2023 Trade Time Talk - Henley Beach Café Returns

[Mostyn]

Ok, that's amazing, thanks for enlightening me.

You and Moystn think everyone left in the off season on BF are "anti-Sloane", but not everyone agrees with you guys, it's still a public forum and poor comments like that get picked up.

Hey - I'm just pointing out that the sentiment in here is more anti-Sloane that probably exists in the outside world.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong - that's just my perception.

 

[1970crow]

Ok, that's amazing, thanks for enlightening me.

You and Moystn think everyone left in the off season on BF are "anti-Sloane", but not everyone agrees with you guys, it's still a public forum and poor comments like that get picked up.

what poor comments are picked up? Anyway, your post was off topic, we weren't talking about the value of experience to a list. We're talking about the mathematics of list spots. Try and stay on topic and you'll look a little less daft.

 

[LoBu]

what poor comments are picked up? Anyway, your post was off topic, we weren't talking about the value of experience to a list. We're talking about the mathematics of list spots. Try and stay on topic and you'll look a little less daft.

Ok, fair enough, I'll try, it is the silly season.

 

[George Kramer]

I guess it depends how "disrespect" of a club champion is perceived by his peers and by player management.

It may just be considered a dick move, and one that shows we place little value on service. Re-signing him and then delisting him may not get a totally positive response.

I know all of us on here are very anti Sloane, but we're in a bubble. I don't think that view is widely held.

We may argue all sorts of things about Sloane being bad, but those views are just perspectives that confirm what we already think. I'm not sure there wouldn't be discomfort if he's delisted and re-signed as a rookie.

Not if it’s sold as Sloane putting team first and happy for it to happen to help the team out.

What’s Nicks motto “put others first”?

 

[George Kramer]

We don't have a shortage of list spots.

We've already opened up a few spots, and can still move players out (Sholl) and players onto the rookie list (Hamill).

How can you say we are not short of list spots when we don’t currently have the list spots to take 3 players including pick 20?

Delisting and moving players to the rookie list carries risk, something we only have to do because of a shortage of list spots.

 

[Mostyn]

How can you say we are not short of list spots when we don’t currently have the list spots to take 3 players including pick 20?

Delisting and moving players to the rookie list carries risk, something we only have to do because of a shortage of list spots.

Obviously they would rather keep Sloane than Hamill, or Sholl, or whoever they end up delisting and rookieing.

We don't NEED to have the final list spots yet. There's a whole other list lodgement period.

It's a fantasy to imagine a scenario where a player like Sloane or Boak is re-signed and then weeks later delisted. It's just not going to happen and - despite what this board might think - there would be massive outrage if it did.

If we end up with a scenario where we can't use pick 20 because we don't have a list spot, I will immediately delete my account and never return, but not before posting that Elite Crow has always been right.

 

[George Kramer]

Obviously they would rather keep Sloane than Hamill, or Sholl, or whoever they end up delisting and rookieing.

We don't NEED to have the final list spots yet. There's a whole other list lodgement period.

It's a fantasy to imagine a scenario where a player like Sloane or Boak is re-signed and then weeks later delisted. It's just not going to happen and - despite what this board might think - there would be massive outrage if it did.

If we end up with a scenario where we can't use pick 20 because we don't have a list spot, I will immediately delete my account and never return, but not before posting that Elite Crow has always been right.

We didn’t need to re-sign Sloane and then delist him. We could have made the call for Sloane to retire, that’s issue no 1. Second we could have waited and told him he would be rookied if he wasn’t going to retire and we wanted to keep him.

To make that list spot available we need to delist a player. Let’s also say there was a delisted player from across the league, let’s say like Keays. We can’t take anyone else, we don’t have the list spots.

There is no denying we don’t have list spots and by keeping Sloane who even by the own coaches voting in the B&F for the second half of the year, his form sucked.

 

[Mostyn]

We didn’t need to re-sign Sloane and then delist him. We could have made the call for Sloane to retire, that’s issue no 1. Second we could have waited and told him he would be rookied if he wasn’t going to retire and we wanted to keep him.

Did I think Sloane should have retired? Yes. Like everyone on this board, I've posted that particular point of view hundreds of times.

They decided they preferred keeping him, to have another experienced head in a still inexperienced squad.

Fine. If that's what we're doing, I hope it works. I'm not going to put up thousands of posts moaning about it and blaming it for everything under the sun.

To make that list spot available we need to delist a player. Let’s also say there was a delisted player from across the league, let’s say like Keays. We can’t take anyone else, we don’t have the list spots.

Sure, but let's look at this logically, like they have. There will only be 50 picks made, so there's only a smaller than usual number of delistees, so there's a much smaller likelihood of any being redrafted. Teams have only cut their absolute scraps.

They know who's out there, and they've STILL promised Borlase a rookie spot.

There is no denying we don’t have list spots and by keeping Sloane who even by the own coaches voting in the B&F for the second half of the year, his form sucked.

We have exactly the number of list spots that they want to have. I don't understand why you keep talking about it like it's an accident?

They have retained the players they chose to retain and they'll take the number of draft picks they choose to take.

Personally, I hope we move Hamill and take three picks, but I'm sure Reid will take right up to list lodgement 2 to see if there's a good upgrade that's possible.

 

[George Kramer]

Did I think Sloane should have retired? Yes. Like everyone on this board, I've posted that particular point of view hundreds of times.

They decided they preferred keeping him, to have another experienced head in a still inexperienced squad.

Fine. If that's what we're doing, I hope it works. I'm not going to put up thousands of posts moaning about it and blaming it for everything under the sun.



Sure, but let's look at this logically, like they have. There will only be 50 picks made, so there's only a smaller than usual number of delistees, so there's a much smaller likelihood of any being redrafted. Teams have only cut their absolute scraps.

They know who's out there, and they've STILL promised Borlase a rookie spot.



We have exactly the number of list spots that they want to have. I don't understand why you keep talking about it like it's an accident?

They have retained the players they chose to retain and they'll take the number of draft picks they choose to take.

Personally, I hope we move Hamill and take three picks, but I'm sure Reid will take right up to list lodgement 2 to see if there's a good upgrade that's possible.

I think your issue is you keep stating “we’ve got the list spots they want to have” and believe that’s ok, case closed. That’s putting blind faith in the club making the right decision, when you’ve just admitted you wouldn’t have kept Sloane, therefore you don’t agree with how they’ve managed our list. So don’t keep Sloane, we don’t need to delist anyone and we have more flexibility.

You’ve then spent a number of posts justifying our list position. See the contradiction?

 

[skam85]

We have exactly the number of list spots that they want to have. I don't understand why you keep talking about it like it's an accident?

They have retained the players they chose to retain and they'll take the number of draft picks they choose to take.

That doesn't make it the right decision just because by your logic "they say so"

 

[Mostyn]

I think your issue is you keep stating “we’ve got the list spots they want to have” and believe that’s ok, case closed. That’s putting blind faith in the club making the right decision, when you’ve just admitted you wouldn’t have kept Sloane, therefore you don’t agree with how they’ve managed our list. So don’t keep Sloane, we don’t need to delist anyone and we have more flexibility.

You’ve then spent a number of posts justifying our list position. See the contradiction?

I think it's hard to make the case that they don't have enough list spots when they have the number of list spots that they want, and the exact number to do what they want to do.

You can make a case that they've erred if they now don't move a player on their final year to the rookie list, or they don't do a decent trade.

I think you want to argue that they should have more list spots. Whiich is fine, but that's just a debate where your perspective is the club is making wrong decisions - and they may be, but they're not making them accidentally.

 

[Mostyn]

That doesn't make it the right decision just because by your logic "they say so"

Sure.

I know a lot of people here come from a standing position of "club done wrong."

There's no changing that - I'm just pointing out it's obviously deliberate and they have exactly what they planned to have.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

I have to agree. I feel so sad with Hamill. Show more than potential but unfortunately more than one head knock too many.

I don't get this reasoning with the de-listing of Hamill. If there is so much risk for him playing AFL, why is he still playing in the 2nd's? Surely there is as much risk of further concussion at that level.

 

[1970crow]

That doesn't make it the right decision just because by your logic "they say so"

that is generally the length and breadth of his arguments though.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

I don't get this reasoning with the de-listing of Hamill. If there is so much risk for him playing AFL, why is he still playing in the 2nd's? Surely there is as much risk of further concussion at that level.

I agree and should not have singled him out. I am just worried with his long-term health with what we know about concussion now. I actually rate him as a player. I suppose his doctor's advice suggest he is ok to play. Also, the rules in place now make it better for a player to continue a playing career.
One of my mates who played league at Woodville year ago tells me of the hits they had back in the day. There would be a lot of players rubbed out and perhaps face the courts from what he saw and treatment he received back then.

 

[George Kramer]

I think it's hard to make the case that they don't have enough list spots when they have the number of list spots that they want, and the exact number to do what they want to do.

You can make a case that they've erred if they now don't move a player on their final year to the rookie list, or they don't do a decent trade.

I think you want to argue that they should have more list spots. Whiich is fine, but that's just a debate where your perspective is the club is making wrong decisions - and they may be, but they're not making them accidentally.

You’ve just done it again. The issue is we don’t agree with what they’ve done, neither do you, you said you wouldn’t have kept Sloane. But you’re continuing to try and defend their opinion. Why? You don’t agree with it.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You’ve just done it again. The issue is we don’t agree with what they’ve done, neither do you, you said you wouldn’t have kept Sloane. But you’re continuing to try and defend their opinion. Why? You don’t agree with it.

You realise you are going around circles...

 

[George Kramer]

You realise you are going around circles...

Yes, hence the “you’ve done it again”.

Perhaps you should tag in Mostyn and let him know too

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yes, hence the “you’ve done it again”.

Perhaps you should tag in Mostyn and let him know too

No, as I have had enough of the circle work as have heard it all before!

 

[George Kramer]

No, as I have had enough of the circle work as have heard it all before!

And yet you’ve jumped in to pick me up but not him, that seems reasonable ….

 

[Mostyn]

You’ve just done it again. The issue is we don’t agree with what they’ve done, neither do you, you said you wouldn’t have kept Sloane. But you’re continuing to try and defend their opinion. Why? You don’t agree with it.

No, the issue is you want to turn EVERY discussion into attacks on keeping Sloane.

If I'm honest, I just find it boring.

You started this wanting to talk about whether we have enough list spots. But it seems you really just wanted to talk again about not cutting Sloane.

FFS, at this point I think you need to get over it. He's staying. I wouldn't have done it - but I can understand why people do things different to me.

You're trying to find reasons why keeping Sloane is wrong. But this isn't one of them because, with him on the list, we still have the list spots for them to do what they want.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

And yet you’ve jumped in to pick me up but not him, that seems reasonable ….

Yeah, I'm sick of the repetitive posting.

You have made your point.

We got it the 1st time!

 

[George Kramer]

No, the issue is you want to turn EVERY discussion into a Sloane witch hunt.

It's boring.

You started this wanting to talk about whether we have enough list spots. But it seems you really just wanted to talk again about not cutting Sloane.

FFS, at this point I think you need to get over it. He's staying. I wouldn't have done it - but I can understand why people do things different to me.

You're trying to find reasons why keeping Sloane is wrong. But this isn't one of them because, with him on the list, we still have the list spots for them to do what they want.

Kane McGoodwin here you go…..

 

[Alwaysacrow]

I agree and should not have singled him out. I am just worried with his long-term health with what we know about concussion now. I actually rate him as a player. I suppose his doctor's advice suggest he is ok to play. Also, the rules in place now make it better for a player to continue a playing career.
One of my mates who played league at Woodville year ago tells me of the hits they had back in the day. There would be a lot of players rubbed out and perhaps face the courts from what he saw and treatment he received back then.

It would be a shame if his career was cut short. I've watched him in the reserves and he has some serious pace when he chooses to use it.

 

[Mostyn]

Yeah, I'm sick of the repetitive posting.

You have made your point.

We got it the 1st time!

I'm happy to delete any of my posts, and don't need to say anymore on it.