Crawford

[CureTheSane]

I read most of this and am amazed at how little people think they might be able to get Crawford for.

HE wants a flag no doubt, and the Hawks aren't gonna throw one up probably in his career timespan, so I bet he is looking for options.

He may wekk go interstate, as he would be pretty hated down here by Hawks supporters for deserting.

Imagine if Kelly left the Swans?

Anyway, I think he'd be worth a first round draft pick, and unless he is prepared to nominate for the draft no club will be picking him up any cheaper for that.

More than likely a fist round pick and a reasonable established player.

This to me reaks of the feeling I had when Dermie was looking to move on.
And Plugger too.
Wouldn't be surprised, but don't count on it.

Also, even when he is 32 or 33 he isn't restricted to playing in the midfield.
Running off half back.
Forward pocket.

He has leadership skills and is passionate about his footy.
Love him or hate him he is a rated player, and he won't come cheap....

[barry]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
I read most of this and am amazed at how little people think they might be able to get Crawford for.


Anyway, I think he'd be worth a first round draft pick, and unless he is prepared to nominate for the draft no club will be picking him up any cheaper for that.

More than likely a fist round pick and a reasonable established player.

The thing that devalues Crawford is his age. Which means he will be transfered to a club which meets the following criteria:
1) Flag chance
2) Midfield weakness.
3) Plenty of cap room.

Not many have the cap room like us, but teams you'd think would fit that criteria would be:
- Sydney
- Freo
- St Kilda
- Essendon
- North
- Collingwood

Hawthorn would want draft picks of young players with promise in return.
I dont think anyone is mad enough to trade first round picks anymore, so A deal of Fosdike/Saddington plus 2nd rounder is a chance.

The angle we may have in our advantage is if he wants to leave Melbourne.

Who knows what his value is, but his value to Hawthorn during a rebuilding phase wouldnt be high.

[BAM_BAM]

I say go for it. He's a proven game breaker and it could be the stop gap measure we need until the likes of Willoughby, McGlone and Schmidt are ready for a senior birth.

from what I understand his problems with is back are behind him (sounds funny I know). If that's the case there's no reason he can't continue playing for 2-3 more years.

[liz]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
I say go for it. He's a proven game breaker and it could be the stop gap measure we need until the likes of Willoughby, McGlone and Schmidt are ready for a senior birth.

Barring injury problems, I'm anticipating Willoughby will be ready for a senior berth (though maybe not a birth ) next year - hopefully to have a similar kind of impact that McVeigh has had this year, subject to opportunities of course. I'd hope that McVeigh would be ready to step up a notch and become an important part of the midfield rotations. I'd hope that Schmidt too would be ready to play a handful of games at least.

I'm not a fan of trading for a 30yo player who is likely to cost in excess of a first round draft pick. If we can't use that pick as part of a package to get a player who will be of long term value to the club, I'd rather we used it to find a player of the ilk of Dal Santo, James Kelly, Mark Coughlan or Nick Stevens, all of who were taken with a pick in the 13-25 range, where our first round pick is likely to be.

[chammond]

I'm struggling to understand how this would work?

Crawford has two years to run on his contract, and makes very good money from his footy and from his media interests in Melbourne.

He can't go in either draft because of his contract (unless Hawthorn agree to delist him and tear up the contract . . . . in which case they get nothing in return . . . highly unlikely).

Therefore he has to go into a trade situation, probably with Hawthorn not keen to let him go, and with him wanting to get very big bucks to compensate what he foregoes.

That means that any club that picks him up will need to pay a fortune to him, and give up something special in trade to Hawthorn.

In return, they admittedly get a champion footballer, but one with only two years left in him (by his own admission) and with seemingly chronic injury problems.

If the Hawks' new coach thought that he could get two young 100-gamers plus an early draft pick in exchange for Crawford, he'd cut off his right arm just to get everyone to sign on the dotted line.

For any club to get involved in a deal like that sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

[j0lly]

Originally posted by anniswan

he is thick as a brick

*dribble*
lol did anyone watch the footy show last night??
fevola!!

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
I say go for it. He's a proven game breaker and it could be the stop gap measure we need until the likes of Willoughby, McGlone and Schmidt are ready for a senior birth.

from what I understand his problems with is back are behind him (sounds funny I know). If that's the case there's no reason he can't continue playing for 2-3 more years.

Agree he's a quality player but a huuuuge risk to the 5 year team plan because of his age, dodgy back (they never get better, believe me) and suspect motivation to move north.

We wouldn't want to find ourselves in the same predicament as the Crows who chose to forego their longer term future by recruiting Carey and Burns.

[NMWBloods]

It all depends on what we trade for him. If we could get him for say Fosdike and a second round draft pick why not, or even Crawford + 3rd round for Fosdike and Saddo.

We might get 2-3 years from him, which, as Bam_Bam says, would be a great boost to our midfield while our younger players are still developing.

We've also shown we can cope without Fosdike or Saddington this year, so it's not like we are giving away a couple of players who are critical to our success.

This sort of deal would not hamper they '5-year plan' in any way whatsoever. It would probably enhance it if anything by giving the young midfielders a champion midfielder to learn from.

[Sid]

I would give saddo for him but probably not fosdike.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We've also shown we can cope without Fosdike or Saddington this year, so it's not like we are giving away a couple of players who are critical to our success.

Nah, that doesn't make sense.

We've shown that we can cope without O'Loughlin and Davis, but that doesn't mean we want to, or that we're better of without them.

We've shown that we can cope with Goodes playing with bung knees, but that doesn't mean we want him knee-capped at the start of every season.

And success is very relative . . . we haven't succeeded at all yet in 2004. I think that our finals team would be far better if Saddington and Fosdike were fit and firing, and I've got no doubt that they would be certain starters tomorrow.

If we give up players of the quality of Saddington and Fosdike we would want to get something pretty good in return, and certainly of long-term benefit for the club, otherwise you'd have to seriously question where the club is going under the current regime.

I've got every faith that they wouldn't do anything that silly.

[NMWBloods]

There are a number of players in our side critical to our success in September this year, for next season and for a number of seasons hence. I don't view either Saddington nor Fosdike to be one of those players. Useful but not essential.

[swansrule100]

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=169357

[hammo]

Saddo's trade value has probably diminished because of his knee injury. Would other clubs be prepared to take him on when he is yet to test it out in match conditions?

[swansrule100]

why would hawthorn be dumb enough to let go of crawf???

[midaro]

Originally posted by swansrule100
why would hawthorn be dumb enough to let go of crawf???

They don't have the talent to win a premiership, within the time frame that Crawford has left. IMO neither do we.