News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood

[Chewy316]

Not much less, certainly not less enough to have taken the loss we did on this year's trade. This year's trade is the sort of trade you make when the player is out of contract.

So let's say they keep Houston then in 12 months time he wants to go to Collingwood. You're looking at a pick around 10th at best in the first round which would blow out to late teens after F/S and academy selections, and you may get another future 1 which would again likely be a late teens pick given the concessions in the coming drafts with F/S, academy and Tassie from 2027.

Is that a better return than 13, 29 and Richards in what was considered to be a very strong draft?

 

[Willsy10]

This thread has gone around in circles more than a tea cup ride at the show. I’m dizzy.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[El_Scorcho]

So let's say they keep Houston then in 12 months time he wants to go to Collingwood. You're looking at a pick around 10th at best in the first round which would blow out to late teens after F/S and academy selections, and you may get another future 1 which would again likely be a late teens pick given the concessions in the coming drafts with F/S, academy and Tassie from 2027.

Is that a better return than 13, 29 and Richards in what was considered to be a very strong draft?

A 1st and a future 1st is better than what we got this year.

If we don't like what they're offering, Houston still has 2 years on his deal and we're still not forced to trade.

Or if he really wants to go to Victoria he can speak with other clubs who can offer a better package.

And importantly, we don't look like we'll panic at the trade table, we look like a club who will demand value for their contracted stars.

 

[Chewy316]

A 1st and a future 1st is better than what we got this year.

If we don't like what they're offering, Houston still has 2 years on his deal and we're still not forced to trade.

Or if he really wants to go to Victoria he can speak with other clubs who can offer a better package.

And importantly, we don't look like we'll panic at the trade table, we look like a club who will demand value for their contracted stars.

If those picks are in the late teens - given the strength of upcoming drafts is weaker than this year's class, I would suggest that the difference between that and what they actually got (13, 29, 36 and Richards for Houston and 39 in a strong draft) is pretty negligible.

I can understand your position if Houston was a KPP or an on-baller. But he's a half back flanker who isn't a strong defender by any means. Of all the positions on the field, it's the easiest to replace.

Whilst I understand wanting more in the trade, I also consider the position that if you view the team's peak window of contention from 2026-2030, getting young players into the team now may be more beneficial in the long term as opposed to the short term benefits of keeping Houston for the next 1-2 seasons.

 

[DaTBird187]

His family is in Victoria so he still have his Family

I bet sleeping with them is not as enjoyable for him.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Needing a Houston replacement is correct, how did anyone watch our finals series and think getting the ball out of the backline wasn't a problem?

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Houston's replacement is Farrell..

Can kick just as good defends better is younger

And not a ********er

 

[El_Scorcho]

If those picks are in the late teens - given the strength of upcoming drafts is weaker than this year's class, I would suggest that the difference between that and what they actually got (13, 29, 36 and Richards for Houston and 39 in a strong draft) is pretty negligible.

I can understand your position if Houston was a KPP or an on-baller. But he's a half back flanker who isn't a strong defender by any means. Of all the positions on the field, it's the easiest to replace.

Whilst I understand wanting more in the trade, I also consider the position that if you view the team's peak window of contention from 2026-2030, getting young players into the team now may be more beneficial in the long term as opposed to the short term benefits of keeping Houston for the next 1-2 seasons.

I keep hearing about the relatively strengths of the drafts but i'll again note that we didn't consider that when we traded our natural pick in it for Soldo and Ratugolea. Ultimately this may be a superdraft, but we don't know how good Berry, Whitlock or Moraes will be. This board certainly wasn't excited by the draft on day 1 and it was only Whitlock falling to us that has seen us happy with it. What are the chances that we get an AA guernsey out of those 3? What are the chances that any of them play 150+ games? Ultimately pretty low on both counts.

I don't see how we're going to be significantly more primed in 2026-2030 than we will be in 2025 (Hinkley aside, but again, if the footy boss is planning for life after Hinkley, why is he still here?). Our prime movers are all entering their prime years apart from JHF, who will still put in something approaching an AA season next season. Aliir is on the wrong side of 30 though. Who are our KPDs going to be in say, 2027/28?

Maybe if we held off a year we could have used Houston's trade value to bring in a KPD to fill that upcoming hole. Or something else? Player movement will still need to happen over the next few seasons.

Or, we could have just kept the best halfback in the league over the last couple of seasons on our list, and like Sydney with Papley and O'Keefe, encouraged a change of heart and kept hold of him. Dan Houston will be 33 in 2030, hardly impossible that he's still playing given his skillset and role.

My biggest issue with our trade period is that we were weak early, Collingwood, Dan and his manager smelled blood in the water and pounced. We had a superstar with 3 years on his deal, we could have made it very clear early that we expected 2 first round picks or equivalent, and if not, we'll try again next season. Instead we allowed ourselves to get pushed into a position where we accepted a bad deal.

Would Geelong have done this trade? Sydney? Hawthorn?

 

[Tibbs]

This thread has gone around in circles more than a tea cup ride at the show. I’m dizzy.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yep. Agree.

Everyone has an opinion. Fair enough, but in the end it is just our view of things from our standpoint.

At some point we have to move on! The deal is done. Houston has buggered off, and now loves the Colliwobbles! Let's waste our time and energies seeing what our new lads, who are thrilled to be at Port, can bring to the team and club.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

As I've said, I don't think we'll miss Houston as much as most people think and Farrell should be able to do the job.

We've got some serious young talent and all of them will have to step up and they can.

I also think we look much better as a team when we are more defensively minded in the midfield and down back.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

We definitely got unders but I think the Trading guys did their work well enough.
If Pick 29 was between 10 and 16, that would've been about right.

They had the Melbourne deal fall through.
Houston seemingly didn't want to go to the Kangaroos.

We got what we could out of the deal and moved on.
I personally like that progressive attitude in List Management.

We have a whole heap of new players looking to play for the club.
Houston probably would've moaned and groaned the whole year if we kept him.
I mean one of the last acts he did made sure he didn't have to play the last 5 games with us. He was lining guys up all night for it which is very out of character but found Rankine and did the dirty on him.

If we didn't do the deal, we're in a bit of a holding pattern. Best to move on but unfortunate we didn't get maximum results from the trade.

I don't think we will miss Houston as much as most on here think we will.

The guys coming in really help our team, Luko, Richards, Berry can impact early.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding. How will Luko go? What's the deal with Richards? Can Berry become an early goal kicking forward? Does Whitlock live up to his potential? Is RatCat really good depth for our midfield? Is Moraes going to be that draftee that other clubs regret not taking?

Plenty of hope from that trade. Plenty.

In business, sometimes taking slight unders is good business because it opens the door.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Oh man let the Houston thing go already, you’re next level obsessed. Accept it & move on.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I'll move on when the cucks responsible are out of my club.

 

[Schulzenfest]

As I've said, I don't think we'll miss Houston as much as most people think and Farrell should be able to do the job.

But Farrell was already in the side!

We're not 'replacing' Houston with Farrell. We don't get a second Farrell to replace Houston. Whoever the shittest half back getting a game for us next year who wouldn't be getting a game if we still had Houston is, that's who's replacing Houston. It's not Farrell.

You know who's actually gonna be the one replacing him? ****ing Ratkins, probably.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I keep hearing about the relatively strengths of the drafts but i'll again note that we didn't consider that when we traded our natural pick in it for Soldo and Ratugolea.

This is really the point that torpedoes whatever weak defence there are of this trade. It's a great draft, is it? Then why did we trade out of it for such pissweak return last year?

We're always told to look at our list management holistically. So let's do that. Holistically, we didn't trade Houston for 13, 29 and Richards. We trade Houston for Soldo, Ratugolea, 29 and Richards. Which is an Ollie Wines for Matt Arnot and Todd Elton level trade suggestion which somebody might make on the Drafts & Trading board as a joke.

 

[Chewy316]

I keep hearing about the relatively strengths of the drafts but i'll again note that we didn't consider that when we traded our natural pick in it for Soldo and Ratugolea. Ultimately this may be a superdraft, but we don't know how good Berry, Whitlock or Moraes will be. This board certainly wasn't excited by the draft on day 1 and it was only Whitlock falling to us that has seen us happy with it. What are the chances that we get an AA guernsey out of those 3? What are the chances that any of them play 150+ games? Ultimately pretty low on both counts.

I don't see how we're going to be significantly more primed in 2026-2030 than we will be in 2025 (Hinkley aside, but again, if the footy boss is planning for life after Hinkley, why is he still here?). Our prime movers are all entering their prime years apart from JHF, who will still put in something approaching an AA season next season. Aliir is on the wrong side of 30 though. Who are our KPDs going to be in say, 2027/28?

Maybe if we held off a year we could have used Houston's trade value to bring in a KPD to fill that upcoming hole. Or something else? Player movement will still need to happen over the next few seasons.

Or, we could have just kept the best halfback in the league over the last couple of seasons on our list, and like Sydney with Papley and O'Keefe, encouraged a change of heart and kept hold of him. Dan Houston will be 33 in 2030, hardly impossible that he's still playing given his skillset and role.

My biggest issue with our trade period is that we were weak early, Collingwood, Dan and his manager smelled blood in the water and pounced. We had a superstar with 3 years on his deal, we could have made it very clear early that we expected 2 first round picks or equivalent, and if not, we'll try again next season. Instead we allowed ourselves to get pushed into a position where we accepted a bad deal.

Would Geelong have done this trade? Sydney? Hawthorn?

Rightly or wrongly, the club hold the stance that they can always trade back into a draft 12 months down the track if it means they fill significant needs in the now. I understand their rationale at the time using that first round pick to acquire two players who they thought would play significant roles in 2024 - as the #1 ruck and a first choice KPD. Clearly it hasn't worked out that way though I still think there's hope for Soldo in particular given how well he was playing prior to injury.

As for your 150 games comment - let's look at the Hinkley era of top 25ish picks Port have selected:

• Wines (tracking for 300 games)
• Impey (75 games for Port, a further 122 at Hawthorn)
• Todd Marshall (116 games, signed long term, could potentially play 150+ given his age)
• Sam Powell-Pepper (142 games, on track to hit 150 this coming season)
• Connor Rozee (129 games, will play 250+ if he remains healthy)
• Zak Butters (119 games, see Rozee comment)
• Xavier Duursma (73 games at Port, 15 at Essendon)
• Miles Bergman (83 games, looks every bit a 200+ gamer provided health holds up)
• Mitch Georgiades (69 games, signed long term, likely to hit 150 if healthy)
• Lachie Jones (56 games)
• Josh Sinn (10 games, this year is clearly make or break with him)

Of those 11 players drafted by Port since 2012, 2 have reached 150 games and a further 6 are very likely to reach 150 games based on form, health and current contract status. Based on this past 12 years of history I would suggest your pessimism regarding any of the three players drafted this year reaching 150 games is a tad egregious.

More than half of Port's team which won the semi final against Hawthorn were under the age of 25. Hence, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this squad's best years are well ahead of them. As for your comment about future KPDs, sure it's a list need, but I would challenge you to look up every team's list and project it forward by 2-3 years - you will see needs on every list. Port aren't an outlier to that.

And you have to consider the Hinkley factor in all this. Him remaining at the club in 2025 automatically puts them out of contention for the flag imo, so there has to be a long term view considered as opposed to the short term benefits of keeping Houston.

The club have taken the view that letting Houston go and replacing him with a younger player at half back, whilst using the assets acquired in the trade to bolster their forward line - was a better decision than keeping Houston in the back line and continuing with the small forward quagmire of Evans, Narkle and McEntee. Given how easy the half back flank is to slot players into, I don't necessarily disagree with that reasoning. If Houston was an All Australian KPP in the prime of his career, this would be a totally different discussion - but the club were able to plug Jase Burgoyne down back in the semi final and he was best on ground. Then when you consider the emergence of Logan Evans, their faith in Sinn hitting his potential and Farrell's improvement over the last 12 months in particular, it's easy to see a path imo where the club is banking on that young talent taking them forward in that area whilst using Houston (a key asset) to bolster young talent in an area of the ground where the current side has lacked talent.

I understand the trade was underwhelming, but I am not of the opinion that a future first in next year's draft that would likely blow out to be a pick in the late teens (at best) instead of 29, Richards and a pick swap of 39 into 36 is a better deal for the club when you take a long term perspective in mind.

 

[rogerjames]

Houston's replacement is Farrell..

Can kick just as good defends better is younger

And not a ********er

I've accepted the trade. But Farrell is a more inconsistent kick than Houston. Houston rarely makes a kicking error, Farrell makes plenty. Neither are good defenders but Houston is a far more accomplished footballer than Farrell.

 

[True__Believer]

North supporters had the same issue with JHF nominating port when he was homesick. No one ever just requests a trade to a state. Get your head out of your ass

I will extract my head from my ass whenever I like. He should have just said it from the beginning and it would have been fine. JHF's connections to Port meant he was only ever coming here, plus there are only two teams in SA.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I've accepted the trade. But Farrell is a more inconsistent kick than Houston. Houston rarely makes a kicking error, Farrell makes plenty. Neither are good defenders but Houston is a far more accomplished footballer than Farrell.

Kane Farrell is an elite long kick of the ball.

Dan Houston is an elite kick of the ball. And much more importantly he's an elite at passing the ball by foot.

 

[Jimmy Unchained]

Rightly or wrongly, I understand their rationale at the time using that first round pick to acquire two players who they thought would play significant roles in 2024 - as the #1 ruck and a first choice KPD. Clearly it hasn't worked out that way though I still think there's hope for Soldo in particular given how well he was playing prior to injury.

I feel like part of the reason that this thread is going in circles is you say stuff like this, do you agree or disagree with the decision? Did you agree or disagree with the decision at the time?

As for your 150 games comment - let's look at the Hinkley era of top 25ish picks Port have selected:

• Wines (tracking for 300 games)
• Impey (75 games for Port, a further 122 at Hawthorn)
• Todd Marshall (116 games, signed long term, could potentially play 150+ given his age)
• Sam Powell-Pepper (142 games, on track to hit 150 this coming season)
• Connor Rozee (129 games, will play 250+ if he remains healthy)
• Zak Butters (119 games, see Rozee comment)
• Xavier Duursma (73 games at Port, 15 at Essendon)
• Miles Bergman (83 games, looks every bit a 200+ gamer provided health holds up)
• Mitch Georgiades (69 games, signed long term, likely to hit 150 if healthy)
• Lachie Jones (56 games)
• Josh Sinn (10 games, this year is clearly make or break with him)

If you actually picked top 25's you'd have to include Dyl Williams and Jackson Mead, and if you picked out to 38 (Moraes), you would also need to include Atley, Bonner, Clurey and Shaw.

So now we're looking at 7 150 gamers, and 10 who miss. If you could state that every pick up to 38 would be a first rounder any other year, i'd be happy to hear a justification for why you only used pick 25(ish) but I don't think anyone is saying the draft is that strong.

More than half of Port's team which won the semi final against Hawthorn were under the age of 25. Hence, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this squad's best years are well ahead of them. As for your comment about future KPDs, sure it's a list need, but I would challenge you to look up every team's list and project it forward by 2-3 years - you will see needs on every list. Port aren't an outlier to that.

Yeah Hawthorn had 10 to our 12 and one of ours was Frankie Evans, who you don't rate anyway. Sydney had 10 on grand final day, we're not that different to all of the teams around us and none of them are trying to trade out A graders.

And you have to consider the Hinkley factor in all this. Him remaining at the club in 2025 automatically puts them out of contention for the flag imo, so there has to be a long term view considered as opposed to the short term benefits of keeping Houston.

Just like how we traded in for ready made talent in the forward line after trading and drafting for 10 (!) forward-capable players in the last two years? That seems like a win now recruiting move.

The club have taken the view that letting Houston go and replacing him with a younger player at half back, whilst using the assets acquired in the trade to bolster their forward line - was a better decision than keeping Houston in the back line and continuing with the small forward quagmire of Evans, Narkle and McEntee.

I have taken the view of trading out an A grader and replacing him with a C grader in his line as well as trading in B and C graders to fill a list hole that we had already drafted for, is not good list management in the short or long term.

Given how easy the half back flank is to slot players into, I don't necessarily disagree with that reasoning. If Houston was an All Australian KPP in the prime of his career, this would be a totally different discussion - but the club were able to plug Jase Burgoyne down back in the semi final and he was best on ground. Then when you consider the emergence of Logan Evans, their faith in Sinn hitting his potential and Farrell's improvement over the last 12 months in particular, it's easy to see a path imo where the club is banking on that young talent taking them forward in that area whilst using Houston (a key asset) to bolster young talent in an area of the ground where the current side has lacked talent.

Fun question for the day: How many players were dual AA at half back before 30? Would those clubs have given those players up for what we did?

I understand the trade was underwhelming, but I am not of the opinion that a future first in next year's draft that would likely blow out to be a pick in the late teens (at best) instead of 29, Richards and a pick swap of 39 into 36 is a better deal for the club when you take a long term perspective in mind.

I am of the opinion that 29, Richards and a pick swap of 39 into 36 is a better deal for the club compared to a future first, when you take a long term perspective in mind.

Rephrased for simplicity.

I disagree. Keep your firsts, or trade them for players capable of being A graders, or better first rounders. First Rounders are the only picks worth anything consistently, as you previously stated.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Farrell isn't replacing Houston. He's already best 22. If you're saying Farrell can replace Houston, then who replaces Farrell? Sinn? Burton?

However you spin it, our defence is losing a 2xAA in his prime and replacing him with a player who played a lot of SANFL in 2024.

• Wines (tracking for 300 games)
• Impey (75 games for Port, a further 122 at Hawthorn)
• Todd Marshall (116 games, signed long term, could potentially play 150+ given his age)
• Sam Powell-Pepper (142 games, on track to hit 150 this coming season)
• Connor Rozee (129 games, will play 250+ if he remains healthy)
• Zak Butters (119 games, see Rozee comment)
• Xavier Duursma (73 games at Port, 15 at Essendon)
• Miles Bergman (83 games, looks every bit a 200+ gamer provided health holds up)
• Mitch Georgiades (69 games, signed long term, likely to hit 150 if healthy)
• Lachie Jones (56 games)
• Josh Sinn (10 games, this year is clearly make or break with him)

This is a bit selective. Whitlock was pick 33 and Moraes was pick 38, so let's look at the other top 40 picks.

Tom McCallum (hasn't shown anything to suggest he'll be an AFL player yet)
Dylan Williams (has played some good footy in previous years but was lucky not to be delisted)
Jackson Mead (3rd tier type who is probably the last player picked in the team most weeks, too early to tell if he's getting games long term)
Joe Atley (no good)
Willem Drew (gun, great pick)
Riley Bonner (fringe halfback who was mostly maligned here)
Tom Clurey (100+ gamer but can't get a game in what should be his prime years)
Mason Shaw (terrible)

If we look at our draft picks who have gone on to be established, very high quality AFL players from this list (Wines, Rozee, Butters, Bergman, Georgiades, Drew), all of them were taken in the first 18 picks apart from Drew. The guys who were picked in the 30s apart from Drew were pass mark at best players.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

But Farrell was already in the side!

We're not 'replacing' Houston with Farrell. We don't get a second Farrell to replace Houston. Whoever the shittest half back getting a game for us next year who wouldn't be getting a game if we still had Houston is, that's who's replacing Houston. It's not Farrell.

You know who's actually gonna be the one replacing him? ****ing Ratkins, probably.

I like Farrell, Evans, Jones, Sinn. Not as offensive but athletic and strong and fast and defensive.
Not a big fan of Burton.
So so on Williams as well.

The backline looked great after the Lions belting but not the two finals where the midfield and coaching were more to blame.
Dan was great offensively but not the best defensively. His man could slip into dangerous spots and be hit up.

I'm going to think about melting if the defence is not working about half way through the year.

I'm not a conceptual melter.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

The club have taken the view that letting Houston go and replacing him with a younger player at half back, whilst using the assets acquired in the trade to bolster their forward line - was a better decision than keeping Houston in the back line and continuing with the small forward quagmire of Evans, Narkle and McEntee. Given how easy the half back flank is to slot players into, I don't necessarily disagree with that reasoning. If Houston was an All Australian KPP in the prime of his career, this would be a totally different discussion - but the club were able to plug Jase Burgoyne down back in the semi final and he was best on ground. Then when you consider the emergence of Logan Evans, their faith in Sinn hitting his potential and Farrell's improvement over the last 12 months in particular, it's easy to see a path imo where the club is banking on that young talent taking them forward in that area whilst using Houston (a key asset) to bolster young talent in an area of the ground where the current side has lacked talent.

What Chewy has explained here is pretty much right.

When he stays away from sources he's not a campaigner.

This is how talented our team is. We had McEntee, Narkle, Fevans, Dixon playing and they were net negatives. We also had guys like Boak and Burton gunking up the works.

You replace them with Lukosius - full of potential, Richards - lets see what we got, Berry - clinical finisher, Powell-Pepper - gut runner with pep, Lorenz on the wing instead of Old Man River Boak, Burton - more unaccountable than the hot blonde after a few cocktails with whoever.

I like it. I like it a lot.

I don't like Hinkley. Sack Hinkley.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

The moments where our forward line doesn't look cluttered with 30 players is when Houston is delivering the ball.

We don't have a Houston replacement.

Hartlett and Krakouer were better kicks than all our current half backs.

 

[Jonts]

The moments where our forward line doesn't look cluttered with 30 players is when Houston is delivering the ball.

We don't have a Houston replacement.

Hartlett and Krakouer were better kicks than all our current half backs.

Hartlett?

Was the king of a pretty kick that was a turnover I don't agree at all

 

[240volt]

What Chewy has explained here is pretty much right.

When he stays away from sources he's not a campaigner.

This is how talented our team is. We had McEntee, Narkle, Fevans, Dixon playing and they were net negatives. We also had guys like Boak and Burton gunking up the works.

You replace them with Lukosius - full of potential, Richards - lets see what we got, Berry - clinical finisher, Powell-Pepper - gut runner with pep, Lorenz on the wing instead of Old Man River Boak, Burton - more unaccountable than the hot blonde after a few cocktails with whoever.

I like it. I like it a lot.

I don't like Hinkley. Sack Hinkley.

So basically our list last year wasn’t good enough to win a flag.
Too many duds in the starting line up.