News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood

[El_Scorcho]

Throwing his toys out of the pram, being disruptive and being unprofessional would be an excellent way to describe his behaviour towards club officials during the trade period.

I'm glad he's gone.

Sure, but he did it in the heat of trade period knowing we were soft and we'd crack.

If we held firm he would have shown up to training and played another AA level season at halfback in a Port jumper in 2025.

 

[El_Scorcho]

History is littered with players being held to their contracts. We most noticeably have been bent over thrice in three seasons, with Geelong keeping Ratugolea, then still making out like bandits even though he was uncontracted!! and now Houston.

We are the Port Adelaide Cucks at the trade table, everyone gets a turn with our players/picks.

I forgot about Ratugolea, another example of Geelong holding firm and losing absolutely nothing because of it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Th other day when I looked up the 2024 AFL draft wiki page to see what trades were done on 2nd draft night, as the AFL website is shithouse on giving the info, I noticed the Houston trade in full.

It got me thinking, what did we really get for Houston and what did we really pay for Lukosius and for taking on Atkins' salary dump.

The combined deal was:

Collingwood	Collingwood
In	Out
Houston, #58	Noble, Richards, #36, F1
Gold Coast	Gold Coast
In	Out
Noble, #39, F1 Port, F1 Coll	Lukosius, Atkins, #13, #29, #50
Port Adelaide	Port Adelaide
In	Out
Lukosius, Richards, Atkins,	Houston,
#13, #29, #36, #50	#39, #58, F1

So if you try and distill this down from Port's POV.

Houston out we effectively got 13 + F1 Coll - we wanted 2 first round picks for Houston

Richards + 36 in for 39+58 - which means Richards effectively cost us pick 58 when you eliminate picks 36 and 39 swap.

That is about right for Richards a late rd 3 pick/ early 4th rd pick, given pick 54 is the 3rd round pick for the premiers if there are no compo picks for player free agency, or gifts to Norf from the AFL.

Lukosius + Atkins + 29 + 50 in for F1 Port + F1 Collingwood

I reckon the right way to look at this is;

Lukosius + 29 for F1 Port + F1 Collingwood

Reports were that GC were prepared to take a 2nd round pick for Lukosius. If you say the 2 future picks will be 10 and 14 the draft value index says the difference between 29 vs 10+14 is the equivalent of pick 5.

Port probably will say that not all of Collingwood's F1 is for Lukosius to soften the trade.

Atkins + 50 in to take his $500k salary dump.

But if you say Lukosius +29 + 50 + Atkins for F1 Port + F1 Collingwood then it looks like we gave up pick 8 for Lukosius.

Looking at this way the trade was for Houston wasn't as bad as I thought at the time. Yes I wanted more for Houston and didn't want to take RAtkins. Its the Lukosius component where we probably got screwed the most.

Using picks 13+29+39 on 3 players that look like they could really help us, softens the blow a bit.

 

[melanChronic]

Th other day when I looked up the 2024 AFL draft wiki page to see what trades were done on 2nd draft night, as the AFL website is shithouse on giving the info, I noticed the Houston trade in full.

It got me thinking, what did we really get for Houston and what did we really pay for Lukosius and for taking on Atkins' salary dump.

The combined deal was:

Collingwood	Collingwood
In	Out
Houston, #58	Noble, Richards, #36, F1
Gold Coast	Gold Coast
In	Out
Noble, #39, F1 Port, F1 Coll	Lukosius, Atkins, #13, #29, #50
Port Adelaide	Port Adelaide
In	Out
Lukosius, Richards, Atkins,	Houston,
#13, #29, #36, #50	#39, #58, F1

So if you try and distill this down from Port's POV.

Houston out we effectively got 13 + F1 Coll - we wanted 2 first round picks for Houston

Richards + 36 in for 39+58 - which means Richards effectively cost us pick 58 when you eliminate picks 36 and 39 swap.

That is about right for Richards a late rd 3 pick/ early 4th rd pick, given pick 54 is the 3rd round pick for the premiers if there are no compo picks for player free agency, or gifts to Norf from the AFL.

Lukosius + Atkins + 13 + 29 + 50 in for F1 Port + F1 Collingwood

I reckon the right way to look at this is;

Lukosius +13 + 29 for F1 Port + F1 Collingwood

Reports were that GC were prepared to take a 2nd round pick for Lukosius. If you say the 2 future picks will be 10 and 14 the draft value index says the difference between 13+29 vs 10+14 is pick 28 (691 pts difference) ie a 2nd Rd pick.

Atkins + 50 in to take his $500k salary dump.

Looking at this way the trade for Houston wasn't as bad as I thought at the time. Yes I wanted more for Houston and didn't want to take RAtkins but it wasn't a complete disaster as I first thought it was.

Using picks 13+29+39 on 3 players that look like they could really help us, softens the blow a bit.

Pretty sure you've double counted 13 there. You can't say we got it as one of two first rounders for Houston and then also say we got it alongside Lukosious for two future firsts.

Which makes sense, because I always felt the whole deal was missing a late first/early second to make it somewhat consumerate to losing Houston.

Whichever way you spin it, we got toasted in the trade.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Pretty sure you've double counted 13 there. You can't say we got it as one of two first rounders for Houston and then also say we got it alongside Lukosious for two future firsts.

Which makes sense, because I always felt the whole deal was missing a late first/early second to make it somewhat consumerate to losing Houston.

Whichever way you spin it, we got toasted in the trade.

Ok thanks I will correct my post. So the Lukosius deal is the poorer end of the bargin.

 

[Brian McGee]

A simpler way of breaking it down is:

13, 29 and Richards for Houston.
Future first for lukosious.
Upgraded 58 to 50 and 39 to 36 for taking on Atkins salary.

All of the above fit into reasonably positive trades for us. In an ideal world that 29 would have been late teens or early 20’s, or we wouldn’t have had to give up our future first for lukosious but I am not as frustrated at the trade anymore as I was when it went through.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A simpler way of breaking it down is:

13, 29 and Richards for Houston.
Future first for lukosious.
Upgraded 58 to 50 and 39 to 36 for taking on Atkins salary.

All of the above fit into reasonably positive trades for us. In an ideal world that 29 would have been late teens or early 20’s, or we wouldn’t have had to give up our future first for lukosious but I am not as frustrated at the trade anymore as I was when it went through.

Collingwood gave up a F1 for Houston. If we got 13+10 for Houston as a stand alone deal we would have accepted it.

But to get Lukosius, we had to give up a decent chunk of that pick 10's value, plus our F1. Which is what I first thought when I saw the full trade the other day. But in my initial post before melanChronic picked up I double counted 13, the Lukosius deal looked ok. I was wrong then when i correct it, my first thoughts from the other day were confirmed.

 

[afl2004]

Rat polled B&F votes in 19 games last year. He’s a role player. All casual fans see is a dropped mark or an errant kick but there’s a lot more to it.

LOL CARRNNNNN

 

[Scodges]

If Berry and Whitlock become guns, imagine how well we might have done with the extra first round pick we should have gotten for Houston. The trade doesn't suddenly become a good trade because we nailed our picks.

We were never ever getting two first rounders, especially not in this years draft. I recon Melbourne were full of shit too, as if anyone was going to part with two firsts for a 28 year halfback with a good kick.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Scodges]

Sure, but he did it in the heat of trade period knowing we were soft and we'd crack.

If we held firm he would have shown up to training and played another AA level season at halfback in a Port jumper in 2025.

Or he could have stunk it up real bad.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Tibbs]

What about when say, Geelong held firm on Tim Kelly and still got an excellent deal the following season with no damage to their culture at all? What about when Sydney held Papley to his contract and he ended up signing a new one?

Houston would have gotten over it and played as normal. The idea that he would have thrown his toys out of the pram and been disruptive is silly. He's a professional. You don't have to let players with 3 years on their deal go for unders.

Also, I don't believe for a second that we're missing out on Luko for a future first. We could have gotten that deal over the line independently of the Houston deal if that was our sole focus.

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.

 

[JimmyBC]

FOR A RELATIONSHIP!! HUMANITY!!

 

[Tibbs]

FOR A RELATIONSHIP!! HUMANITY!!

Strange concepts to you?

 

[JimmyBC]

Strange concepts to you?

LOVES THE CLUB!!

 

[Schulzenfest]

What about when Sydney held firm on an uncontracted Ryan O'Keefe requesting a trade to Hawthorn, ROK ended up deciding to stay, and then won a god damn Norm Smith medal in an GF against god damn Hawthorn?

Anyone who thinks we had 'no choice' is an even bigger cuck than Cripps & Davies.

 

[El_Scorcho]

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

Sydney aren't Geelong either, and they kept Papley and he remains a key part of their side 5 years later, having won an AA guernsey and led their goalkicking 2 more times.

If we keep acting like we're a poor little loser club we'll keep being a poor little loser club, this is exactly the point.

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.

Why did Tim Kelly want to go back to WA again?

Did holding onto Tim Kelly for a year hurt them even one bit?

We very easily could have set a minimum standard for what we'd accept and refused to even enter into any negotiation below that. Instead Houston and Collingwood (and Gold Coast) sensed that we were weak and tightened the screws until we panicked and accepted a poor deal. Clubs turn down trade requests all the time, and that's without 3 years on his deal like we had with Houston.

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!

Not worried about any of the other deals. If we didn't let Gold Coast get swept up in the rest of the deal and made the Luko deal a straight swap, they 100% accept our F1. It was overs as it was for their player with a huge contract who they didn't want.

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.

He doesn't lose value next year. He's still a 2xAA player in his prime and he's still got multiple years of his contract left. He definitely doesn't lose enough value to make it work taking unders this year.

We don't know if we've got any good players in return. We have 18 year olds who could be anything or nothing and a 25yo who has kicked 6 goals in 9 games at AFL level.

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.

It's not about keeping Houston, everyone is replaceable. I'm not complaining about getting young players, and i'm very happy with our draft. It's about not demonstrating to the league that we'll let you take our stars off us for unders because we'll panic when it comes down to it. Remember there are rumours surrounding Butters and Bergman leaving over the next few years.

When everyone grading the draft calls the Houston trade a significant loss for us, you know we did bad. It's not just whinging Port supporters, neutrals all think we got killed and that GC and Collingwood made out like bandits. No amount of calling me a pants pisser makes this a good trade sorry. You can look on the bright side and be excited about Berry and Whitlock and that's fine, but arguing that we didn't lose the trade is just giving Davies his team a free pass they don't deserve.

 

[Tibbs]

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

Houston IS a loss .. But the net result is a gain. Just effing move on!

 

[Expat power]

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.

 

[jac147]

Just effing move on!

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Yeah look it was a horrendous trade but at the end of the day we're still stuck with Hinkley next year so having or not having Becky was never gonna make any sort of difference - it will just be another groundhog day waste of time season. If we assume that we finally get rid of Hinkley at the end of 2025, 2026 will probably be a transitional season before we can even think of competing again in 2027. By that time Dan will be 30 and who knows how much he will fall off in the next couple of years. It was a shockingly bad trade, maybe even one of the worst in modern history, but as a club the end result probably won't be that different to keeping him so let's all move on.

 

[Chachi]

We did the Houston trade because we wanted to get into this draft. If it was a regular draft who knows what we would have done, it's all a matter of opinion.

We got Berry and Whitlock (and Richards) as a result, I suspect we would have taken Whitlock if our second pick was higher in any case.

Irrespective, we'll have a better idea if the trade was good or not in 10 months.

I super excited to see how Berry goes.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

We did the Houston trade because we wanted to get into this draft. If it was a regular draft who knows what we would have done, it's all a matter of opinion.

We got Berry and Whitlock (and Richards) as a result, I suspect we would have taken Whitlock if our second pick was higher in any case.

Irrespective, we'll have a better idea if the trade was good or not in 10 months.

I super excited to see how Berry goes.

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.

 

[Jojay]

The Houston trade (for 13 and 29) was done with the draft in mind. It landed us Berry and Whitlock.

Time will tell, but reckon we have made out like bandits.

 

[Freak Dodgeball Accident]

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.

Spot on. Considering Richmond got 6 and 23 for Rioli and a bunch of 60's or whatever, we could and should have got a lot better. Houston craps all over Rioli in just about every way (Rioli seems like a better bloke though)

 

[Malibu#27]

Spot on. Considering Richmond got 6 and 23 for Rioli and a bunch of 60's or whatever, we could and should have got a lot better. Houston craps all over Rioli in just about every way (Rioli seems like a better bloke though)

Theres a few posts using draft points indexes to determine the merits of the trade, as well as determining players values based on what clubs were rumoured to be after ... I sometimes do the same, but its always fraught with danger as draftr picvks dont have the same value to different teams and the point index doesnt reflect the draft different in picks.

Heres an example of how it can be misleading (assuming current ladder positions remain the same next year, and picks have the same value across the years (which they dont)).

Bolton to Fremantle trade was: Bolton + 14 + F3 (37) for 10, 11, 18.
This suggests Bolton was worth 2055 points, equivalent to pick 4.

Rioli to Gold Coast was: Rioli + 51 + 61 + 70 + 76 for 6 + 23
This suggests Rioli was worth 2133 points, equivalent to pick 4.

Now if we then try to make Houson roughly the equivalent of this in our trade we could do:
Houston for 13 + 29 + 50. Where the points value is 2138 points, making him the highest value of the three players in terms of points, but still worth pick 4. (I dont think any of the three are worth pick 4)

If we were to do that, that leaves Luko + Richards + Atkins + 36 for F1 (16) + 39 + 58

• If you carve off Richards + Atkins for 39 + 58 (which we were not going to use) - it leaves Luko + 36 for F1 (16) meaning Luko cost us pick 33.
• If instead you carve off Richard + Atkins for 58 (which we were not going to use) - it leaves Luko + 36 for F1 (16) + 39 neaning Luko was worth pick 18.
• 
  

Do I think this is a completely accurate reflection of the trade. .. no its not, but its no less accurate than many other ways its been sliced to make an assessment in the posts above. It really all comes down with what elements of the trade you are going to start with as fact, which drives how it comes out... because as soon as one of the 'facts' you start the assessment with is slightly off, the whole assessment blows out of proportion.