Trade Cotchin

[yellowandback]

if the club truly wanted a move to deliver a number of picks in top 30 of this draft, then he is the one I would trade.
Despite being one of my favourite players, I think we can cover him the best with Vlas, Conca (yes Conca) & potentially Lambert filling the breach.
He would command 2 x 1st round draft picks and if we were to make Hurley an offer he can't refuse then it would release salary cap space.
IAll other trade options are either unrealistic (despite his class, Lids age and chronic Achilles would be unlikely to get a 1st rounder) or we need the player - Martin, Jack, Rance are untouchable.
All the others raised on the forum - Vickery, Griffiths, Conca, Edwards, etc etc aren't going to deliver great trades on the back of a crap year.
Vickery and Griffith in particular are no better than our long line of poor key position talent - limited players who weren't developed and have learnt habits which limit their application.
Those players might deliver a series of low level draft picks which might bundle up a decent pick for GWS or GC to use as points for academy picks but if we are serious about getting 5 or 6 picks in the top 30 then we need to trade Cotchin.
I love the guy but reckon both club and player might be better off parting company.

[wayne]

Cotchin is a brownlow medallist with the worst coach in the AFL.

Trade the coach.

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

Cotchin is a brownlow medallist with the worst coach in the AFL.

Trade the coach.

If we trade Cotchin Id walk away from the club.

[Francois Jackson]

with the greatest respect Y&B i stopped reading this dribble after i read Conca's name.

[Penelope]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

[yellowandback]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Where did I say picks 17&18?
If Cotchin was playing at the level he won the Brownlow, you might have a point.
Adelaide seem to be doing well without Dangerfield, they have a better list but the principle still holds if the club decided to go hard at this years draft.

[Diocletian]

i stopped reading this dribble after i read Conca's name.

Yep  - laughable....

[yellowandback]

Ridiculous post WAT, I have no issue with the post being challenged but guess what? Its another view. I'd say the range is 1-2 through 17-18 and everything in between which might include players and draft pick combos.
I remember when West Coast traded Judd - there was a hue and cry but look at them now.
Interstate clubs - through their hand being forced - are a great example of making opportunity from seeming disaster.

[WA Tiger]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Where did I say picks 17&18?
If Cotchin was playing at the level he won the Brownlow, you might have a point.
Adelaide seem to be doing well without Dangerfield, they have a better list but the principle still holds if the club decided to go hard at this years draft.

Oh yes, ridiculous....not twisting words at all..

[yellowandback]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Where did I say picks 17&18?
If Cotchin was playing at the level he won the Brownlow, you might have a point.
Adelaide seem to be doing well without Dangerfield, they have a better list but the principle still holds if the club decided to go hard at this years draft.

Oh yes, ridiculous....not twisting words at all..

How is that twisting words? It's just a question - not that big a deal unless you are a precious child mate

[Stalin]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Who's arguing apart from jobe

[🏅Dooks]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Where did I say picks 17&18?
If Cotchin was playing at the level he won the Brownlow, you might have a point.
Adelaide seem to be doing well without Dangerfield, they have a better list but the principle still holds if the club decided to go hard at this years draft.

Don't bother, apparently there are only few here that are the experts, the rest of us don't know poo and we shouldn't have an opinion or post. Just let them twist your words to suit theirs!!

If i may clarify, as peviously stated there are a good half a dozen of experts including myself.

Then theres posters who get it right most of the time.

Then theres those in denial of reality, post illogical rubbish or have their finger so far from the pulse its not funny

[Yeahright]

FMD at half the comments and especially that last one

[(•))(©™]

Conca = Tee-hee.

[Penelope]

as that reads, the OP would accept picks 17 and 18, (probably higher) for a bloke who has arguably won a brownlow.

picks that historically are borderline in the range that has a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player (43% for the club drafting them)

Where did I say picks 17&18?
If Cotchin was playing at the level he won the Brownlow, you might have a point.
Adelaide seem to be doing well without Dangerfield, they have a better list but the principle still holds if the club decided to go hard at this years draft.

You said top 20 picks. does that not include 17 and 18?
I never said that is specifically what you meant, just that the way your post read it could mean those picks.

As for WATs stupidity, it clearly knows no bounds and doesnt warrant a reply