Justin Reid

Remove this Banner Ad

Pea Nut said:
As we have seen with many, many examples this year, is that their is one way to lure players out of clubs. It's all about $$$$. Nothing more. The side stories that go with it is purely spin for the casual fans. Did you hear what the Suns offered Weller ?? We all have a fair idea what Charlie was offered. Then there is the 'Dollars in their Eyes' three in Rockliff, Watts and Motlop. Even Schache was looking for 400K a year. And he's still living off his rep at under 18 level.
Click to expand...
Yes, I get that - although I don't think $$$ is the sole factor when you're talking about getting players and their partners/families to relocate to Adelaide.
But that's not how we roll. Which, of course, many people will say is not a good thing. I can see that, but I don't entirely agree.

We're (presumably) talking about A-graders here. There's non point in using over-the-odds $$$ to try and attract B-graders. And they're getting good $$$ from their current clubs (you don't get a lot of Eddie Betts opportunities). So we're dealing in the - what? $600K minimum, up to $900K, say, market.

You need some dude in Melbourne (e.g., most likely) who's on, say, $500K, you offer him, say, $600-650 to come to Adelaide for the sake of argument - now his current club either thinks he's worth that, so we miss out because he can extract that from them without moving, or they won't pay it. Which works for us if they've got cap issues - or maybe it means he's really not worth it.

And meantime we have to pony up for our own young A-graders, to keep them.

Mumble mumble something something - A number of stars have to align. After all - how many genuine A-graders move clubs, let alone states, each year? Whether it's for $$$ or not? - I just don't think it's as easy as saying we should splash $$$ around.
 
marty36 said:
Thats ridiculous TBH I would rather lever and CC than the extra draft picks

If we had bit the bullet got gibbs last year, what he would have done to our team, who knows and we will never know

But if our intention was to get gibbs anyway we should have done it last year and yes gone without a first in 16 and 17 and had a solid carck at the premiership

Now things have changed, great we have gibbs but lost one gun in lever and a good player in cameron in doing so
Click to expand...

This way allowed us to load up on draft picks in a year where there is genuine SA talent. You should be happy as Larry.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

marty36 said:
Thats ridiculous TBH I would rather lever and CC than the extra draft picks

If we had bit the bullet got gibbs last year, what he would have done to our team, who knows and we will never know

But if our intention was to get gibbs anyway we should have done it last year and yes gone without a first in 16 and 17 and had a solid carck at the premiership

Now things have changed, great we have gibbs but lost one gun in lever and a good player in cameron in doing so
Click to expand...

Well no, not really. The situation is entirely different to last season.

Having those extra picks means if this is a false dawn, we can still slash and burn it all rather quickly instead of being stuck in limbo for a year; it's a safety net that makes this deal much more appealing then last year.

We've got a key piece for a premiership push, + loaded up for a much stronger draft; we've killed it this period in every way you can kill a trade period, all for giving up two role players who play quite easy roles.


(I'd also rather the extra draft picks. You never keep non-essential players when that is what is on offer)
 
I am a bit mixed. We have done well in terms of maximizing our trades out. But part of me feels we slightly over spent on Gibbs. Carlton approached us which means we should have flat out played hardball. But wondering whether part of the over spending on Gibbs and getting Gibson was part of just a go all out for a premiership while still having one eye on the future.
 
adelaidecrows said:
I am a bit mixed. We have done well in terms of maximizing our trades out. But part of me feels we slightly over spent on Gibbs. Carlton approached us which means we should have flat out played hardball. But wondering whether part of the over spending on Gibbs and getting Gibson was part of just a go all out for a premiership while still having one eye on the future.
Click to expand...

We are obviously going all out for a premiership at the moment. As we should be.
 
CroCop said:
We should learn how to trade from Geelong .

For Ablett they Geelong effectively give up a second round pick next year and swap picks 19 for pick 24?this year and move down 5 spots in this years draft .
A lot better than what we gave up for Gibbs and Ablett is the best player ever
Click to expand...

Big difference AFL look after the Cats but not us.
 
Good trade period - esp given we had 2 players who wanted out.

But how good will end up on where 2018 picks land. That is the risk/reward aspect, but worth it if next year's draft is as good as everyone says it is
 
TrainRoo32 said:
I hate being negative but this trade period has left me confused!
Feels like we planing on treading water next year. We didn’t really go all in but we stacked a shitload of picks for next year.
Click to expand...

When you finish top of the ladder and make a grand final, you could do much worse than tread water. If we do the same again and just decide to actually play football on grand final day, I'll be pretty happy.
 
I'll give him a pass for this year.

Had to trade Lever out and managed to get fair value for him - no small feat considering he'd publicly said it was Melbourne or the draft. Not only did he get it done, he got it done early rather than drag it kicking and screaming all the way to the final day.

Managed to land Gibbs, paid overs as you'd expect for a contracted player (see: Charlie Cameron), but not ridiculous overs.

Traded Cameron for genuine overs, getting us back into the first round of this year's draft while still holding onto 2 first round picks and a hopefully significant 2nd round upgrade next year when it sounds like the picks will be worth more than this year.

Bought in Gibson for nothing because sure, why not?
 
adelaidecrows said:
I am a bit mixed. We have done well in terms of maximizing our trades out. But part of me feels we slightly over spent on Gibbs. Carlton approached us which means we should have flat out played hardball. But wondering whether part of the over spending on Gibbs and getting Gibson was part of just a go all out for a premiership while still having one eye on the future.
Click to expand...

We are in the window we had to risk the dice with Gibbs however we also need to see what eventuates with the 2018 picks that CFC traded to us in the deal before we can properly assess
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jarman3 said:
When you finish top of the ladder and make a grand final, you could do much worse than tread water. If we do the same again and just decide to actually play football on grand final day, I'll be pretty happy.
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough mate
We obviously have different expectations of the AFC
 
So.. anchoring huh

Anyone think Noble might not have been paying attention in class?

Brisbane offers pick 20
We anchor

Tick tock

Still anchoring

Tick tock

Noble caves at the last minute and offers us 12

If we don’t anchor we only get pick 20

Anyone still believe old house of cards Dave Noble got the best deal he could for Danger?

And who knows what vandalism he’d have done to our list prospects if he was still with us for this trade period
 
arrowman said:
Yes, I get that - although I don't think $$$ is the sole factor when you're talking about getting players and their partners/families to relocate to Adelaide.
But that's not how we roll. Which, of course, many people will say is not a good thing. I can see that, but I don't entirely agree.

We're (presumably) talking about A-graders here. There's non point in using over-the-odds $$$ to try and attract B-graders. And they're getting good $$$ from their current clubs (you don't get a lot of Eddie Betts opportunities). So we're dealing in the - what? $600K minimum, up to $900K, say, market.

You need some dude in Melbourne (e.g., most likely) who's on, say, $500K, you offer him, say, $600-650 to come to Adelaide for the sake of argument - now his current club either thinks he's worth that, so we miss out because he can extract that from them without moving, or they won't pay it. Which works for us if they've got cap issues - or maybe it means he's really not worth it.

And meantime we have to pony up for our own young A-graders, to keep them.

Mumble mumble something something - A number of stars have to align. After all - how many genuine A-graders move clubs, let alone states, each year? Whether it's for $$$ or not? - I just don't think it's as easy as saying we should splash $$$ around.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we should just splash cash around, but that is what has driven most of the moves this year. And it's definitely not easy to try and land a genuine A grader. I thought it was good that it was brought up on trade radio and explained for everyone to hear that the attraction of a home state or a particular club culture paled in insignificance compared to the dollar figure that was printed on a contract. The best bet is to develop our own A graders and develop a club culture where they want to stay. Then try and poach players like we have had players poached from us. Not an easy task at all. But certainly possible.
 
arrowman said:
Yes, I get that - although I don't think $$$ is the sole factor when you're talking about getting players and their partners/families to relocate to Adelaide.
Click to expand...
Interesting to read Hartigan's thoughts on players moving closer to family and how family is more important than footy in the end - particularly after your coach is murdered puts life into perspective. It seems it gave some clarity to the lads - and it's something they are clearly still feeling two years later. I suggested the other day that maybe the legacy of Walsh was too much for some of the lads and maybe this is a factor for some (to go home). I think it may have been for Dangerfield in the end.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Interesting to read Hartigan's thoughts on players moving closer to family and how family is more important than footy in the end - particularly after your coach is murdered puts life into perspective. It seems it gave some clarity to the lads - and it's something they are clearly still feeling two years later. I suggested the other day that maybe the legacy of Walsh was too much for some of the lads and maybe this is a factor for some (to go home). I think it may have been for Dangerfield in the end.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said. But Danger was always going home.
 
marty36 said:
???? We made the GF last year effectively Gibbs would have improved our team it would have cost us Galluci and pick 16

We would have got Gibbs as a 27 year old

We traded for him anyway it was a short sighted view

Have a read of Reid's quote from last year


It can't be justified it was an error the club made I hope they own up to it

Credit to getting a good trade for both lever and CC though it's not all bad news

But the Gibbs one needs to be called out

Call a spade a spade


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
We didn't give two firsts this year and we were in an improved position with extra picks.
they wanted straight 2 firsts last year and we didn't have them. I reckon it's slightly overs but we won the rest of those.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Justin Reid

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top