the whole bluff and counter-bluff nature of AFL trade negotiations, but I'd have thought anything higher than perhaps pick #20 would be gravy for someone like Gibson, even from a club in dire need of defenders.

If Gibson's worth #9...Cross is a top-fiver.

[The Underdog]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

If Jordan McMahon was worth pick #19 a few years back, surely we could get a top 5 pick for Crossy.

Richmond have a top 5 pick

Can't wait to see North try to exact revenge on Hawthorn for playing hardball on the Thompson and Hay deals.

[Topdog]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

So why will we persist with him if 15 other clubs wouldn't?

He has value to us but not for other teams.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

He has value to us but not for other teams.

I know now is probably not the best time for Mitch to ask, but what is he currently adding in value with?

[bulldog]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

It wont happen and if it did it would tear the heart out of the place

[Mofra]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Good points comrade, I have to reply

Champion Data statistics will tell you that there is a massive difference between first round picks and every other pick in the draft. This is probably stating the obvious but it also suggests that drafting is becoming more refined with each passing year.

The 2009 draft in particular is shallow – a large portion of 17 year olds are ineligible – to put that in perspective, about 30% of players drafted last year wouldn’t be eligible this year.

Basically, that tells me that this draft is already slightly compromised, considering Ward would have fallen into the 17 year olds who are poached by GC17. Therefore the first rounder that some clubs are keen to hold onto is less valuable than last year.

Mofra, you’re obviously not a fan of trading proven players for draft picks but we’ve never been in a position where the next 2/3/4 etc drafts are completely compromised, with access to most of the best kids essentially cut off.

Considering we only took 3 kids in a bumper draft last year (too light on IMO), we’re banking on our rookie recruiting manager to strike gold with a late first rounder and then with picks 30+, 45+, 60+. That’s a tough job in any year, but in 2009 there will be kids drafted who wouldn’t have got a look in, in previous years.

It would be remiss of any argument against trading out Crossy to ignore the potential for father/son drafting after this year - Liberatore & Wallis in 2010 will look good in a compromised draft, whilst Lachlan Hunter in 2011 is a real possibility considering he just took out his league B&F award.

If our late first rounder doesn’t come on and the battlers we pick up with picks 45+ end up as uber-duds, we’re in trouble, with GC coming in.

By putting up a marquee name like Cross, and securing a top 10 draft pick, it gives the recruiting team an opportunity to get the absolute maximum value from this draft, help ride out the GC inclusion and flourish if we get it right.

And if drafting is too risky, we could also use the top 10 pick to snare a proven player to fill a deficiency on our list.

At the end of the day, we all love Crossy, but there are stormy times coming up for all clubs and fortune favours the brave.

Imagine if the kid we snare at pick 8 is the next Selwood or Rich (or we use the pick to snare a Pavlich or Roughead).

That's the salient point right there - it's a maybe.

We can only use past performance as a guide to future potential, and I'd argue our first round drafting in recent history has been as woeful as any other club in the competition - perhaps worse than even Freo & Richmond!

I simply don't believe on balance, even from a team list point of view, that the risk vs reward stands up to tarding out Cross.
That is before the devastating effect this would have on the playing group, which I believe would hurt mroale considerably.

[Mofra]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

It would all come down to what the recruiters believe the value of the draft is. WC (pick 5), Port (pick 8) and Hawthorn (pick 9) have all said their first rounders are on the table.

For every Joel Selwood there's 10 Sam Power's.

Exactly, and our drafting record isn't flash.

[Mofra]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

We currently have Hargrave, Hahn & Gilbee born in '81 and Boyd, Morris, Lake, Gia and Murphy born in '82 (Cross was born in '83) so that's nearly half our best 22 that we will lose in quick succession. By trading out one now you are also reducing your vulnerability of a mass retirement by 1 player.

It's a valid point to raise, however Gia & Hahn by all accounts wont have the durability of the remainder of the group (Murphy's run with injuries leads me to believe he could also suffer a rapid decline).
The durability differences of these players will help stagger the retirements.

[comrade]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Basically, that tells me that this draft is already slightly compromised, considering Ward would have fallen into the 17 year olds who are poached by GC17. Therefore the first rounder that some clubs are keen to hold onto is less valuable than last year.

Last year’s top 10 were largely made up of top agers (with Jack Watts being a noticeable exception).

This year’s top 10 is meant to be every bit as good as last years – it’s the depth further down the list that pales in comparison.

[anfo27]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Musing over potential returns for someone of Cross' calibre...North's apparently firm on demanding pick #9 from the Hawks for Josh Gibson.

That's patently unrealistic for Gibson...and red, white and blue blinkers aside, Cross is surely worth a helluva lot more.

EDIT: jeez, you've gotta be quick 'round here.

Have to agree Rocket, Gibson is solid but no way is he worth pick 9 & a 3 year $850,000-$1mill contract. I know the hawks are desperate but can't see that happening.

[Jasper]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Cross to Port for Pearce and an exchange of draft picks, if we decided to trade Cross.

Frankly I disagree with the premise of this thread. I don't consider it a great idea to trade Cross, I believe and also get the strong impression that our senior people at WB believe they are in a 'window' and won't trade seasoned good players.
However, the key area where we have excess players is the Cross type, hence Addison. I would look to shift him to the Swans or Essendon for an exchange of 2nd round picks and lock in Hall or Lloyd (whoever is available).

Also agree Hahn should be shopped. Carlton may be interested, but frankly I doubt many teams would be overly excited about Mitch.

[Mantis]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Exactly, and our drafting record isn't flash.

We have a 100% strike rate with with our new recruiting team....

[Mofra]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

We have a 100% strike rate with with our new recruiting team....

Wasn't Clayton still basically running the show last year?

[azabob]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

We have a 100% strike rate with with our new recruiting team....

Wasn't Clayton still basically running the show last year?

Yes, thats why they are at 100%.

[Mofra]

Re: I think trading is the work of the devil, but just for the sake of it ...

Yes, thats why they are at 100%.

No, that'd be 0%