Off Season Trade Rumours

[TomK]

Gibbs has a contract, so we don't have to trade him.
Dangerfield didn't have a contract, so he was gone as soon as he wanted to be.

Gibbs is such an important player to our side, we're not a top side like Adelaide.
Losing a leader will leave a massive hole, so if we can't get what we need then why trade him? Obviously he'll have a very poor few years playing for a team he no longer wants to be with, Cam McCarthy style, but if we throw him away for chips, we won't bounce back like Adelaide did losing Dangerfield, we're not a strong enough side.

The reason Adelaide don't want to pay up for Gibbs is simply because he won't be as important to their side as he is to our side.

Of course, but we didn't have to trade Danger, we could have sent him to the PSD which would've been stupid but still. If you don't trade him, then like you said he will be there when not wanting to be and you'll be wasting 600K a year which could be used to improve your future by luring someone else to the club.

I'd argue he is more important to us, we are going for a flag, Bryce won't be at Carlton the next time they challenge. I understand you lose your Vice Captain and his leadership but if he wants to go, I don't like clubs forcing players to stay, especially when this revolves around their kid, it's not like we're offering a 3rd rounder and Andy Otten. The deal will get done, I'm confident of that, how much more than our first rounder though is the question.

Like I responded to a post on the Crows board, I would have a think about Pick 13 + 2017 1st for Gibbs + Pick 24, which I think is more than fair, leaning in your favour.

[Purple 77]

Lol Jukes!

[fanTCfool]

Gibbs has a contract, so we don't have to trade him.
Dangerfield didn't have a contract, so he was gone as soon as he wanted to be.

Gibbs is such an important player to our side, we're not a top side like Adelaide.
Losing a leader will leave a massive hole, so if we can't get what we need then why trade him? Obviously he'll have a very poor few years playing for a team he no longer wants to be with, Cam McCarthy style, but if we throw him away for chips, we won't bounce back like Adelaide did losing Dangerfield, we're not a strong enough side.

The reason Adelaide don't want to pay up for Gibbs is simply because he won't be as important to their side as he is to our side.

Of course, but we didn't have to trade Danger, we could have sent him to the PSD which would've been stupid but still. If you don't trade him, then like you said he will be there when not wanting to be and you'll be wasting 600K a year which could be used to improve your future by luring someone else to the club.

I'd argue he is more important to us, we are going for a flag, Bryce won't be at Carlton the next time they challenge. I understand you lose your Vice Captain and his leadership but if he wants to go, I don't like clubs forcing players to stay, especially when this revolves around their kid, it's not like we're offering a 3rd rounder and Andy Otten. The deal will get done, I'm confident of that, how much more than our first rounder though is the question.

Like I responded to a post on the Crows board, I would have a think about Pick 13 + 2017 1st for Gibbs + Pick 24, which I think is more than fair, leaning in your favour.

I agree with pretty much all that you said, a trade will be made, and forcing a player to stay will only do bad things for their career (see McCarthy in about 6 months time) so it's best for everyone to get it done.

The problem with 13 + 2017 1st + 24 is the hole it leads in the leadership department, someone needs to step up into the role and I'm not sure who it could be, and it is too much to expect from a first year player.

What I should have said instead of "more important to us" is that he will be far less of a 'standout talent' at the Crows.

On a somewhat unrelated note, it is funny how many stars exist when they get traded, "Carlton Star Zach Tuohy" requests trade made me laugh a little, when I wasn't super upset with the double departure.

[enzedder]

Saints close on getting Koby Stevens.

[kilbluff1985]

the media calls any best 22 player a 'star'

[PowerBug]

"Carlton will only consider trading Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide if it can secure a quality midfielder in trade period bit.ly/2e2BOIX"
- SuperFooty on Twitter

I guess this goes back to what you are satin Ftc about getting some kind of ready made replacement.

[TomK]

Gibbs has a contract, so we don't have to trade him.
Dangerfield didn't have a contract, so he was gone as soon as he wanted to be.

Gibbs is such an important player to our side, we're not a top side like Adelaide.
Losing a leader will leave a massive hole, so if we can't get what we need then why trade him? Obviously he'll have a very poor few years playing for a team he no longer wants to be with, Cam McCarthy style, but if we throw him away for chips, we won't bounce back like Adelaide did losing Dangerfield, we're not a strong enough side.

The reason Adelaide don't want to pay up for Gibbs is simply because he won't be as important to their side as he is to our side.

Of course, but we didn't have to trade Danger, we could have sent him to the PSD which would've been stupid but still. If you don't trade him, then like you said he will be there when not wanting to be and you'll be wasting 600K a year which could be used to improve your future by luring someone else to the club.

I'd argue he is more important to us, we are going for a flag, Bryce won't be at Carlton the next time they challenge. I understand you lose your Vice Captain and his leadership but if he wants to go, I don't like clubs forcing players to stay, especially when this revolves around their kid, it's not like we're offering a 3rd rounder and Andy Otten. The deal will get done, I'm confident of that, how much more than our first rounder though is the question.

Like I responded to a post on the Crows board, I would have a think about Pick 13 + 2017 1st for Gibbs + Pick 24, which I think is more than fair, leaning in your favour.

I agree with pretty much all that you said, a trade will be made, and forcing a player to stay will only do bad things for their career (see McCarthy in about 6 months time) so it's best for everyone to get it done.

The problem with 13 + 2017 1st + 24 is the hole it leads in the leadership department, someone needs to step up into the role and I'm not sure who it could be, and it is too much to expect from a first year player.

What I should have said instead of "more important to us" is that he will be far less of a 'standout talent' at the Crows.

Yeah fair enough, I understand that, I'm just not sure on what else I would think the club would realistically offer. Tuohy asking to leave as well doesn't help the leadership problems, the GWS boys are all young so probably won't help. I actually like Carlton as well so I hope the deal is a good one for you guys and us of course as well.

[jvalles69]

So contracts seem to be worth flower all these days is basically what free agency is.

Needs to be some sort of accountability for signing a contract.  The only people who should be able to control what happens to a contracted player is the parties who own the contract.  Have no problem with Carlton playing hardball, if Crows don't want to give up what they need to then back off, Gibbs suck it up and play out that piece of paper that you signed with you own hand, do you "JOB".

[kilbluff1985]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-could-bid-no1-draft-pick-on-northern-academy-stars-in-surprise-draft-move/news-story/17fde26853c70bef104d23ee8a2e4acf

[JBs-Hawks]

The way I see it, Gibbs hasnt demanded a trade hes just requested one. So he wont be bitter if a trade cant eventuate but his preference would be for one to come about?

[Jay]

So contracts seem to be worth flower all these days is basically what free agency is.

Needs to be some sort of accountability for signing a contract.  The only people who should be able to control what happens to a contracted player is the parties who own the contract.  Have no problem with Carlton playing hardball, if Crows don't want to give up what they need to then back off, Gibbs suck it up and play out that piece of paper that you signed with you own hand, do you "JOB".

He's got the contract and they can hold him to it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, I'm not saying that they have to trade him and we have any sort of leverage at all. But if we can offer up a package that is better for their future than hanging onto Gibbs, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't consider it.

But if they want Brad Crouch then they can get stuffed, we'll take pick 13 and add to our young core :)

[Ricochet]

So contracts seem to be worth flower all these days is basically what free agency is.

Needs to be some sort of accountability for signing a contract.  The only people who should be able to control what happens to a contracted player is the parties who own the contract.  Have no problem with Carlton playing hardball, if Crows don't want to give up what they need to then back off, Gibbs suck it up and play out that piece of paper that you signed with you own hand, do you "JOB".

He's got the contract and they can hold him to it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, I'm not saying that they have to trade him and we have any sort of leverage at all. But if we can offer up a package that is better for their future than hanging onto Gibbs, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't consider it.

And it's no guarantee future offers will be better

Just ask GWS...

[Grazz]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trades-2016-blues-target-charlie-cameron-for-bryce-gibbs-trade-20161011-grzunv.html

So sounds like Carlton want pick 13 and quality player like McGovern or Cameron. I think SOS is still high from that mega trade last year. Honestly, please just keep Gibbs. He's. Not. Worth. More. Than. Patrick. Dangerfield.

When you consider Dangerfield was uncontracted and Gibbs has 3 years left I'd argue differently.

and you'd still be wrong mate, to compare Gibbs to Danger because of a contract with respect is pretty funny.
Gibbs will help us move closer to a premiership window but he's not the key. We need him and another of his quality or better to be close. AFC would be silly to throw more at the Blues than Pick 13 and Lyons (Overs already) because then we need to replace those guys. People are severely overating Gibbs because of a contract that lets be honest when was the last time contracts meant jack shower these days, not for years. Good player don't get me wrong but people need to be realistic, great player in the Carlton team but a good player in the AFC .
SOS is bloody high if he thinks we'd give up Crouch or Charlie or McGovern also to sweeten the deal. Gibbs want's to leave we're not poaching him, yes we have to pay overs because of the contract and we have offered overs they can take it or leave it. We have the talent on our list but it needs time to develope, if Gibbs was the key that would deliver a flag i'd feel different but he isn't. The contract is valuable to the Blues because he is a required player but it holds no value to the AFC.

[Ricochet]

I actually think Gibbs still be better at Crows Grazz. He could be huge for you

[fanTCfool]

"Carlton will only consider trading Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide if it can secure a quality midfielder in trade period bit.ly/2e2BOIX"
- SuperFooty on Twitter

I guess this goes back to what you are satin Ftc about getting some kind of ready made replacement.

Agreed.

Seriously though, I think there was a lot to like in 2016, a very solid patch mid season - wins over Geelong and Port Adelaide were really impressive. I have nothing against youth, and I'm sure all three proposed picks will produce guns, but I feel as though it will halt the growth from this season just gone. If we can maintain some sort of similar level of leadership through our trade-ins, it will build on the ground work laid out so far. Then once guys like Cunningham, C. Curnow, Weiters are approaching their full potential in a few years time, you return to the draft and bring the youth into a team pushing for a Top 8 birth. The balance between experience/leadership with youth and development is really important, and if we end up too youth dominant, the development of the guys mentioned above could be threatened.

Gibbs has a contract, so we don't have to trade him.
Dangerfield didn't have a contract, so he was gone as soon as he wanted to be.

Gibbs is such an important player to our side, we're not a top side like Adelaide.
Losing a leader will leave a massive hole, so if we can't get what we need then why trade him? Obviously he'll have a very poor few years playing for a team he no longer wants to be with, Cam McCarthy style, but if we throw him away for chips, we won't bounce back like Adelaide did losing Dangerfield, we're not a strong enough side.

The reason Adelaide don't want to pay up for Gibbs is simply because he won't be as important to their side as he is to our side.

Of course, but we didn't have to trade Danger, we could have sent him to the PSD which would've been stupid but still. If you don't trade him, then like you said he will be there when not wanting to be and you'll be wasting 600K a year which could be used to improve your future by luring someone else to the club.

I'd argue he is more important to us, we are going for a flag, Bryce won't be at Carlton the next time they challenge. I understand you lose your Vice Captain and his leadership but if he wants to go, I don't like clubs forcing players to stay, especially when this revolves around their kid, it's not like we're offering a 3rd rounder and Andy Otten. The deal will get done, I'm confident of that, how much more than our first rounder though is the question.

Like I responded to a post on the Crows board, I would have a think about Pick 13 + 2017 1st for Gibbs + Pick 24, which I think is more than fair, leaning in your favour.

I agree with pretty much all that you said, a trade will be made, and forcing a player to stay will only do bad things for their career (see McCarthy in about 6 months time) so it's best for everyone to get it done.

The problem with 13 + 2017 1st + 24 is the hole it leads in the leadership department, someone needs to step up into the role and I'm not sure who it could be, and it is too much to expect from a first year player.

What I should have said instead of "more important to us" is that he will be far less of a 'standout talent' at the Crows.

Yeah fair enough, I understand that, I'm just not sure on what else I would think the club would realistically offer. Tuohy asking to leave as well doesn't help the leadership problems, the GWS boys are all young so probably won't help. I actually like Carlton as well so I hope the deal is a good one for you guys and us of course as well.

Jacobs taps to Gibbs, who smashes out a 71m Torp down to Eddieeeeeeee, who flies high and clunks it. Goal.

So contracts seem to be worth flower all these days is basically what free agency is.

Needs to be some sort of accountability for signing a contract.  The only people who should be able to control what happens to a contracted player is the parties who own the contract.  Have no problem with Carlton playing hardball, if Crows don't want to give up what they need to then back off, Gibbs suck it up and play out that piece of paper that you signed with you own hand, do you "JOB".

He's got the contract and they can hold him to it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, I'm not saying that they have to trade him and we have any sort of leverage at all. But if we can offer up a package that is better for their future than hanging onto Gibbs, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't consider it.

But if they want Brad Crouch then they can get stuffed, we'll take pick 13 and add to our young core :)

Can you blame us for inquiring about Crouch though? And please don't see he's contracted  ::)
I wouldn't blame the Crows for inquiring about guys such as Weiters and Cripps if the circumstances were different.