Luke Ball - Who was at fault?

[SirJimi05]

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"

What does pick #2 have to do with anything? Does this mean Kepler Bradley would have been worth a 1st round draft pick if put up fopr trade?

B&F winner in 2005, hardly relevent.

Former captain - Why is he no longer captain?

Basically all of the reasons you have given are irrelevent.

Clubs are more likely to take the following into account:

1. Current form
2. Health/fitness
3. Age
4. Match winning ability

Ball fails in all of these points except for age but this should be a fail anyway because he has the body of a 31 year old.

I can't believe how overrated this guy is.

He has averaged over 20 possessions 3 times in 7 years at AFL level and even in those seasons he only averaged 22.0, 21.9 & 21.8 disposals.

This is hardly the ball winning ability of an elite mid. Honest plodder he is.

 

[fusion]

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

It's almost pointless asking for neutral fans only to respond, looking at the number of replies from Collingwood and St Kilda supporters who cannot read.

Who's at fault? Nobody really. Collingwood offered what they thought was fair, and it's up to St Kilda to decide whether they agree. Collingwood have lost nothing. If Ball walks and ends up at Melbourne or Richmond, St Kilda aren't compensated - but at least they aren't strengthening a flag rival whilst their premiership window is open.

 

[evo]

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

No one seems at fault to me. It was just one of those trades that didn't happen.

#25 wasn't that far away from his worth; nevetheless it is still fair enough if Saints didn't want to accept it.

looks like Melbourne PSD ftw.

 

[SnowCool]

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

Luke Ball is worth about pick 14.

Carlton paid to much for McLean.

Collingwoods offer was simply not good enough and they know it. They shouldn't complain because they clearly didn't want him that badly otherwise they would of offered something more.

 

[Knight Ryders]

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

I think the fact that Collingwood wouldn't give up Blight or Goldsack or pick 25 suggests to me that they have some inside information and his body is pretty shot and he will never return to the sort of footballer he was 4 years ago. He played well in the GF, but they were conditions to suit.

I stand to be corrected and would probably like nothing more if Ball came out and dominated for Melbourne next year as you can't help but like the guy.

May be Luke should have nominated more than one team?

 

[Forget the Stats]

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

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

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


Didn't seem to care then, hey?

You think so? Seaby is questionable for sure but Ball is no elite midfielder. Forget where he went in the draft.Ruckmen with a hundred games are hard to come by.

 

[SouthSwans]

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

I reckon he's worth about pick 30. St Kilda were asking too much of the Pies, but it was always going to be a stalemate. St Kilda rate their fringe players higher than most clubs.

 

[Corpuscles]

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

"victim of circumstances"

Ball had an up and down year,ended the season ONLY very recently GF (less time to think) with blokes/mates who would have wanted him to stay..perhaps delayed decision?.

Reportedly on fairly big money..that dramatically effects tradeability.

Narrowed his choices too much. Collingwood main target was a ruckman and then dabbling in the FEV fiasco! So they were distracted,and wanted to keep their best list together too.

St Kilda do not have much depth beyond best 22 so... Lyon would want to replace a originally No2 pick (excellent depth player at worst) with quality.

Probably had he and manager decided long ago to move. Then they might have arranged something not so rushed. Apparently Jolly indicated to Sydney long ago his desires!

No Clubs fault Collingwood already lost first round pick, offered the best they had, couldn't afford a player.

Who knows why he nominated..more opportunity??...if so Ball would be a star at several lower clubs!!!

 

[magicpants]

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

No one seems at fault to me. It was just one of those trades that didn't happen.

#25 wasn't that far away from his worth; nevetheless it is still fair enough if Saints didn't want to accept it.

looks like Melbourne PSD ftw.

But if its close enough ross lyon saying no seems primarily aimed at preventing collingwood from 'winning' the trade-off!! Isn't this taking trade week to the extreme - clubs should be working together to get deals done!

Its a game after all but this is luke balls career/job he played around with for he sake of 4 spots higher in the draft!!

Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me....

 

[Bay Pie]

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 Lyons quote after trade deadline passes:

"What Luke needs to do is go away and assess what he wants to do. There are two evident options which are come back to St Kilda and train hard and deliver the actions that MAY get you in the senior team; or go into the pre-season draft and take your chances. ”

this about a former captain, two-time best and fairest...mmmmmmm

Sounds like a 1st rounder now hey!! May get you in the team. I'm sure he'll want to go back now.

 

[Bee Vee]

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

Collingwood instigated the move so it was their responsibility to ensure they had appropriate picks to complete the transaction. It's pointless saying "that's the best pick we had", if you chase a player, it is your responsibility to ensure you offer fair compensation.
Collingwood didn't.

Hopefully the rest of the AFL contingent will realise Collingwood were once again unable to secure a trade and players considering any approaches will treat the idea with the contempt it deserves.

Well done St Kilda.

 

[Invigoration]

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

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

So what does that tell you?

I'm not weighing into the thread about who was at fault, I am interested to hear an outsiders perspective, but I think you are tugging the chain if you think 21 is enough but 25 isn't... I'm sure the quality of player between the two wouldn't vary significantly.

 

[magicpants]

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

"victim of circumstances"

Ball had an up and down year,ended the season ONLY very recently GF (less time to think) with blokes/mates who would have wanted him to stay..perhaps delayed decision?.

Reportedly on fairly big money..that dramatically effects tradeability.

Narrowed his choices too much. Collingwood main target was a ruckman and then dabbling in the FEV fiasco! So they were distracted,and wanted to keep their best list together too.

St Kilda do not have much depth beyond best 22 so... Lyon would want to replace a originally No2 pick (excellent depth player at worst) with quality.

Probably had he and manager decided long ago to move. Then they might have arranged something not so rushed. Apparently Jolly indicated to Sydney long ago his desires!

No Clubs fault Collingwood already lost first round pick, offered the best they had, couldn't afford a player.

Who knows why he nominated..more opportunity??...if so Ball would be a star at several lower clubs!!!

Pretty well put although I reckon you are holding back from saying Lyon was at fault or at the very least He was the one playing hard-ball moreso than the pies which seems to be the initial response from media/fans earlier today.

Thanks for posting as per OP, cheers

 

[kensington]

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

Wasn't there supposed to be a three way involving the doggies?

Everrit -> Saints
Ball -> Pies
Pick -> Bulldogs

I thought I heard Eade saying tbhe pies would not give a high enough pick to make it worthwhile for them to trade Everitt.

Therefore, in essence Saints wanted to trade Ball for Everitt, but the Dogs and the Pies could not meet on middle ground.

 

[magicpants]

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

Collingwood instigated the move so it was their responsibility to ensure they had appropriate picks to complete the transaction. It's pointless saying "that's the best pick we had", if you chase a player, it is your responsibility to ensure you offer fair compensation.
Collingwood didn't.

Hopefully the rest of the AFL contingent will realise Collingwood were once again unable to secure a trade and players considering any approaches will treat the idea with the contempt it deserves.

Well done St Kilda.

Fair enough -but for the record can I ask you what you think he was honestly worth?

 

[docsaint]

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

So what does that tell you?

I'm not weighing into the thread about who was at fault, I am interested to hear an outsiders perspective, but I think you are tugging the chain if you think 21 is enough but 25 isn't... I'm sure the quality of player between the two wouldn't vary significantly.

couldn't help but reply

so by your reasoning 25 =21, then 17=21, then 13=17, then 9=13, then 5=9, then 1=5, then 1= 25 !!

 

[Corpuscles]

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

Pretty well put although I reckon you are holding back from saying Lyon was at fault or at the very least He was the one playing hard-ball moreso than the pies which seems to be the initial response from media/fans earlier today.

Thanks for posting as per OP, cheers

Something you and a lot of Pies fans need to understand!
!

Sydney & Pies trade easily. Why? because Sydney target players who definitely want out and want to come and will pay up and not stuff around!

It is harder to trade with a side that you are likely (expect) to face in the finals next year!

Collingwood were greedy...they wanted it all... and only landed Jolly.!

Lyon did the right thing by his club...what he is paid to do!

 

[Durham Hawks]

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

for all things luke ball, i believe grant thomas is still at fault. has taken years of ball's career with his management of him during all the concussions and injuries. st kilda's new administration now thinks ball is back to being a normal footballer - the rest of the league thinks otherwise. collingwood put up a fair offer, st kilda didn't want to help a rival. if it'd been a club with poorer prospects for next year they would have accepted.

 

[evo]

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

But if its close enough ross lyon saying no seems primarily aimed at preventing collingwood from 'winning' the trade-off!! Isn't this taking trade week to the extreme - clubs should be working together to get deals done!

Its a game after all but this is luke balls career/job he played around with for he sake of 4 spots higher in the draft!!

Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me....

Ah well. It is Saints who dip out on the pick, so bad luck for them.

Pies haven't really lost anything. It may be a blessing, ultimately; he is pretty clapped out.

Personally i would've blinked at the 11th hour. #25 and #62 is better than the metaphorical poke in the eye with the burnt stick.

 

[Rioli magic]

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

No one or both are at fault depending how you look at it. St Kilda only wanted to trade Ball to the Pies if they could get Everitt back for him. Collingwood didnt rate Ball enough or didn't make enough effort to get that done. Ross Lyon said he'd trade anyone who wanted to be traded then turned down pick 25 and took nothing.

Everyone loses out of this, Collingwood don't get their man but that's all they lose, St Kilda will lose a former captain for nothing and Luke Ball got shafted by everyone. Collingwood played hard ball and Lyon called their bluff, at the expense of Luke Ball. Lyon made it clear he wanted a sub 20 pick or a descent player and Collingwood didn't offer either.

IMO he should of taken 25 but Lyon probably thinks that pick wont be useful in the next 2-3 years so he stood his ground. It was a mexican stand off that didn't eventuate to anything.

 

[Motown]

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

It's the system for mine.

A player with his length of service (8 years?) and out of contract should have access to some form of free agency. As it stands now, he gets to either stay somewhere he doesn't want to or play lotto with his personal circumstances in the draft, all because two parties he has no control over can't agree on the exchange of assets that have absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

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

Why does anyone have to be at fault?

A price was set, the buyer didn't want to pay it - both walk away.

My gut feel is that should it happen to have been say North or Richmond - the saints may have softened their stance - however given the opposition was a team that made the preliminary final - why would you take unders to only bolster your already strong oposition

I don't see the difference between an average draft pick or letting Melbourne have him in terms of the Saints winning a flag in the next year or so

 

[Durham Hawks]

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

No one or both are at fault depending how you look at it. St Kilda only wanted to trade Ball to the Pies if they could get Everitt back for him. Collingwood didnt rate Ball enough or didn't make enough effort to get that done. Ross Lyon said he'd trade anyone who wanted to be traded then turned down pick 25 and took nothing.

Everyone loses out of this, Collingwood don't get their man but that's all they lose, St Kilda will lose a former captain for nothing and Luke Ball got shafted by everyone. Collingwood played hard ball and Lyon called their bluff, at the expense of Luke Ball. Lyon made it clear he wanted a sub 20 pick or a descent player and Collingwood didn't offer either.

IMO he should of taken 25 but Lyon probably thinks that pick wont be useful in the next 2-3 years so he stood his ground. It was a mexican stand off that didn't eventuate to anything.

lyon did the right thing. luke ball will see out his days without playing another final at melbourne but he could have been a crucial player getting collingwood a premiership.

 

[Invigoration]

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

couldn't help but reply

so by your reasoning 25 =21, then 17=21, then 13=17, then 9=13, then 5=9, then 1=5, then 1= 25 !!

In the case of an uncontracted player, who has asked to be traded to another club with you seemingly teetering on the edge of losing him for nothing, to say that you would accept 21 but not 25 is just a bit to nitpicky for mine, although I appreciate that St.Kilda elected to stand their ground.

 

[magicpants]

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

So far based on the neutral fans responses I detect a slight leaning towards a FAIR OFFER by the Pies and barely that - we definitely weren't making it easy intentional or not!

But if all perties lose I'd say the real loser is

1. Luke Ball - feel for him
2. saints - should get nothing if Ball leaves
3. Pies - lost nothing except a player who could have offered something

Must admit I am keen to hear Mick/Eddie's explanation of why this deal did not get done!!