We're still in the SANFL finals
2023 Trade Time Talk - Henley Beach Café Returns
- Thread starter D Style
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 3, 2018
- 5,337
- 7,043
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think GC as a club would have thought they would have made finals this year and so their pick would not have been so valuable or sort after
Given it now is I think they would be pushing for the best outcome possible even if there was a little nod to us
Maybe that’s the redress we should request from the AFL? Put us first in the queue
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Hahahaha no , we aren’t getting any redress from afl when it comes to draft / trade period
We might get a better timeslots for some of our games and less regional travel but that was probably happening anyway
- Sep 28, 2016
- 10,134
- 20,419
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Nov 2, 2012
- 3,825
- 3,055
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd, GSW
just need that missing piece.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,981
- 9,392
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If anything, they may be pissed off we took him from them.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,829
- 71,795
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Watched him closely at the Gather Round V Richmond. He looked completely at sea. Didn't look like KPD to me, just a lumpy flanker.
If our deal is more beneficial to GC surely they take it.
No idea why they agreed to Bowes trade though
What would they have done if they resigned Rankine though?
How many other players besides Bowes would they have needs to trade out??
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
I am certainly wondering if that decision was motivated, in part, by how rich their NGA was in 2023. Seeing they are expected to have three first rounders out of it.
May have just been an opportunistic chance to get rid of a bad contract in a period where they just didn't care about having a second first round pick.
Started as Kristof saying it would be incompetent list management if 5 was part of the deal. Then Mostyn came along saying it was a crap draft and clubs were trading out en masse, ignoring those trading in at the same time. And now you've settled on we had to pay 5 otherwise Rankine would have said "no". So you finally arrived where I've been all along, and it onky took 2 accounts and nearly 12 months, not bad.
Last edited:
I have no doubt Adelaide gave up what we did for Rankine with this ridiculous fallacy that you need to maintain good relations with clubs during trade so that they return the favour in the future.
The reality is that clubs will trade when there's a player they want, they couldn't care less what happened in the past. The amount they are willing to trade is dependent on how much they want the player.
Goodwill literally has no impact, but they crows will continue to believe it does.
All the club's that played hard ball on deals have not been impacted in the slightest in future deals. It's literally about the player up for trade and how much you want him, nothing else.
The reality is that clubs will trade when there's a player they want, they couldn't care less what happened in the past. The amount they are willing to trade is dependent on how much they want the player.
Goodwill literally has no impact, but they crows will continue to believe it does.
All the club's that played hard ball on deals have not been impacted in the slightest in future deals. It's literally about the player up for trade and how much you want him, nothing else.
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
And yet we fought tooth and nail to not give up anymore than 16 for Dawson the year before. The year before that we walked Hately to the PSD because we didn't want to pay a second. We've been pretty happy to be right bastards under Reid.
The likely answer as to why Adelaide gave up pick 5 for Rankine is also the simplest. That's purely a reflection of how high Adelaide rated him, and how much we wanted him. Effectively, we couldn't imagine our next decade without Izak.
Last edited:
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,981
- 9,392
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I don't think that happened at all. Zero chance.
Adelaide gave up what they did to get the deal across the line - but it would have been convincing Rankine's manager and maintaining relationships with them that would have been the priority. Adelaide needed to show that they were committed to getting a deal across the line before Rankine's reps would have agreed to publicly choose us.
People constantly underestimate how much impact managers have on what deals happen and don't happen.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,981
- 9,392
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It's really only this board that constantly tells the story of how Adelaide overpaid for Rankine. I just don't think the wider footy industry thinks that.
Josh Jenkins #1Fan
Lover of David Mckay
- May 15, 2019
- 295
- 424
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Pick 5 was a steal! The guy is a freak!!! People are cooked
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,367
- 166,535
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #345
If we believe we must keep up good relations with clubs, it stands to reason clubs that screw us over aren't interested in good relations so should be screwed over hard in return.
Sydney and GWS screwed us over with Tippett and Davis
How highly we rate a player should have no bearing on the trade value we are willing to give up. Like with the Dawson deal, we should be willing to give up only as much as the minimum required to get the deal done. Why would we willingly give over more than that to Gold Coast simply because we rate the player highly?
You cannot convince me that Gold Coast, a team which the same year gave up pick 7 (!) to get rid of a player, wouldn't have accepted less for Rankine
Last edited:
Don't forget GC did that trade with us on draft night last year where we sent 79 in that draft, along with Pick 28 and 56 this year for what became Billy Dowling, Hugh Bond and pick 23 this year.
GC may have been pissed to lose Rankine, but we still worked out a deal later in the same trade period that got both teams what they wanted.
GC may have been pissed to lose Rankine, but we still worked out a deal later in the same trade period that got both teams what they wanted.
Doedee and McAdam currency as well as future first would have to be doing something for us.
- Sep 28, 2016
- 10,134
- 20,419
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
This might be a silly question, but how do the GC have access to the 3 academy players before pick 40?
Was that a part of the AFL assistance package? Or some other double standard
Was that a part of the AFL assistance package? Or some other double standard
Only NGA is capped at 40. Northern Academies are normal rules apply.
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
I don't think we believe that at all. We seem more pragmatic in the sense of we'll screw over clubs when appropriate, and expect to be in return. This whole talk about us trying to keep good relations is just bigfooty drinking the stupid juice.
I wouldn't have accepted less if I was in Gold Coast shoes, especially if I was confident I was sitting on multiple gun NGA prospects in the next draft which makes a '23 first worthless. After all, Rankine at that point is a former pick 2, only 22, and right on the cusp of superstardom. It's also quite likely that was the minimum.
Last edited:
