This coming from a freo supporter. When we make a blunder of the propotions that you did when you traded McLeod for Chris Groom, then come back and troll but until them keep your trap shut and go back to your board.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Another trade winner
- Thread starter DaveW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 22, 2000
- 62,351
- 41,703
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Ford
Geelong didn't lose anything by getting rid of Ronnie.If anything,it gave players like Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett more game time,which would be beneficial in the long run.
Finnin didn't deserve to be delisted, the kid had talent.
- Oct 5, 2003
- 3,351
- 4
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I mean, I feel for Ben Finnin and al, but we really did well in that deal. I actually thought Finnin had something going for him. Shows how unorthodox the development of young players is.
The Massie deal was in my opinion the best deal the Crows have ever made. Eccles was reasonable, but definitely no Kris Massie.
The Scott Stevens was an excellent trade as well.
The Massie deal was in my opinion the best deal the Crows have ever made. Eccles was reasonable, but definitely no Kris Massie.
The Scott Stevens was an excellent trade as well.
He was a bad choice by the Crows in the first place. Not tall enough to be a tall, not quick enough to be a small. One of those who just don't fit any category at AFL level.
Given that Geelong is in a developmental stage, that makes sense. A bit of short term pain for long term gain.
On the other hand Ronnie did fit where Adelaide was at the time.
Young Ablett is going to be a gun - he really has talent and the footy smarts. He's a pleasure to watch.
True BUT you lost your best small forward at the time and practically got nothing in return for him while still paying half of his wages for the remainder of his contract which means that you paid half of his contract in 2003 and you will still be paying half in 2004.
- Sep 22, 2000
- 62,351
- 41,703
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Ford
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
True BUT you lost your best small forward at the time and practically got nothing in return for him while still paying half of his wages for the remainder of his contract which means that you paid half of his contract in 2003 and you will still be paying half in 2004.
I think someone mentioned Ronnie kicked only 23goals this year.Ablett,Johnson and Chapman all kicked either thesame or more,so that was a bonus for us.
If Ronnie was there,they wouldn't have kicked anywhere near that.
I don't mind us paying Ronnie to play for you.We can watch him ruin the Crows season.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 85,971
- 91,335
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
I think it is fair to say that it was best for both Ronnie & Geelong that they parted their ways. However, Ronnie has proved to be a more than handy acquisition for the Crows in a year when many of our other forwards were injured. The fact that we are getting part of his salary paid for & we gave up virtually nothing in return is a huge bonus.Originally posted by JUBJUB
I think someone mentioned Ronnie kicked only 23goals this year.Ablett,Johnson and Chapman all kicked either thesame or more,so that was a bonus for us.
If Ronnie was there,they wouldn't have kicked anywhere near that.
I don't mind us paying Ronnie to play for you.We can watch him ruin the Crows season.
Portia
#DrewBlood
30k Posts
10k Posts
TheBrownDog
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Podcaster
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon Ah Chee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Oct 7, 2001
- 50,502
- 24,864
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Muckbuckle Dolmens
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 85,971
- 91,335
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
True, but I would prefer to be without rather than having them on our list!
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Yeah but with draft picks from #1-#79 it's a lucky dip...
At the trade table there's somewhat of a form guide to go by.
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Does any one of you young whippersnappers remember when "duds" was slang for 'clothes'?
Ah those were the days... good times
Ah those were the days... good times
Bored are we??????Originally posted by dyertribe
Does any one of you young whippersnappers remember when "duds" was slang for 'clothes'?
Ah those were the days... good times
Yes we did win in that trade. I also agree with the thinking offered by some of the Geelng fans. Losing players does allow others to take more responsibilty and improve.
But what the trade doesn't reveal is what we could've got if we had've drafted some young kid with Burns' spot on the list. We also possibly could've traded Finnin for a draft pick instead.
This is hypothetical, however.
All in all I am quite content with the fact we gambled on Burns. He filled a role for us and wasn't bad at all.
As long as this type of recruiting doesn't happen year after year, though. There are only so many grandpa's one club should recruit.
****
- Thread starter
- #42
Re: Re: Another trade winner
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,531
- 10,644
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
No we traded Kane Johnson to Richmond who gave us their pick four. We also gave up another pick and got Jason Torney.
The fact Carlton were banned from the draft at a later stage changed the whole thing around.
Kane Johnson was always leaving and for us to get pick 4 for him was a good thing whenn you consider what has happened this year
You are simplyfing things to say we traded Wells for Carey.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,531
- 10,644
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
I agree michael stevens
The invisible mullet
Premium Gold
The Crows were probably looking for more in the ND than during the trade period this year.
Re: Re: Re: Another trade winner
Spot on. Why did we go for Shirley and Begley late in the draft? Because by our calculations we didn't think there was no youngster worth taking that late.
Maybe we could've taken Skipworth or Parker in the draft, or Patful or whoever. I think if on the senior list Parker may have slipped in a game or two this year.
Stiffy, you shouldn't be saying there was nothing worth taking in the draft considering the way you rave about Parker. On our list we might have had a better chance to see what he's got and could've played him in the Wizard Cup.
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn.
True but we always wanted to leave one spot available to give us some flexibility later. If we didn't take Burns we could've drafted someone 'some young kid' and still kept one spot free. I'm not saying this would've been a better option but it was an alternative. Burns may very well have kept someone like Parker or Patful off our list last year.
****
Stiffy, you shouldn't be saying there was nothing worth taking in the draft considering the way you rave about Parker. On our list we might have had a better chance to see what he's got and could've played him in the Wizard Cup.
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn.
True but we always wanted to leave one spot available to give us some flexibility later. If we didn't take Burns we could've drafted someone 'some young kid' and still kept one spot free. I'm not saying this would've been a better option but it was an alternative. Burns may very well have kept someone like Parker or Patful off our list last year.
****
There is a big difference between Parker that rocked up to pre-season training at the end of 2002 to the one that finished the 2003 season. Parker of last year wouldn't have guaranteed a selection in the national draft because he was a risky proposition as he was one dimensional. He could go a whole game without getting a possesion, all he did was spoil.
Parker was a player you would take a risk with on your rookie list. This year he has developed his game out of sight. Now its expected of him to get 20 touches a game at CHB. Hell he even racked up 30+ possesion games on a few occasions. When it gets to the bottom end of the draft its a risky business and clubs would rather punt on a player via Rookie List as they would have to pay him half the salary that he would be commanding if he got picked up in the National Draft.
Its a game of $$$, would you pick up a player that is a risky proposition and commit to him for 2 years @ $46K a year or pick him up in the rookie draft for $18K a year?????? I think the answer is obvious
