Luke Ball - Who was at fault?

[magicpants]

I'll admit I am a bit conflicted with this one!! Not sure if I'm really mad at the pies or saints

No doubt Ball is quality but he was less attractive than he may have been a couple of years back. The way his year unfolded with lack of game time, being dropped and issues around his body had to drop his currency.

He was out of contract and nominated the pies as we know - does this mean the pies had to do everything to get him? Or did saints play hard 'ball' - pun intented!!

What was he worth, pick wise? If it was your club he nominated?

Please no pies/saints fans post as bias seems to be unavoidable from reading other threads on the topic.

 

[The Big League]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

If the Pies really wanted him they could of had him, but they were not prepared to give more than they thought he was worth, St Kilda took a hard stance (which is their right) and didn't want to give him up for less than what they valued.

In the end, neither side is "wrong" because neither budged. Collingwood lose nothing because obviously they hand over no players or pics, St Kilda (potentially) lose a pretty good player that they rated higher than what was offered. All in all both clubs save face by not getting ripped off.

The only loser is Luke Ball unfortunately.

 

[Laser123]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

St Kilda stated throughout we wanted a player and not draft picks in return. The only way we would accept picks if we could on trade these for a player we wanted. This didn't eventuate so we said no.

Who knows, this may pan out like ROK last year. Ball stays at the Saints and wins the '10 B&F

 

[saintsrule]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

I'll admit I am a bit conflicted with this one!! Not sure if I'm really mad at the pies or saints

No doubt Ball is quality but he was less attractive than he may have been a couple of years back. The way his year unfolded with lack of game time, being dropped and issues around his body had to drop his currency.

He was out of contract and nominated the pies as we know - does this mean the pies had to do everything to get him? Or did saints play hard 'ball' - pun intented!!

What was he worth, pick wise? If it was your club he nominated?

Please no pies/saints fans post as bias seems to be unavoidable from reading other threads on the topic.

This is going well isn't it?

 

[Portia]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

The person at fault was Ball's manager, who convinced him to take a punt on Collingwood making anywhere near a fair offer without competitive bidding being involved.

Declaring Collingwood or nothing is what ****ed Ball up, because Collingwood are far more interested in lowballing than getting Ball, despite whatever sweet songs may have been sung to him.

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

clearly collingwood

pick 25 and a pick the saints wouldn't even use for Ball was a joke - especially since you consider the saints are looking at hopefully winning a flag over the next season or two

If they were serious - they should of been putting either Medhurst, Davis or N.Brown on the table - something St.kilda would actually be interested in.

Don't even think the saints lose in this - history clearly shows that any side that takes this stance will never have a player or club **** them over again

The Buger deal was sensational

 

[dan warna]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Apparently the big loser is his player manager, apparently ball is livid with him for making promises and leaking crap to the media.

now its a matter of salvaging a career for ball.

his choices are:

1. the draft, take whats offered.
2. PSD where he can price himself, will go 1 or 2, none of melbourne, richmond nor freo are flag contenders for the next 3 or 4 seasons, they have a way to get ahead of geelong, st kilda, collingwood, the dogs, brisbane, adelaide, carlton, hawthorn and essendon..
3. stay at st kilda and hope to mend fences, and potentially play finals.

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

The person at fault was Ball's manager, who convinced him to take a punt on Collingwood making anywhere near a fair offer without competitive bidding being involved.

Declaring Collingwood or nothing is what ****ed Ball up, because Collingwood are far more interested in lowballing than getting Ball, despite whatever sweet songs may have been sung to him.

agree a bit 0 but i respect your club a lot over the Stevens deal - no one has dared **** with the power at trade time since then.

The trouble you caused Hawthorn this week was beautifully played an amazing performance to get the deal u did for Burger - you played the hawks like a fiddle

 

[weagles_fan]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

I think St.Kilda if Collingwood offered a 2nd round pick. Ball is not good enough to get into the St.Kilda team yet he's worth a 1st round pick according to Lyon....are the whole St.Kilda team worth 1st rounder Ross? If so it's a shame you didn't win the flag by 100 points

 

[magicpants]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

appreciate your views but its nothing I havent read on BF everywhere else from pies and saints fans -I'm interested in an objective view from opposition fans who have an honest viewpoint with no club bias comments attached!

 

[SirJimi05]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Can't people read? What part of neutral supporters don't you understand?

Personally i don't think anyone was to blame as such.

Pies rated him as a second round pick and the Saints rated him a bit higher.

Personally i would have been extremely angry with Essendon if we were to use anything more than our pick #26 on him. He simply isn't that good a player.

FWIW i reckon the Pies handled themselves very well. People bag them out but why the **** should they pay more than they think a player is worth just because people on the outside tell them they should? I reckon they will be justified in their decision not to offer any more for him.

People bagged them out for not offering more than Didak for Stevens. How did that turn out? Call them shrewed or whatever but they stand by their principles and it genereally pays off for them.

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Apparently the big loser is his player manager, apparently ball is livid with him for making promises and leaking crap to the media.

now its a matter of salvaging a career for ball.

his choices are:

1. the draft, take whats offered.
2. PSD where he can price himself, will go 1 or 2, none of melbourne, richmond nor freo are flag contenders for the next 3 or 4 seasons, they have a way to get ahead of geelong, st kilda, collingwood, the dogs, brisbane, adelaide, carlton, hawthorn and essendon..
3. stay at st kilda and hope to mend fences, and potentially play finals.

Ball would look weak as piss if he did that - honestly, how pathetic would he look if he did that?

....grovelling back to Lyon, LOL!

 

[SirJimi05]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

clearly collingwood

pick 25 and a pick the saints wouldn't even use for Ball was a joke - especially since you consider the saints are looking at hopefully winning a flag over the next season or two

If they were serious - they should of been putting either Medhurst, Davis or N.Brown on the table - something St.kilda would actually be interested in.

Rubbish. Maybe if the Saints didn't offload pick #16 they could have done a deal like:

Pick #16 + Ball ===> Brown + 3rd rounder but even that would be favouring the Saints.

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

I think St.Kilda if Collingwood offered a 2nd round pick. Ball is not good enough to get into the St.Kilda team yet he's worth a 1st round pick according to Lyon....are the whole St.Kilda team worth 1st rounder Ross? If so it's a shame you didn't win the flag by 100 points

how does that work if lovett is worth pick 16?

Ball, a pick 2 - B & F winner, former captain - and despite all that, played in this years granny and played well.

In his entire career he has only struggled for about 8 weeks this season - people dramatise his "fall from grace"

 

[anti_]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

i dont see the big deal, he's a fairly average player these days anyway.

clearly the pies only rate him as a 2nd round choice, thats all they offered and it was rejected.

im waiting for someone to list ball's previous honours, meaning he should have attracted something much higher.

 

[weagles_fan]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

how does that work if lovett is worth pick 16?

Ball, a pick 2 - B & F winner, former captain - and despite all that, played in this years granny and played well.

In his entire career he has only struggled for about 8 weeks this season - people dramatise his "fall from grace"

Lovett is not worth pick 16. That is what was paid for him but it is not what he is worth. Lovett and Ball should've been worth about the same IMO.

 

[unplugged]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

how does that work if lovett is worth pick 16?

Ball, a pick 2 - B & F winner, former captain - and despite all that, played in this years granny and played well.

In his entire career he has only struggled for about 8 weeks this season - people dramatise his "fall from grace"

Ross Lyon's press conference early on during the week has had its desired effect on most people it seems.

 

[Invigoration]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Apparently the big loser is his player manager, apparently ball is livid with him for making promises and leaking crap to the media.

What do you mean?

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Rubbish. Maybe if the Saints didn't offload pick #16 they could have done a deal like:

Pick #16 + Ball ===> Brown + 3rd rounder but even that would be favouring the Saints.

ball for pick 25 is not good value - look at some of the other deals that were made

Lovett @ 16

McMahon @ 19 ( doh! )

Even McLean at 11 - is McLean who is a year and a bit younger than Ball, 14 picks better than ball these days?

A pick between 14-21 was about Balls trade value. Collingwood try to compensate that with a pick in the 60's and the saints, smartly, knew "we dont need a pick in the 60's - we need players to help us win a flag"

People dont appreciate that - St.kilda want a flag NOW.They wanted a player, not a future prospect - they want someone who will help then win a flag in 2010 - 2011 , and they did not want to help a direct opponent potentially get the upper hand on that dream

well done saints - very logical decision IMO

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Ross Lyon's press conference early on during the week has had its desired effect on most people it seems.

cry me a river sweet-heart

 

[Bay Pie]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Can't people read? What part of neutral supporters don't you understand?

Personally i don't think anyone was to blame as such.

Pies rated him as a second round pick and the Saints rated him a bit higher.

Personally i would have been extremely angry with Essendon if we were to use anything more than our pick #26 on him. He simply isn't that good a player.

FWIW i reckon the Pies handled themselves very well. People bag them out but why the **** should they pay more than they think a player is worth just because people on the outside tell them they should? I reckon they will be justified in their decision not to offer any more for him.

People bagged them out for not offering more than Didak for Stevens. How did that turn out? Call them shrewed or whatever but they stand by their principles and it genereally pays off for them.

Perfectly put. In fairness he may have been worth pick 20. We didn't have that pick and offered the best we could (got to pick 25).

If we gave N.Brown or Brad Dick for Luke Ball people on here would have said we got screwed and so would have I.

Listintg his past achievements as all well and good but you trade value is more likely based on what you did this year.

Paul Medhurst AA last year, injured and poor form this year. Would his value have decreased this year??

As far as who was at fault- both sides stood firm on what they thought was a fair offer.

 

[Invigoration]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

ball for pick 25 is not good value - look at some of the other deals that were made

Lovett @ 16

McMahon @ 19 ( doh! )

Even McLean at 11 - is McLean who is a year and a bit younger than Ball, 14 picks better than ball these days?

A pick between 14-21 was about Balls trade value. Collingwood try to compensate that with a pick in the 60's and the saints, smartly, knew "we dont need a pick in the 60's - we need players to help us win a flag"

People dont appreciate that - St.kilda want a flag NOW.They wanted a player, not a future prospect - they want someone who will help then win a flag in 2010 - 2011 , and they did not want to help a direct opponent potentially get the upper hand on that dream

well done saints - very logical decision IMO

So 4 spots in the draft is the difference between putting him in the PSD or getting compensation?
That doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

Lovett is not worth pick 16. That is what was paid for him but it is not what he is worth. Lovett and Ball should've been worth about the same IMO.

and **** knows Seaby is not worth a pick 28

Ball>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>....................... The Atlantic...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..................................................................................................... ...... .. .. ..... . seaby


Didn't seem to care then, hey?

 

[magicpants]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

thanks sirjim for replying to the actual question posted!

interested in what other teams would have offered/rated in terms of a pick if it was their club after Luke Ball instead of bagging pies or lyon for that matter!! Not sure many believe he was worth much higher than 25 which implies saints played hard ball - dare say the fact pies were the other club involved may have played a big part in this!

 

[astro_toby]

Re: Luke Ball - Who was at fault? Neutral fans only pls!

So 4 spots in the draft is worth giving him up for nothing... Really?

yes - being screwed over is screwed ****ed over - just like stealing is stealing


and the draft pick was an indication of his worth only - not what the saints actually wanted.

St kilda wanted a player to help them win the flag in 2010 ( just like Collingwood wanted Ball to help them do the same ) - they are not rebuilding right now - Davis or Medhurst should have been offered if you REALLY wanted Ball