News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood

[RossFC]

He’s gone, it’s over, time to move on. I’m a strong believer in footy karma. Hoping he’s matched up with SPP round one.

Footy karma in this case means everyone gets sacked. Houston was contracted.

 

[Schulzenfest]

We stood our ground with Nick Stevens, and the whole AFL world shuddered. Woo, Hoo!

Yeah and what happened the year after that?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Its going round in circles as this point has already been made many times but being desperate to get in to this draft yet trading out our first to secure Esava is just absolutely ridiculous.

 

[pstew2dstew]

I am 100% pissed at the Houston trade.

Playing devils advocate here, did it really matter in the end since we had what seems a decent draft haul?

For me I soothed my anger by convincing myself that Houston straight swap for Luko was a fair trade and the rest is just background fluff.

 

[portly]

I'm OK with what we got for a 28yo.

 

[Tibbs]

Yeah and what happened the year after that?

So are you saying, if we kept Houston, the Great Ken Hinkley would have taken us to the grand final next year, winning the premiership, then walk out onto the ground pulling his tie, saying: "You were wrong Bigfooty"?

Bugga!

 

[malcheski]

We are NOT Geelong mate! The non-Vic clubs will always find it a bigger challenge - that sadly is the reality.

Secondly, his returning to Victoria was for a relationship reason, not because he wanted a better deal, or because he wanted more on-field opportunities, or wanted to close to mummy and daddy - Like the ones you mention! I am all for the club showing humanity in working with the player to get a deal done when it comes to his wife, partner, or children. These things go beyond football.

Thirdly you say the Luko deal could have been done in isolation. Of course it could, but we wanted their #13 pick, North Melbourne had an offer for it too, but GC wanted Noble, and we wanted Richards, and Collingwood wanted Houston! If you think that all those deals could get done in isolation, then I have an island I want to sell to you - going cheap!

Finally, everyone knew that this was going to be a great draft. If we had to get "unders" for Houston, then it had to be this year. Next year, he gets even cheaper, and the currency we get for him will get us a 50/50 nothing player. This was factored in by our drafting team, get the deal done, knowing we would et good players in return - and we have.

The pants-p!ssing by you and others here has just been ridiculous. Keeping Houston just plays into Hinkley's and Koch's hands the next few years, by have us hang around the top-8, delivering nothing in finals. I am far happier with us getting rid of the player that wants to go, and replacing him with a whole bunch of young players that will play a role in setting us up beyond Hinkley.

So either we were incompetent this year, or incompetent last year considering we traded this years first round for Soldo/Ratugolea but were happy to be bent over with Houston to get back into a draft we were more than happy to exit less than 12 months prior.

 

[Tibbs]

Berry and Whitlock turning out to be the next Robbie Gray and Ben King would just mean we lucked out and the drafting team saved Cripps' ass.

It's still a terrible trade on an objective value.

Ok, so what exactly was the "objective value" of Houston?
*An AA player
*An elite distributor
*Has a kick that is a weapon
*Well-loved by supporters & teammates

But what HAS to be taken into consideration is the objective value in the debit column:
*He wanted out for strong personal reasons
*He would be 28 y/o in 2025, with diminished value when this circus happens again next year - And it would have
*He then dicked the club around, flopping from club to club
*He finally settles for a club with little currency to spend
*His deal ties in with others that we urgently need done
*There was no strong market for him, with no other club jumping in with competing offers

Then we have the "subjective issues" that the recruiters would have def considered:
*Any deleterious affect on him and/or the team by keeping him
*If he was injured or has a crap year, he would lose all value
*This was a great draft year, any "loss" from losing him could potential be offset by drafting players that would set us up for the next decade.
*Next year's draft is weak, and is highly compromised

What has happened is that many supporters here have lost all objectivity IMO.

Finally, I just hate the idea of stubbornly keeping Houston, and for what? So that he could bolster the team for another shite year at the Ken Hinkley FC?

No thanks!

 

[Scodges]

If Houston was playing for another club & wanted to be traded to Port, would you all be fine in giving up two first rounders if we had them ? I’d like an honest answer to all who think we got shafted.

 

[SureBuddy]

If Houston was playing for another club & wanted to be traded to Port, would you all be fine in giving up two first rounders if we had them ? I’d like an honest answer to all who think we got shafted.

Absolutely not.

 

[Scodges]

Absolutely not.

Me either.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[240volt]

Sadly Port deals with clubs that do not have the draft capital to fully satisfy us.

If any of our better players wanted to leave in the future we would get a better return if they are out of contract.


AFL comp picks would be better than what the dills running things could ever get.
Pity if Butters wants to leave one day and go to a club that has no capital.
We will just have to take what ever they offer and stfu.
Somebody has to lose.

 

[Chachi]

If Houston was playing for another club & wanted to be traded to Port, would you all be fine in giving up two first rounders if we had them ? I’d like an honest answer to all who think we got shafted.

Not for a hbf in the draft just gone.

 

[Chachi]

Yeah and what happened the year after that?

There's absolutely zero correlation between the two.

 

[VineValerian]

Ok, so what exactly was the "objective value" of Houston?
*An AA player
*An elite distributor
*Has a kick that is a weapon
*Well-loved by supporters & teammates

But what HAS to be taken into consideration is the objective value in the debit column:
*He wanted out for strong personal reasons
*He would be 28 y/o in 2025, with diminished value when this circus happens again next year - And it would have
*He then dicked the club around, flopping from club to club
*He finally settles for a club with little currency to spend
*His deal ties in with others that we urgently need done
*There was no strong market for him, with no other club jumping in with competing offers

Then we have the "subjective issues" that the recruiters would have def considered:
*Any deleterious affect on him and/or the team by keeping him
*If he was injured or has a crap year, he would lose all value
*This was a great draft year, any "loss" from losing him could potential be offset by drafting players that would set us up for the next decade.
*Next year's draft is weak, and is highly compromised

What has happened is that many supporters here have lost all objectivity IMO.

Lost objectivity because they are disillusioned, fed up, angry and stultified by the inertia of the club with regards to on-field events.
Not hard for supporters to lose equanimity of opinions when they're treated like manure.

 

[JimmyBC]

The worst thing about this trade is the precedent it sets, if anyone else in or out of contract wants out they'll know they can get to the 'glamour' clubs in Melbourne because we always deal and bend over.

 

[Jonts]

Strong o

Ok, so what exactly was the "objective value" of Houston?
*An AA player
*An elite distributor
*Has a kick that is a weapon
*Well-loved by supporters & teammates

But what HAS to be taken into consideration is the objective value in the debit column:
*He wanted out for strong personal reasons
*He would be 28 y/o in 2025, with diminished value when this circus happens again next year - And it would have
*He then dicked the club around, flopping from club to club
*He finally settles for a club with little currency to spend
*His deal ties in with others that we urgently need done
*There was no strong market for him, with no other club jumping in with competing offers

Then we have the "subjective issues" that the recruiters would have def considered:
*Any deleterious affect on him and/or the team by keeping him
*If he was injured or has a crap year, he would lose all value
*This was a great draft year, any "loss" from losing him could potential be offset by drafting players that would set us up for the next decade.
*Next year's draft is weak, and is highly compromised

What has happened is that many supporters here have lost all objectivity IMO.

Finally, I just hate the idea of stubbornly keeping Houston, and for what? So that he could bolster the team for another shite year at the Ken Hinkley FC?

No thanks!

Strong personal reasons?

It was for a partner of less than 18 months
No kids
No illness

Carn

Dunkley and Gibbs went for more if not the same 12 months later when they ended up leaving too. That's before you mention as of next year clubs have 2 years use of futures to trade

Luko and Richards could've been done 100% without Houston bring traded.

I want the club to do well out of the trade but to say many supporters have lost all objectivity when you're sprouting the above is hilarious

Hell there is a world where port held firm and used pick 29(the Atkins pick) on Whitlock and we are doing cartwheels claiming we got the guy we wanted if we traded Houston

 

[MALTSY]

So can we all agree that the trade was crap but our drafting was sound?

 

[El_Scorcho]

There's absolutely zero correlation between the two.

Oh but there is. We're a meek, loser club now. Back then we weren't. It affects everything we do.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If Houston was playing for another club & wanted to be traded to Port, would you all be fine in giving up two first rounders if we had them ? I’d like an honest answer to all who think we got shafted.

Yes. Either a single pick in the 5-8 range or 2 picks in the teens, absolutely.

We just gave up what could be a top 10 pick for Lukosius. We gave up a first round pick for Soldo and Ratugolea.

2 picks in the teens aren't worth more than the league's best attacking halfback in his prime. Picks in the teens are a crap shoot. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Berry and Richards might be awesome or they might never amount to anything.

 

[Schulzenfest]

So can we all agree that the trade was crap but our drafting was sound?

Our drafting isn't anything yet. Berry and Whitlock have never even taken the field wearing our jumper, yet alone proven themselves to be astute draft choices.

 

[Tibbs]

Our drafting isn't anything yet. Berry and Whitlock have never even taken the field wearing our jumper, yet alone proven themselves to be astute draft choices.

This is a sh!t take ... Why bother with the this crap then? EVERY single draftee hasnt proven themselves yet, including the No 1 pick ... yet clubs have emptied their lists and staked everything on selections ... Its all one huge fricking raffle.

We bloody pay a damn team of professionals to watch these players years in advance to get to the point of the draft and pick the best available.

I just shake my head!

 

[MALTSY]

Our drafting isn't anything yet. Berry and Whitlock have never even taken the field wearing our jumper, yet alone proven themselves to be astute draft choices.

Yes, but isn’t that the case with every club who drafts untried young talent? On the evidence available at the time, Im comfortable that our draft selections were sound. Im not fussed by our selections at all.
I am, however still dirty that we caved in with the Houston trade and don’t believe he is as replaceable as some suggest.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

The worst thing about this trade is the precedent it sets, if anyone else in or out of contract wants out they'll know they can get to the 'glamour' clubs in Melbourne because we always deal and bend over.

Especially with Bergman and Butters possibly looking to head home.

 

[rogerjames]

We are NOT Geelong mate! The non-Vic clubs will always find it a bigger challenge - that sadly is the reality.

Secondly, his returning to Victoria was for a relationship reason, not because he wanted a better deal, or because he wanted more on-field opportunities, or wanted to close to mummy and daddy - Like the ones you mention! I am all for the club showing humanity in working with the player to get a deal done when it comes to his wife, partner, or children. These things go beyond football.

Thirdly you say the Luko deal could have been done in isolation. Of course it could, but we wanted their #13 pick, North Melbourne had an offer for it too, but GC wanted Noble, and we wanted Richards, and Collingwood wanted Houston! If you think that all those deals could get done in isolation, then I have an island I want to sell to you - going cheap!

Finally, everyone knew that this was going to be a great draft. If we had to get "unders" for Houston, then it had to be this year. Next year, he gets even cheaper, and the currency we get for him will get us a 50/50 nothing player. This was factored in by our drafting team, get the deal done, knowing we would et good players in return - and we have.

The pants-p!ssing by you and others here has just been ridiculous. Keeping Houston just plays into Hinkley's and Koch's hands the next few years, by have us hang around the top-8, delivering nothing in finals. I am far happier with us getting rid of the player that wants to go, and replacing him with a whole bunch of young players that will play a role in setting us up beyond Hinkley.

Fair.