-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Trade Week - Richmond Only
- Thread starter Smoking Aces
- Start date
As far as I can tell, youre never going to 'win them all' in every trade. The bulldogs got paid overs for daniels and unders for smith to make it an overall acceptable trade period for them. If we look at our trade period as a whole, the position it sets our club up in for the future, and what smaller amounts some in the media thought we would get for our star players, we have overall had an obvious victory here. Even look at Dan Houston, one of our deals could have gone south in that way (maybe baker as he was uncontracted) where the club didnt have the capital to front the deal and we had to accept less. But none did, we were adequately compensated. To fixate on one trade when the whole thing is kind of based on swings and roundabouts and big picture stuff, isnt what i see as productive - when coming out of a very successful trade period overall.
Well for one thing if we had 32 we could have given Freo 32 and a future 3rd rather than swapping 14 for 18. If that had been possible then not having 32 did in fact hurt us. I don’t know it is, you don’t k ow it wasn’t so there you have one way not having 32 may have hurt us
This is going to be fj,Blair,Late Chris Toce draft,more of a group consensus picked draft than before with basically 3 different head recruiters considering our picks.
Adding an irrelevant excuse shows you're desperate and the proof is he got rolled and that's proven as yes he did it. Stick to the facts please. Because it happened is no evidence on what you initially stated and still states it was a disgusting deal.
The only trade he did well was the Baker trade , but he was up against his side kick Clarke who was his partner in crime in running our list to the ground. lol That's proven bc it happened.
FWIW this is the trade he should've done :
If you wanna stick to the most salient, relevant point, it's 32 for 20.
If you want to debate points value, you have to actually do it.
But I don't think you want to do either. I think you just want to sook.
I also think it's hilarious that 'because it happened is no evidence'.
We are in a sorry state when reality is not evidence.
You’ve got it backwards. It’s been explained but people like to stay oblivious of the point being made.
It’s done. It’s over. Yet people want to continually bring it up.
There’s only one reason, they must be trying to convince themselves.
Catch up old fella. Disgusting is the word of the week around here.
Notice the little winky smiley face? That's the hint not to take things too seriously.
But but, the points for 32 aren't as high as 18 - so using the points value logic, no that wouldn't have happened. Flaw in that argument.
My nanna might have been able to grab the Freo list manager by the ear and tell him he's a naughty stubborn boy may have helped too. But alas she's 6' underground, so we'll never know!
Why wouldn’t we? We had ample picks at the back end for the points Brisbane required. That’s the whole crux of the trade.
Anyway it’s been done. It’s over. Obviously some people don’t like others to have their opinion on a trade. Going by how long they want to keep criticising and asking why why why. When it’s been answered.
Maybe another half a dozen posters can ask the same thing today. Obviously they can’t read the other 500 times it’s been asked and answered.
Fact 1-You can only trade for picks if you have the same list spots vacancies.Brisbane with 32 instead of extra late picks to make up for points,If that happened Brisbane would've had no choice but to delist someone they prefer too keep.Adding an irrelevant excuse shows you're desperate and the proof is he got rolled and that's proven as yes he did it. Stick to the facts please. Because it happened is no evidence on what you initially stated and still states it was a disgusting deal.
The only trade he did well was the Baker trade , but he was up against his side kick Clarke who was his partner in crime in running our list to the ground. lol That's proven bc it happened.
FWIW this is the trade he should've done :
Fact 2-We were after more in the Rioli deal than just 6.If we gave up what you suggested then 32 would be Suns bound as we'd have no value for them with pick 60 & 69.
Fact 3-We were after 10 & 11.We achieved that.
Fact 4-As stated by Blair the aim was to move up the draft as much as possible.We did it and may not be over yet.
These are the Known facts.You can blow up about 32 all you want but the FACT remains it was never staying with us so 32 for 20 is a great deal.
Obviously. So is moron. And telling other posters to ggf.
No I laugh at all the posters that keep asking the same question and getting the same answers. And then asking the same thing 10 times a day.
It would be amusing except it shows how slow they are and they lack comprehension skills.Hopefully it’s brought up a dozen times again today
I think it’s easy to see what happened.
Last year we expected to keep more players - say rioli and baker and maybe we expected to lose Bolton and graham.
We ended up with at least one more pick than we expected which ended up devaluing the picks we had as every other club knew we couldn’t use them all. Terrible negotiating position when everyone knows your BATNA is to throw the pick in the bin. If other clubs met their pick / point needs in other ways then as trade period progressed the picks we had would have further lost any leverage and/or been worthless.
(4 went out and 6 picks came in)
In a two year time frame it’s a bad outcome and meant we didn’t have that view of what could happen. In the end of the year exodus that happened I get it and was probably smart business.
Last year we expected to keep more players - say rioli and baker and maybe we expected to lose Bolton and graham.
We ended up with at least one more pick than we expected which ended up devaluing the picks we had as every other club knew we couldn’t use them all. Terrible negotiating position when everyone knows your BATNA is to throw the pick in the bin. If other clubs met their pick / point needs in other ways then as trade period progressed the picks we had would have further lost any leverage and/or been worthless.
(4 went out and 6 picks came in)
In a two year time frame it’s a bad outcome and meant we didn’t have that view of what could happen. In the end of the year exodus that happened I get it and was probably smart business.
Not sure points were raised in the post but knock yourself out. It was not that 32 could have been used rather than a pick slide to achieve the same result, points obviously weren’t super important to Brisbane when they did a later trade withStKilda where points went backwards.
Fact 1. False
It doesn’t matter until list lodgements dates and there are 3 of them.
List positions don’t matter until draft night.
So that fact holds no water, it’s wrong.
The Rioli deal hadn’t been done. We didn’t know what we were getting until the last day.
This was the first trade we did. What do you mean those picks wouldn’t have any value? It’s the same scenario as the original trade. Just hand them over for the Suns to use as points.
Brisbane traded that pick 32 out quick enough. That shows how important it was to them.
Nothing to do with the first trade. How do you know they were the picks we were after? Because it was posted on PRE that’s what we should get? Blair never made that public.
Going by that, PRE expected p6 and p13 for Rioli. We didn’t achieve that
Your Fact 4 isn’t true. It was to use the late picks for points to trade up. That’s what they were accrued for. Before anyone had any idea that Baker, Bolton, Rioli would seek to be traded. They were accrued 12 months before.
And no it wasn’t Blair’s aim to move up the draft as much as possible. Otherwise we would or will trade those late first round picks to get higher picks. The aim was to accuse as many high picks as possible . Not to condense ALL of them. He’s even stated that
They aren’t known facts. They’re your opinions you’ve dressed up as facts.
You miss the whole point yet again, like all the posters defending that trade.
It wasn’t just p32 was it? We must have all missed the other picks involved. Which is the whole point of the criticism. Use the latter picks to equate to the picks and save p32 for another deal to be done. But you know this.
The whole argument of not giving 32 is because it was unnecessary to hand over that many points to Brisbane. It's intertwined.
The whole point of trading with Brisbane was because they needed points to get their father-son/academy picks.
I wasn’t suggesting that’s what we did only that going forward clubs might try to sign their stars to long term contracts to protect themselves.
Yes and there were many ways of giving them those points which did not include pick 31 we had plenty of later picks we could use instead and keep 32 in a deep draft which . Anyways it’s done now, I recall people were defending the trade for 20 based on scenarios that didn’t play out
