News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood

[JimmyBC]

We got unders but ask yourself if you'd pay 2 first rounders for a half back flanker.. I reckon this board would melt if we did.

 

[Chewy316]

Okay

We accepted massive unders to the point where we're only competing with the Bulldogs for the worst performing club in the trade period according to basically everyone who has an opinion on the matter.

The question now is why?

Davies and Cripps effectively dodged the question when asked, so we have to speculate based on the information we have available to us.

The inside info that we had (from you, and I have no question that you have a high level contact) in the lead up to the trade was saying all the right things about not accepting a bad deal, but we did, so what are the internal machinations within the club that led to that happening? Was it a purely Davies and Cripps call, was the board involved, is the board frustrated with the return etc etc etc

Do we have a situation where your source is being fed misinformation? Wouldn't shock me with this club, they always work the hardest to be insular and block out alternative opinions. You can't give us this info an expect us to not speculate about it, especially when it doesn't pay off.

I too can only speculate on their absolute thought process.

My best guess based on the information I've been provided in conjunction with my own interpretation of the events is this:

• They went into the trade period with a plan hoping for a bidding war particular between Collingwood and Carlton, whom, given their rivalry, could significantly bring the price up.
• It doesn't seem as though Carlton ever showed significant interest, and once Collingwood entered the frame, Carlton more or less backed off and went about their business to acquire pick 3 instead.
• North were always in the background but Houston never seriously entertained going there. My guess is that Port wanted to drag the deal out for as long as possible, which could have potentially brought North into play late on if Houston got desperate. Discussions between North and Port early in trade week revealed that North were willing to split pick 2, possibly dropping to somewhere between picks 5 and 9 to help facilitate a deal. This to my knowledge never gained traction because North couldn't find anyone to trade down with (outside of Carlton and their picks were too far down for North's liking), and was abandoned once Melbourne acquired Essendon's pick 9.
• Port saw this year's draft as of immense talent and significant depth. Up to 35 players who would be sure fire first rounders in your run of the mill annual draft.
• They also have significant concerns about the upcoming drafts due to the overwhelming number of academy selections in next year's draft, followed by the draft concessions which will be given to the new Tasmanian expansion club. So if they didn't get into this year's draft, they likely won't have the same opportunity for the foreseeable future.
• Once the deal was outlined on the Monday afternoon, Cripps, CD and the rest of the footy committee had a meeting to discuss it. The consensus to my knowledge was that everyone thought it was unders, but they also saw what the future drafts looked like and so could understand the merit in acquiring a number of picks now. The decision was left in the hands of Cripps and CD. Sam Edmund reported that the Board got involved on the Monday night, but this was unfounded. The Board never got involved and I suspect that he has got his wires mixed up because multiple members on the Board (Cardone, Snowdon and Tredrea) are on the footy committee.
• CD and Cripps that night agreed to try to get more out of the deal the next morning.

The details of what happened on the Tuesday morning I've outlined in previous posts so don't see the need to rehash it.

Lastly, Dan has said in one of his many media interviews that he told Ken mid-year that he wanted to leave, and that Ken said Port would abide by the request. I want to know the machinations of this, as in, 1) did Houston request a trade directly to Ken rather than Cripps or CD? 2) Did Ken give permission for Houston to leave prior to speaking with Cripps and CD? 3) If point 2 is correct, could this have potentially impacted the position Port was negotiating from?

We got unders but ask yourself if you'd pay 2 first rounders for a half back flanker.. I reckon this board would melt if we did.

Pretty much this. If we keep Houston's circumstances the same in terms of contract and performance whilst changing his position to be a KPP, I don't think Port would have even entertained a deal.

If they were going to lose a player on the list, he's probably the best one to lose given the young prospects coming through at that position in combination with the fact it's the easiest position to plug and play in the modern game.

 

[johnnysix]

The reality is, picks have different value draft to draft and club to club. Some of the clubs in Victoria with draft or player capital to do a deal valued the draft highly and clearly so do we. Can't compare the deals Richmond got. Can't compare other years. Also, you keep Houston, you do run the risk of getting even less value next season as he's another year older, another year of unknown performance, a lower quality draft and other clubs perhaps being unwilling to trade anything but futures with Tasmania coming in the year after. It's all about context.

 

[sobrave]

As much as people don't wanna face it HBF's are not the most coveted players even if he is the best one in the comp, you couldn't even get Vossy to put enough pressure on for Carlton to make a serious play & he has history with Dan.

They've already got Saad who plays pretty much the same role, with a bit more run but worse kicking.

 

[Us against the rest]

As far as I now know, apart from Melbourne, no other club had 2 first round draft picks to offer us for Dan. The ones interested in him anyway. Seems all clubs, including us wanted to be in this draft & holding on to picks. We could have held him to his contract, but na. He’s now 28 with 30 coming around fast . He’d wanna keep himself in really good nick to keep going. Apart from a good kick, he really wasn’t anything we can’t replace. Farrell, Burton & even Sinn are good kicks so there’s that. We’ve got a pretty good hand now in this years draft. Time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It does make you wonder if Houston knew from round 1 in the season that he wanted out, so yeah hence the good season.

If he had stayed he might have fell away on field and become Mr average, yes a good kick but his position is not a difficult position to cover and who knows, if we had held him to his contract it may have back fired with his attitude to to his on field performance.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

There is a world where Farrell takes over Dan's role and there is little to no transition problems at all.

 

[Duck Farmer]

He's oversharing because he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[sobrave]

I too can only speculate on their absolute thought process.

My best guess based on the information I've been provided in conjunction with my own interpretation of the events is this:

• They went into the trade period with a plan hoping for a bidding war particular between Collingwood and Carlton, whom, given their rivalry, could significantly bring the price up.
• It doesn't seem as though Carlton ever showed significant interest, and once Collingwood entered the frame, Carlton more or less backed off and went about their business to acquire pick 3 instead.
• North were always in the background but Houston never seriously entertained going there. My guess is that Port wanted to drag the deal out for as long as possible, which could have potentially brought North into play late on if Houston got desperate. Discussions between North and Port early in trade week revealed that North were willing to split pick 2, possibly dropping to somewhere between picks 5 and 9 to help facilitate a deal. This to my knowledge never gained traction because North couldn't find anyone to trade down with (outside of Carlton and their picks were too far down for North's liking), and was abandoned once Melbourne acquired Essendon's pick 9.
• Port saw this year's draft as of immense talent and significant depth. Up to 35 players who would be sure fire first rounders in your run of the mill annual draft.
• They also have significant concerns about the upcoming drafts due to the overwhelming number of academy selections in next year's draft, followed by the draft concessions which will be given to the new Tasmanian expansion club. So if they didn't get into this year's draft, they likely won't have the same opportunity for the foreseeable future.
• Once the deal was outlined on the Monday afternoon, Cripps, CD and the rest of the footy committee had a meeting to discuss it. The consensus to my knowledge was that everyone thought it was unders, but they also saw what the future drafts looked like and so could understand the merit in acquiring a number of picks now. The decision was left in the hands of Cripps and CD. Sam Edmund reported that the Board got involved on the Monday night, but this was unfounded. The Board never got involved and I suspect that he has got his wires mixed up because multiple members on the Board (Cardone, Snowdon and Tredrea) are on the footy committee.
• CD and Cripps that night agreed to try to get more out of the deal the next morning.

The details of what happened on the Tuesday morning I've outlined in previous posts so don't see the need to rehash it.

Lastly, Dan has said in one of his many media interviews that he told Ken mid-year that he wanted to leave, and that Ken said Port would abide by the request. I want to know the machinations of this, as in, 1) did Houston request a trade directly to Ken rather than Cripps or CD? 2) Did Ken give permission for Houston to leave prior to speaking with Cripps and CD? 3) If point 2 is correct, could this have potentially impacted the position Port was negotiating from?



Pretty much this. If we keep Houston's circumstances the same in terms of contract and performance whilst changing his position to be a KPP, I don't think Port would have even entertained a deal.

If they were going to lose a player on the list, he's probably the best one to lose given the young prospects coming through at that position in combination with the fact it's the easiest position to plug and play in the modern game.

This feels like it's getting towards Janus territory. Using Occam's razor, it seems far more likely that the club is just a bunch of pissweak cucks, and we took over and copped it because CD is trying to get to Collingwood anyway.

If the draft is amazing, why did we trade out our first last year to get duds like soldo and ratagolea?

Our strategy has constantly been to try and fill missing pieces of Kenny's puzzle, ignoring that Kenny doesn't have the mental capabilities for a game for tic tac toe, let alone completing a jigsaw.

 

[Duck Farmer]

… Langer Three D¡cks.

Explains why the info is as reliable as a Port player trying to keep their feet when changing direction on a 99% dry deck.

 

[Tibbs]

This feels like it's getting towards Janus territory. Using Occam's razor, it seems far more likely that the club is just a bunch of pissweak cucks, and we took over and copped it because CD is trying to get to Collingwood anyway.

If the draft is amazing, why did we trade out our first last year to get duds like soldo and ratagolea?

Our strategy has constantly been to try and fill missing pieces of Kenny's puzzle, ignoring that Kenny doesn't have the mental capabilities for a game for tic tac toe, let alone completing a jigsaw.

Stupid post really. The first paragraph is emotive claptrap. We might be fed up with the people mentioned, but c'mon, every point is just wrong!

The second ... Hello! Does anyone really know we might have a super draft in 18months time? Use a bit of common sense!

The third. We are on record saying that Port dont want to bottom out, and take years to rebuild. So the strategy is to follow the Geebung method of plug & play. Get over it! As for Kenny ... yeah we know his limitations. The sooner gone the better.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Port saw this year's draft as of immense talent and significant depth. Up to 35 players who would be sure fire first rounders in your run of the mill annual draft.

If true everyone involved in the Esava trade should be sacked immediately. Makes your blood boil to think that if they thought this they gave our best chance away for a depth Cat.

 

[JimmyBC]

The third. We are on record saying that Port dont want to bottom out, and take years to rebuild. So the strategy is to follow the Geebung method of plug & play. Get over it! As for Kenny ... yeah we know his limitations. The sooner gone the better.

This 're-tooling on the run' crap could look mighty drab in a few years time, a middling to above average mediocre finals team while Richmond may thrive after scooping up 5 thousand top 20 draft picks before the Tasmania issue.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Stupid post really. The first paragraph is emotive claptrap. We might be fed up with the people mentioned, but c'mon, every point is just wrong!

The second ... Hello! Does anyone really know we might have a super draft in 18months time? Use a bit of common sense!

The third. We are on record saying that Port dont want to bottom out, and take years to rebuild. So the strategy is to follow the Geebung method of plug & play. Get over it! As for Kenny ... yeah we know his limitations. The sooner gone the better.

I mean... obviously yes.

Keep in mind we are trading out of next years draft because we think its weak... the exact same period of time away from it as we were when we traded out this years first.