The points thing is weird in discussing trade value. You aren’t gonna trade a bunch of thirds for pick 1 regardless of if the points match.
As in, I agree with you that 25 and 33 is unders for 11.
2 Likes
Didn’t say it would. Said I’d have flogged our 3rds this year for a late second then packaged that with a future second to get into the top 25.
“Unless North, of course, could [sic] make a gigantic offer”.
Player’s managers must love Tom for always playing ball lol.
Yeah I know. I was agreeing with you. I don’t think points accurately represent trade value.
Yeah right all good. Getting dizzy bouncing around these points and picks.
Can’t see Freo giving up Lobb and 19 for 11 though
Hobby Bill
4 Likes
I agree with that, but a first and 25 is overs.
On the thirds for pick 1 thing thats true of course but that would be pick 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 63 to match pick 1. Not a trade that anyone would ever be able to offer anyway.
Neither could I thats why I said 22.
Again think you’re obsessing too much about points. Unless your banking picks for bids the picks are only worth the talent that’s predicted to be available.
That’s why I think your proposed trade falls over on multiple fronts. Nice try though.
Yeah. Its why trade value can’t really be quantifiable, you have to assess it more qualitatively. The Dev Smith trade was 11 and a third for Smith and two seconds. Maybe that could get it done? Swapping Hill in for Smith.
1 Like
Adam Treloar was traded for nothing remotely close to his “fair” trade value is why its a stupid comparison to make
Using players who were traded for way unders to justify you’re strange view that we overpaid for Stringer doesnt work
2 Likes
Lol I wasnt suggesting that trade.
Referring to this one
1 Like
Not very constructive. You say Essendons being ripped off, I give them a better pick and you say they are still being ripped off and Freo would say no too, so should GWS pay more then Hill and 53 for Lobb? You were valuing Hill as a future second, which is what Lobb is apparently valued at too so how much more can GWS pay? Your both over valuing our future first and under valuing our future second.
So you think someone would trade us 18 and 25 for 11?
I think it’s reasonable for us to expect 2 x top 25 picks this year with one at least before 20 for our 11 or future first. Your trade essential has us giving up that top 20 pick for Hill which is overs.
With some haggling around the edges sure why not?
Never said ripped off just not my go. You’re getting far to invested in a pure hypothetical. It’s all just opinions mate.