Merged Trade/Delistings threads - Part 2

[The_Young_Gun]

I know what im on about.

Brent Stanton has a disposal efficiency of 67%, that is terrible, for a supposed elite midfielder, averages 20+ disposals, hardly a hardball get though, lays a few nice tackles, but as I said, you have to give up 'quality' to get quality, the Blues gave up what, their top 3 pick for judd plus Kennedy a very prominsing KPP, the Dockers when they got Croad (Dud move) gave up 3 picks (1, 20, 36) so thats a fair deal, Barry Hall the same year, Sydney gave up three picks (13, 17, 45) so what I am saying has some merit, I will keep going on for hours if you want, but I think i know what im on about guys ok guys, cheers.

Your theory has no sense to it...

So what, we should trade stanton for 3 draft picks???

You should think this through [a lot!] more... And try to explain without these random unimportant stats...

 

[Yoda_]

Your theory has no sense to it...

So what, we should trade stanton for 3 draft picks???

You should think this through [a lot!] more... And try to explain without these random unimportant stats...

I never said we trade him for three picks, if someone came up to you at trade week, and said, "listen, we'll give you pick #7 and pick #21 for brent stanton" what would you say, i know that wont happen, but would you go by another 2, top 30 picks, i know I wouldnt, sorry guys, but, think about what im saying.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'd think about it, but I don't understand it.

Are you saying that we should give up a couple of high draft picks for a good player, or vice versa?

 

[Rack Watts]

Yeah I don't know that I would say no either HFF. 7 and 21 for Stanton is pretty hawt. Woudn't happen, if he could get his footy brain and goal kicking right to go with his amazing engine he COULD be very deservent of number 5.
If I were Essendon I would be trying to get as many picks in this draft as they can.

 

[Yoda_]

I'd think about it, but I don't understand it.

Are you saying that we should give up a couple of high draft picks for a good player, or vice versa?

Yeah I don't know that I would say no either HFF. 7 and 21 for Stanton is pretty hawt. Woudn't happen, if he could get his footy brain and goal kicking right to go with his amazing engine he COULD be very deservent of number 5.
If I were Essendon I would be trying to get as many picks in this draft as they can.

yes that is what i am saying, if we want more picks, we give up good players, ala Brent Stanton, Andrew Lovett, if is traded, will get us, hopefully another pick inside the top 20, and with Stanton being traded, maybe, may get us another pick inside the first two rounds, if we package Stanton with a 3rd round pick, we may even be able to upgrade a pick and recieve two better picks.

are you guys getting it.

For example. Daniel Kerr, is/was one of the best players in the comp, the eagles wont accept anything but one first rounder and a quality player, if not that, then two or three picks. you have to give something up to get something of equal or greater value.

 

[The_Young_Gun]

yes that is what i am saying, if we want more picks, we give up good players, ala Brent Stanton, Andrew Lovett, if is traded, will get us, hopefully another pick inside the top 20, and with Stanton being traded, maybe, may get us another pick inside the first two rounds, if we package Stanton with a 3rd round pick, we may even be able to upgrade a pick and recieve two better picks.

I hope you understand that not all players you draft are going to turn out as superstars...

IMO we have more than enough draft picks... Sure an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder is good but your not going to give up an up and comer like stanton for it, Lovett/NLM maybe, but in the end your not guaranteed a good player from the draft...

Do you understand now...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

yes that is what i am saying, if we want more picks, we give up good players, ala Brent Stanton, Andrew Lovett, if is traded, will get us, hopefully another pick inside the top 20, and with Stanton being traded, maybe, may get us another pick inside the first two rounds, if we package Stanton with a 3rd round pick, we may even be able to upgrade a pick and recieve two better picks.

are you guys getting it.

For example. Daniel Kerr, is/was one of the best players in the comp, the eagles wont accept anything but one first rounder and a quality player, if not that, then two or three picks. you have to give something up to get something of equal or greater value.

Don't give me that crap.

If you can't get your point across properly, don't act like everyone else is dumb.

 

[dirtywhitepacker]

Your theory has no sense to it...

So what, we should trade stanton for 3 draft picks???

You should think this through [a lot!] more... And try to explain without these random unimportant stats...

I know this was directed to HFF, but in my instance, I did think my two potential trade's through quite a bit, and you just said "NO CHANCE". I don't come here to in-fight or what-not, but I think both trades have some sort of merit.

Roos has expressed draft picks are tradeable at Sydney. McPhee and Lovett both fill holes in Sydney's list.

I'm just annoyed that I thought it out pretty thoroughly and I get a condescending "NO CHANCE"...

 

[Windas_Magic]

I know what im on about.

Brent Stanton has a disposal efficiency of 67%, that is terrible, for a supposed elite midfielder, averages 20+ disposals, hardly a hardball get though, lays a few nice tackles, but as I said, you have to give up 'quality' to get quality, the Blues gave up what, their top 3 pick for judd plus Kennedy a very prominsing KPP, the Dockers when they got Croad (Dud move) gave up 3 picks (1, 20, 36) so thats a fair deal, Barry Hall the same year, Sydney gave up three picks (13, 17, 45) so what I am saying has some merit, I will keep going on for hours if you want, but I think i know what im on about guys ok guys, cheers.

It's pointless talking about trading Stanton, he is contracted to the end of 2010 FFS.

I'll also say this, so you would trade a young midfielder with 100 odd games of experience and the potential to become an A-Grader, who also kicks goals for some picks on players that will take 2-3 years to develop and could end up as total duds anyway!?

 

[The_Young_Gun]

I did think my two potential trade's through quite a bit, and you just said "NO CHANCE". I don't come here to in-fight or what-not, but I think both trades have some sort of merit.

Roos has expressed draft picks are tradeable at Sydney. McPhee and Lovett both fill holes in Sydney's list.

I'm just annoyed that I thought it out pretty thoroughly and I get a condescending "NO CHANCE"...

You realise your not allowed more than 1 BF account...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I think you've slightly over-estimated our players, especially considering the high value placed on draft picks this year.

Bear in mind that Sydney gave a 2nd rounder for Marty Mattner last year.

Would you say that McPhee would be as important to Sydney as Mattner was to them? I'd say not, but he'd be close.

Then, with what's left of your trade, you'd be putting Lovett and a 3rd rounder for a first rounder. That is definitely over priced, especially considering Mattner, Malceski and Kennelly provide plenty of run into the forward 50.

That's without considering the strength of the draft relative to last year's and also the fact that the two new teams will be taking everything out of the next few drafts, at least at the top end.

 

[Yoda_]

Dont worry guys.

Essendon F.C finals chance for 2009, thats what where all here for.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

You realise your not allowed more than 1 BF account...

I think that you've misinterpreted him. He was shot down pretty quickly a bit earlier in the thread.

 

[The_Young_Gun]

I think that you've misinterpreted him. He was shot down pretty quickly a bit earlier in the thread.

Yeah, I just saw the edit...

 

[dirtywhitepacker]

I think you've slightly over-estimated our players, especially considering the high value placed on draft picks this year.

Bear in mind that Sydney gave a 2nd rounder for Marty Mattner last year.

Would you say that McPhee would be as important to Sydney as Mattner was to them? I'd say not, but he'd be close.

Then, with what's left of your trade, you'd be putting Lovett and a 3rd rounder for a first rounder. That is definitely over priced, especially considering Mattner, Malceski and Kennelly provide plenty of run into the forward 50.

That's without considering the strength of the draft relative to last year's and also the fact that the two new teams will be taking everything out of the next few drafts, at least at the top end.

Thank you, finally a reasoned reply. I honestly think this could be one of the best replies I have ever received on BF. I'm going to do a dance

Ok, that was fun. Back to the topic. I'd say McPhee would be as valuable as Mattner definitely, just on the opposite end of the park. Sydney need a marking target around half forward with Micky O coming to the end. McPhee is a former B&F winner who has had a developing season in a new role.

I also think the AFL would be worried about where Sydney are heading. If they bottom out in the next couple of years, support will drop right off, and this is around the same time the AFL want to bring a new team into West Sydney. For West Sydney to be successful one would think the Swans would have to be up and going at the same time so the interest in AFL is still high.

 

[Yoda_]

ill make it a little easier for you, Lovett is going to go. we all know,

if we trade Lovett + our 3rd rounder, we could get WCE priority pick, and their 2nd rounder. just a hyperthetical. that is what i am saying. so

Lovett + 39 -> WCE

Pick 19 + Pick 21 -> EFC

do you get it now guys.

 

[The_Young_Gun]

ill make it a little easier for you, Lovett is going to go. we all know,

um, actually a lot of us think he's going no where!

Think it through matey!

The media have been the only ones that said he'll go... Knighta's been pretty open with the media lately... I'll take the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I think they've got Henry Playfair marked for that role.

Even if you say he's worth a second rounder, you've got Lovett and a third rounder for a first rounder. Maybe Lovett and a third for a second. So then you're effectively packaging Lovett, McPhee and a third rounder for a first rounder. We'd need to pick until about the 12th round just to fill our list if that happened.

Which is basically a long winded way of saying NO CHANCE!

 

[Ben the Gooner]

ill make it a little easier for you, Lovett is going to go. we all know,

if we trade Lovett + our 3rd rounder, we could get WCE priority pick, and their 2nd rounder. just a hyperthetical. that is what i am saying. so

Lovett + 39 -> WCE

Pick 19 + Pick 21 -> EFC

do you get it now guys.

Good luck. Why don't they just throw in their first rounder as well?

 

[Yoda_]

i am trying to explain something. you think everything that is said on these boards is true, pathetic, i am fighting a losing battle here. its ok, i know what I am on about, you guys dont, we will leave it at that then, ok, we are all Essendon fans here, aren't we, weshouldnt be bagging each other out,

 

[Windas_Magic]

ill make it a little easier for you, Lovett is going to go. we all know,

if we trade Lovett + our 3rd rounder, we could get WCE priority pick, and their 2nd rounder. just a hyperthetical. that is what i am saying. so

Lovett + 39 -> WCE

Pick 19 + Pick 21 -> EFC

do you get it now guys.

West Coast won't do that
More like Lovett and pick 39 for one of their picks in the second round (19 or 21)

 

[Yoda_]

West Coast won't do that
More like Lovett and pick 39 for one of their picks in the second round (19 or 21)

at last........

someone that is kinda understanding what I am trying to say..

Thank you Windas_Magic

i spose your deal would be more fair anyways, i was just generalising.

 

[dirtywhitepacker]

I think they've got Charlie Gardiner marked for that role.

Even if you say he's worth a second rounder, you've got Lovett and a third rounder for a first rounder. Maybe Lovett and a third for a second. So then you're effectively packaging Lovett, McPhee and a third rounder for a first rounder. We'd need to pick until about the 12th round just to fill our list if that happened.

Which is basically a long winded way of saying NO CHANCE!

Isn't Charlie Gardiner at the Saints now? Or have I missed something?

I think Lovett would be worth an early second round, Sydney will have a mid/late second round, I think McPhee + early 3rd round would be 'almost' worth a mid/late first round pick. Together I think the deal makes sense. In my initial post on this trade I explain which picks we will have. The latest pick in the National Draft we will have will be a 4th Round (55 or something).

 

[BacharHouli_43]

whats with these stupid trade options for lovett, he is such a better player. The dal santo deal is the only one remotely fair. lovett is only 25 and has so much potential

 

[The_Young_Gun]

i am trying to explain something. you think everything that is said on these boards is true, pathetic, i am fighting a losing battle here. its ok, i know what I am on about, you guys dont, we will leave it at that then, ok, we are all Essendon fans here, aren't we, weshouldnt be bagging each other out,

And Thankyou for the Insult