Traded Adam Treloar [traded w/ #28 to Collingwood for #7, #65, 2016 first rounder]

[bluespooner]

I can't ever remember a player allow their current club to negotiate with multiple clubs to get themselves the best deal.
You are living in a fantasy last bud.

If he leaves and when he nominates a club, prepare to be short changed.

Welcome to reality.

But your mob got paid overs for Beams when he nominated Brisbane.

 

[Scotland]

But your mob got paid overs for Beams when he nominated Brisbane.

Good luck finding anyone associated with Collingwood or who barracks for Collingwood that thought this at the time of the trade.

 

[inamedthegiants]

Most definitely a possibility. Who would know.

If it's between us and the Tigers, you would/should be hoping its the Pies.
Better draft pick and more possibity of gaining a KPD.

But I've seen you guys win a flag.

I'd rather Treloar go to the Tigers so he could help them win one. Imagine the party in Melbourne if the Tigers won the flag!!

 

[ThePhantom777]

Didn't Judd do that?

Judd was a once in a generation player and I'm sure the AFL was very happy to have a player of his calibre back playing at a Melbourne club.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

But your mob got paid overs for Beams when he nominated Brisbane.

Overs? How do you figure that? First and second rounder plus steak knives is hardly overs for an elite midfielder (B&F winner and AA) with his best football still in front of him. Beams would be the Lions' best player. We've drafted a good kid with the first-rounder and Crisp has performed better than anyone expected (incl Collingwood, I suspect), but at the time don't think anyone was saying Brisbane had struck a bad deal.

 

[Defacto]

GWS need to trim their list by another 2 players by the next draft? So they will likely not draft much more than their academy players (maybe 1?? tops). Its likely then that they will opt for a future pic as part of a Treloar deal. They will likely take only draft picks for Treloar unless a star is offered up - doubt that though. There is no point in GWS taking steak knives. The AFL conveniently introduced the future trading scheme in time for the Treloar deal.

You need to draft minimum 3 players a year

 

[manny100]

You need to draft minimum 3 players a year

Yes, thanks, so 2 from academy plus at least one. Details concerning GWS list size and salary cap allowances on Wikipedia entry below. They need to trim by 2 a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Western_Sydney_Giants

 

[Defacto]

Yes, thanks, so 2 from academy plus at least one. Details concerning GWS list size and salary cap allowances on Wikipedia entry below. They need to trim by 2 a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Western_Sydney_Giants

So they need to delist or trade a minimum of 5?

Who's out of contract?

 

[coniglio_number1]

Yes, thanks, so 2 from academy plus at least one. Details concerning GWS list size and salary cap allowances on Wikipedia entry below. They need to trim by 2 a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Western_Sydney_Giants

The list maximum gets trimmed but we arnt at maximum.

 

[Colonial]

Yes, thanks, so 2 from academy plus at least one. Details concerning GWS list size and salary cap allowances on Wikipedia entry below. They need to trim by 2 a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Western_Sydney_Giants

Was under the impression we were already under the list size for next year

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Stifler's mom]

But your mob got paid overs for Beams when he nominated Brisbane.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
It is only Jack Crisp's unexpected ability that has made the deal good for us.

 

[manny100]

The list maximum gets trimmed but we arnt at maximum.

Yep, you GWS guys are right. They can have a maximum 48 senior listed this year and 46 next year (2016) on their senior list. They currently have 46 players listed so none extra need to be shed for 2016 (unless they want to). GWS reduce its list maximum by 2 per year until 2019 when it reached the AFL standard of 40.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Yep, you GWS guys are right. They can have a maximum 48 senior listed this year and 46 next year (2016) on their senior list. They currently have 46 players listed so none extra need to be shed for 2016 (unless they want to). GWS reduce its list maximum by 2 per year until 2019 when it reached the AFL standard of 40.

Not to mention we have only 1 rookie listed player out of a possible 6

 

[inamedthegiants]

Not to mention we have only 1 rookie listed player out of a possible 6

But that rookie player is a bona fide jet who has the talent of 6 men.

 

[Petrie4PM]

Sorry to probably repeat whats been asked but just wanted to know what north's chances are of landing trelor and also what pick(s) are required and or players that might appeal to GWS? Aaron Black would be appealing however your sorted in the tall forward department and I'm not sure Brad McKenzie or Daw would be of any use to GWS. Probably leaves us to just picks or a 3 way?

 

[coniglio_number1]

North chances all depend on what Adam himself wants. Still think he will stay though

 

[10571z]

North chances all depend on what Adam himself wants. Still think he will stay though

If he hasn't signed by now i think he will leave. Not sure where he is going though

 

[coniglio_number1]

If he hasn't signed by now i think he will leave. Not sure where he is going though

Plenty of examples when players have re-signed post season.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Sorry to probably repeat whats been asked but just wanted to know what north's chances are of landing trelor and also what pick(s) are required and or players that might appeal to GWS? Aaron Black would be appealing however your sorted in the tall forward department and I'm not sure Brad McKenzie or Daw would be of any use to GWS. Probably leaves us to just picks or a 3 way?

Goldstein or Cunnington will do

 

[Scotland]

You need to draft minimum 3 players a year

Is definitely this the case?

I know you have to make 3 list changes, but I'm not sure you need to use 3 ND picks. I think you do but I'm not 100%. I know in 2011 we had two picks plus a rookie promotion but that still counts as 3 ND picks.

 

[Baird]

You need to use 3 selections in the ND, but necessarily draft 3 players. Teams can draft 2 and elevate 1 rookie, which happens quite often.

 

[Defacto]

Is definitely this the case?

I know you have to make 3 list changes, but I'm not sure you need to use 3 ND picks. I think you do but I'm not 100%. I know in 2011 we had two picks plus a rookie promotion but that still counts as 3 ND picks.

Spot on. But in GWS case they'd still need to delist three regardless of if its rookie upgrade, father son, academy or not as all cases are still considered a draft selection

 

[Kappa]

Sorry to probably repeat whats been asked but just wanted to know what north's chances are of landing trelor and also what pick(s) are required and or players that might appeal to GWS? Aaron Black would be appealing however your sorted in the tall forward department and I'm not sure Brad McKenzie or Daw would be of any use to GWS. Probably leaves us to just picks or a 3 way?

From all reports Collingwood and Richmond are ahead in the race relative to North.

 

[SonOfurX]

From all reports Collingwood and Richmond are ahead in the race relative to North.

Don't rule us out. We are ahead of Richmond, North and Collingwood.

 

[inamedthegiants]

Don't rule us out. We are ahead of Richmond, North and Collingwood.

You're no chance mate.

He'll be a Tiger.