#1 Patrick Lipinski
Moderator: bbmods
That’s about right but Collingwood have to be a little careful they don’t set out to play super hard ball with both Lipinski and Krueger. You will only pick up one in the PSD (with potentially a number of clubs who could / would offer something they wouldn’t refuse ) so one of those trades needs to at least an offer either Dogs or Cats would accept. There’s no point offering both those clubs something they don’t want or don’t need and then both players find themselves in limbo after trade period and we can only secure one of them via the PSD.burnsy17 wrote:Exactly. If a player names a club for the PSD, they get there.MJ23 wrote:^ correct. Also, clubs are typically reluctant to draft a player who wants to go to another club AND they'd be locked into his 3 year contract and $$$ he is asking and we are offering.
If we wanna give something to the Dogs as a token, then do so, if not - he comes over for free.
If I was Geelong or Dogs, I would look to get the deal done sooner than later because Pies will be more open to wanting a “ fairer “ trade done and would also have more to trade. Whichever club is second to deal, will have Collingwood play the PSD card and likely be presented with an offer close to zero.
-
Boogie Knights
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:00 pm
- Been liked: 1 time
^^^ in this scenario, do you look at which player is likely 'worth' less and make that trade as a fair and reasonable one then walk the 'more valuable' player to the PSD?
I guess on balance, we need to look at both Lipinski and Krueger as the one trade - if we are perceived to give up too much for one and too little for the other, that's fair... If we get a trade done early for one that appears overs, then get the other for nothing or next to nothing, that's a win...
Regardless of the machinations, both will be in Black & White next season.
I guess on balance, we need to look at both Lipinski and Krueger as the one trade - if we are perceived to give up too much for one and too little for the other, that's fair... If we get a trade done early for one that appears overs, then get the other for nothing or next to nothing, that's a win...
Regardless of the machinations, both will be in Black & White next season.
-
MJ23
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:52 pm
- Location: Sydney
-
MJ23
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:52 pm
- Location: Sydney
We have a unique situation ( in recent times anyway ) when two players want to come to Collingwood and are both out of contract. I don’t see a situation where we pay overs at all, but more likely we pay unders for the first trade ( however that looks ) and even more unders for the second trade.Boogie Knights wrote:^^^ in this scenario, do you look at which player is likely 'worth' less and make that trade as a fair and reasonable one then walk the 'more valuable' player to the PSD?
I guess on balance, we need to look at both Lipinski and Krueger as the one trade - if we are perceived to give up too much for one and too little for the other, that's fair... If we get a trade done early for one that appears overs, then get the other for nothing or next to nothing, that's a win...
Regardless of the machinations, both will be in Black & White next season.
As I posted earlier, there might be a bit of cat and mouse where either the Cats or Dogs blink first in the belief that whoever gets the first trade done, gets a better outcome relative to the player involved. I’m not sure you can manufacture your time lines for these deals but once Collingwood feel they have won on the deal, then that becomes the right time to seal it.
I do think the Cats is an easier trade to get done. They would take picks from either 2021 or 2022 drafts. As for Lipinski, it will be interesting to see just how little we give up for him ( and that includes possibly nothing )
More importantly, as you said, I’m sure they will get done.
-
Macattacks
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:09 pm
-
Rd10.1998_11.1#36
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:04 pm
- Location: Sevilla, Spain
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 5 times
-
E
except that he has a prohibitive contract, Treloar was exactly the type of player we needed this year. Three goals in a grand final not a bad effort either by the way......Pies4shaw wrote:Footscray is, according to that article, going to "drive a hard bargain". Perhaps they intend to make us take Treloar back as part of the deal.
-
E
-
Charlie Oneeye
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:17 pm
- Has liked: 74 times
- Been liked: 57 times
E wrote:except that he has a prohibitive contract, Treloar was exactly the type of player we needed this year. Three goals in a grand final not a bad effort either by the way......Pies4shaw wrote:Footscray is, according to that article, going to "drive a hard bargain". Perhaps they intend to make us take Treloar back as part of the deal.
I wish he would have kicked one in 2018
Treloar just ran free, Melbourne didn't care. Beveridge would have preferred 3 tackles when it counted, not hanging off Oliver like an ornament.
-
Podpicken
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:05 pm
-
WhyPhilWhy?
- Posts: 9547
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: Location: Location:
- Has liked: 44 times
- Been liked: 37 times