Synbad wrote:
4thchicken wrote:
wasthesonofapreacherman wrote:
The Tyrant wrote:
DOA wrote:
grrofunger wrote:
Blueboy wrote:
grrofunger wrote:
AFL footy is a business , as unfortunate as that may be , its fact and we needed to make a decision that would improve our arm of that business.
I'm sure loyalty still exists in the amateurs but ....... well , we aint talking about that.
Your correct Grro, but that being the case we must not expect it from the players in return.
Its the clubs job to work on retention , if our club is better than any other club then the players shouldn't want to leave.
We need to make sure players we would want loyalty from are satisfied in their role etc
No different than any other workplace
Collingwood won hands down in that regardl and I respect them for that.
Actually thats a good point. They wouldn't trade Didak to Port for Stevens because he was "the future", and that cost them Stevens. I doubt they would have put Thomas or Pendlebury anywhere near the table if they were in the hunt for Juddy........
DOA and Tyrant - Are they really the motives behind Collingwood not trading? Or is it the fact that Collingwood renowned for being difficult to trade negotiations, are living up to their reputations as not willing to give up any of their emerging talents in order to secure someone elses? I mean, I honestly believe we are just as sentimental and would've loved to have kept JK as much as Collingwood would love to keep Pendles and the Ferrett, the only difference is, WE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO COMPENSATE the other club with like-for-like players.
Do you think they were as loyal to their Anzac medalist McGough, or any of the other players they traded away for picks/players? Definately not! If giving up one of their less talented players would have secured Judd or Stevens, loyality would not have been given any thought if it were for a greater purpose!
Let's get real!
I've no issue with players being traded - more the way it has been done was distasteful.
Mcgough had not signed a contract the year he was traded - Kennedy did. The heffernan rule was brought in to protect players from being traded after they had signed a contract that year. To put a young player into that position (when we could have said no) is pretty poor form.
We wilted in the trade against WC.
You cannot make everybody happy...
And tell me why yoiu think we wilted...give me evidence of a "wilt"
i've said it earlier - we should have told JK to refuse the trade if he wanted to stay and to let him know we would support that - and gone back to WC with 3+20 - push our position in the PSD etc and to go from there
Secondly, the issue of pick 30 supposedly being sent to richmond for morton - we should have demanded that pick - or ensure that WC went through with the morton trade first before we signed
Dont get me wrong, I'm happy with picking up Judd - however I dont think we pushed our advantages home (PSD position, prefered club etc) or were aggressive enough at the trade table.
Once the judd trade went through we had not much else of value to trade for (hadley was a great deal). Had we been able to force WC into accepting 3+20 or even 3+JK, we would have been in a better position to build our list either through the draft or trades.
My breakeven for the judd trade would have been
judd for 3+JK, or judd+30 for 3+20+JK.
whilst what we ened up with was not that far off, we should have been pusing to come out ahead of that breakeven point.
In terms of the overall trade period though, I'm reasonably happy with it
judd+hadley+46 for 3+20+52+JK is just above breakeven for mine (largely because I rate hadley a fair bit)
Login
Register
FAQ
) or those that have been picked in rounds 4 or 5. We also should keep in mind the age of these boys. I have two boys who are 18 & 20 and through them I can see what a kid like JK is going through. Fellow TCers like me with kids that age or other TCers around that age would have to admit they do not have to face the pressure young AFL footballers face on a regular basis.
