New ROK poll - will he stay?

[NMWBloods]

Surely pick 35 for Everitt says the same, in reverse?

Everybody knows that players out of contract go for considerably less than market value, especially when the majority of the clubs that are after that player have early picks in the PSD. It would hardly be a blow for our reputation, and it would be a damn sight better for the club.

No one expected much for Everitt. Everyone expected a lot for ROK.

[msb]

He's gone, too much water has gone under the bridge for him to come back. I hope i'm wrong but its Tuesday and we still havent heard whether he's staying or not, meaning he obviously still doesnt know.

[BSA5]

No one expected much for Everitt. Everyone expected a lot for ROK.

Yeah... that's my point. We were chasing Everitt, and paid well above market value. We were flogging ROK, and COULD have accepted well below market value. It's not like it would have damaged our reputation as traders, as we've proven we're willing to accept what appears to be less than fair deals.

[DST]

Yeah... that's my point. We were chasing Everitt, and paid well above market value. We were flogging ROK, and COULD have accepted well below market value. It's not like it would have damaged our reputation as traders, as we've proven we're willing to accept what appears to be less than fair deals.

Problem is ruckman no matter how old they are, always command a premium.

The simple fact is they are valuable and there are not that many of them.

Hence clubs will always pay over the odd, hell Carlton just used pick 24 on a bloke who has played just 20 odd games.

Remember Brett O'Farrell? He cost Hawthorn two top round picks from us and I think he never even played a senior game for them.

DST

[liz]

Yeah... that's my point. We were chasing Everitt, and paid well above market value. We were flogging ROK, and COULD have accepted well below market value. It's not like it would have damaged our reputation as traders, as we've proven we're willing to accept what appears to be less than fair deals.

General concensus seemed to be that a late second round pick for one of the best ruckmen in the league (albeit past his prime- but was AA in 2005) was reasonable. That deal took so long to finalise because everyone's favourite Dawks' recruitment manager was insisting we should give up pick 16 right up to 1.55pm on the Friday of trade week.

As far as the ROK trade goes, we have no real idea whether the Swans turned down an offer for ROK of any sort. Pilchard claims he offered 16 late on the Thursday night but there have been conflicting reports about whether ROK ever agreed to play for them for the cut-price salary they seemed to think him worthy of. And the Blues have pretty much admitted that they spent no real effort on trying to trade for him.

[BSA5]

Problem is ruckman no matter how old they are, always command a premium.

The simple fact is they are valuable and there are not that many of them.

Hence clubs will always pay over the odd, hell Carlton just used pick 24 on a bloke who has played just 20 odd games.

Remember Brett O'Farrell? He cost Hawthorn two top round picks from us and I think he never even played a senior game for them.

DST

OK, that's sort of deviating from my original point. Basically, O'Keefe was out of contract, which lowers his trade value straight away. The Swans could have just cut their losses and accepted whatever Hawthorn were offering. Nobody would see it as caving in. It's just being practical. They didn't do that, which means that either Roos is proud, or has very good reason to believe O'Keefe would re-sign rather than go into the PSD.

[liz]

OK, that's sort of deviating from my original point. Basically, O'Keefe was out of contract, which lowers his trade value straight away. The Swans could have just cut their losses and accepted whatever Hawthorn were offering. Nobody would see it as caving in. It's just being practical. They didn't do that, which means that either Roos is proud, or has very good reason to believe O'Keefe would re-sign rather than go into the PSD.

So - assuming ROK was happy to go to the Hawks - if they'd offered a straight swap of ROK for Tim Clark, you think we should have accepted?

(BTW - O"Farrell was out of contract too when the Hawks nabbed him).