Player Watch Sam Murray - (Delisted 2019)

[Scodog10]

This has been gone over a heap of times, but I can't resist. Apologies to many.

Your suggestion is definitely possible, but you've got to admit that it seems far less likely than it did at the time of the trade.

I'm assuming your theory is predicated on the idea that we should have been able able to get him much cheaper. Now that we've seen him play, it seems very unlikely that Sydney wouldn't have seen some significant potential and value in this guy. Thus is seems very unlikely that they would have given him away significantly cheaper than the price we paid.

Sydney are far too professional to tell the press that they bent us over or felt like they were bent over, so we'll never know for sure, unless we have contacts within Sydney.

The only thing in the press that could give us an indication is from Cresswell, who suggests that Sydney were disappointed to lose him and that Longmire was angry with him for walking, furthering the suggestion that Sydney wouldn't have given him away much cheaper.

I know you couldn’t resist it’s part of what makes you the poster you are because you aren’t truly open to the views of others. I also don’t have to admit anything.

I have well and truly considered that this is the best deal we could negotiate because I know our negotiation team was weak. It’s the exact reason we brought Guy in after getting our fudge packed at the trade table the past three off-seasons. The thing is that doesn’t make the deal any less dogshit. You send a negotiator in to solve a hostage situation. You know he’s pretty average and it ends in dead hostages do you sit back and say we got the criminal in the end job done or acknowledge the negotiator may have done the absolute best they could and still failed?...

My theory is no theory it’s knowledge based. Murray was out of contract so there were a couple of mechinisims available to us to bring him in:

1. The draft.
2. Trade.

He wasn’t going to be delisted by Sydney so wasn’t available for DFA.

Via the draft we passed at pick 60 so if he’s available there he’s ours. If not we draft Barry. We also had the option to trade into other picks so say pick 50 odd that went to Brown is traded along with a player to advance up the draft and get an earlier pick to nab Murray. If we had say 20 untouchables that leaves us circa 20 options outward and about 10-15 inward depending on how high we wanted to get and the interest in our players. We also could have considered 3rd or 4th round picks from the 2018 draft or 39 with that 50 odd pick.

We then have the same number of trade options, but available to us by circumventing the draft process. My maths on these exponential numbers is pretty piss poor so I’ll leave exact figures to others and say In total that gives us access to in excess of 500 options. If all of those options were considered don’t you think the message coming out of the club would have been slightly different? I’ll touch further on that later.

Pre-empting the obvious retorts we would be drafting Brown with the pick we passed on.

Both Creswell and Longmire are Sydney men their word is as believable as Walsh’s on injuries. Also don’t fool Creswell’s views as anything to do with Collingwood he just wants to see his boys succeed.

What I have issue with now is not simply the steaming pile of dogshit trade price (I liked Murray then and clearly still do), but the completely predictable and ill considered justifications both from the supporters and the club. What I think you’ve ultimately chosen to forget is that Hine tried to pull a swifty on us, the supporters, by claiming that we didn’t understand the points system. The problem is that many are more analytical than he realised and peered right through his bullshit. Others not so much (you can decide who they are ).

Go back to the third post or thereabouts of this thread. I was always big on Murray, but as soon as the reality of how bad the deal was set in my mindset shifted from simply thankful for the good talent ID to both thankful and shitty for the awkward position we’ve now put ourselves in.

You strike me as someone cut from the same same cloth as myself in that you know all and in knowing this was the best way for us to attack this deal what extra flexibility do we now have to acquire Quaynor if he receives a bid circa pick 12? I’m curious to read your theories on how this deal gave us greater flexibility in attracting Quaynor and Kelly...

I don’t expect this discussion to go much further I only ask you to acknowledge that some amongst us don’t want to lick the bootlaces of people who dropped the ball!

You know what I also find irritating about this is that posters such as myself loki, Apex, mike123, CFC, Wicksy, ottoman etc. saw this coming 6 months ago. We knew that as soon as he started performing the masses would crawl out of the woodwork and go “how good is this” all you that called the club out can suck eggs nah nah nah nah nah. Stoods

I’m not upset with it just disappointed with how predictable it was.

 

[Quicky]

Couldn't sleep so watched replay. Crisp seemed to be on Lynch all night, didn't see another player on him.

Murray seemed to start on Mileria but then mostly on Douglas.

Watching the replay, I don't think I gave enough credit to Brown, stood next to Gibbs in 1st qtr and beat him, then was also on Seedsman. Also I hope Shaz stays fit, very clever player.

Interesting to watch replay looking for specific match ups.

Thanks Maggie that's fantastic. Well done Crisp then!

I thought Brown was great and didn't realise he spent time on Gibbs. I reckon he'll be a good two way mid for us in time. He already has the defensive game. And he is beginning to do more with the ball, but his composure seems good.

 

[CFC2010]

I know you couldn’t resist it’s part of what makes you the poster you are because you aren’t truly open to the views of others. I also don’t have to admit anything.

I have well and truly considered that this is the best deal we could negotiate because I know our negotiation team was weak. It’s the exact reason we brought Guy in after getting our fudge packed at the trade table the past three off-seasons. The thing is that doesn’t make the deal any less dogshit. You send a negotiator in to solve a hostage situation. You know he’s pretty average and it ends in dead hostages do you sit back and say we got the criminal in the end job done or acknowledge the negotiator may have done the absolute best they could and still failed?...

My theory is no theory it’s knowledge based. Murray was out of contract so there were a couple of mechinisims available to us to bring him in:

1. The draft.
2. Trade.

He wasn’t going to be delisted by Sydney so wasn’t available for DFA.

Via the draft we passed at pick 60 so if he’s available there he’s ours. If not we draft Barry. We also had the option to trade into other picks so say pick 50 odd that went to Brown is traded along with a player to advance up the draft and get an earlier pick to nab Murray. If we had say 20 untouchables that leaves us circa 20 options outward and about 10-15 inward depending on how high we wanted to get and the interest in our players. We also could have considered 3rd or 4th round picks from the 2018 draft or 39 with that 50 odd pick.

We then have the same number of trade options, but available to us by circumventing the draft process. My maths on these exponential numbers is pretty piss poor so I’ll leave exact figures to others and say In total that gives us access to in excess of 500 options. If all of those options were considered don’t you think the message coming out of the club would have been slightly different? I’ll touch further on that later.

Pre-empting the obvious retorts we would be drafting Brown with the pick we passed on.

Both Creswell and Longmire are Sydney men their word is as believable as Walsh’s on injuries. Also don’t fool Creswell’s views as anything to do with Collingwood he just wants to see his boys succeed.

What I have issue with now is not simply the steaming pile of dogshit trade price (I liked Murray then and clearly still do), but the completely predictable and ill considered justifications both from the supporters and the club. What I think you’ve ultimately chosen to forget is that Hine tried to pull a swifty on us, the supporters, by claiming that we didn’t understand the points system. The problem is that many are more analytical than he realised and peered right through his bullshit. Others not so much (you can decide who they are ).

Go back to the third post or thereabouts of this thread. I was always big on Murray, but as soon as the reality of how bad the deal was my mindset shifted from simply thankful for the good talent ID to both thankful and shitty for the awkward position we’ve now put ourselves in.

You strike me as someone cut from the same same cloth as myself in that you know all and in knowing this was the best way for us to attack this deal what extra flexibility do we now have to acquire Quaynor if he receives a bid circa pick 12? I’m curious to read your theories on how this deal gave us greater flexibility in attracting Quaynor and Kelly...

I don’t expect this discussion to go much further I only ask you to acknowledge that some amongst us don’t want to lick the bootlaces of people who dropped the ball!

You know what I also find irritating about this is that posters such as myself loki, Apex, mike123, CFC, wicket etc. saw this coming 6 months ago. We knew that as soon as he started performing the masses would crawl out of the woodwork and go “how good is this” all you that called the club out can suck eggs nah nah nah nah nah. Stoods

For me it is pretty simple........Is Hine still our List Manager = NO Case closed.

As for Murray I am just holding of to the Anzacday game before coming into this thread and making a grandiose statement about him.

If Bucks wants me to be a believer we have to win next week.........and this kid Murray will be a key to whether we do or not.

 

[sr36]

I know you couldn’t resist it’s part of what makes you the poster you are because you aren’t truly open to the views of others. I also don’t have to admit anything.

I have well and truly considered that this is the best deal we could negotiate because I know our negotiation team was weak. It’s the exact reason we brought Guy in after getting our fudge packed at the trade table the past three off-seasons. The thing is that doesn’t make the deal any less dogshit. You send a negotiator in to solve a hostage situation. You know he’s pretty average and it ends in dead hostages do you sit back and say we got the criminal in the end job done or acknowledge the negotiator may have done the absolute best they could and still failed?...

My theory is no theory it’s knowledge based. Murray was out of contract so there were a couple of mechinisims available to us to bring him in:

1. The draft.
2. Trade.

He wasn’t going to be delisted by Sydney so wasn’t available for DFA.

Via the draft we passed at pick 60 so if he’s available there he’s ours. If not we draft Barry. We also had the option to trade into other picks so say pick 50 odd that went to Brown is traded along with a player to advance up the draft and get an earlier pick to nab Murray. If we had say 20 untouchables that leaves us circa 20 options outward and about 10-15 inward depending on how high we wanted to get and the interest in our players. We also could have considered 3rd or 4th round picks from the 2018 draft or 39 with that 50 odd pick.

We then have the same number of trade options, but available to us by circumventing the draft process. My maths on these exponential numbers is pretty piss poor so I’ll leave exact figures to others and say In total that gives us access to in excess of 500 options. If all of those options were considered don’t you think the message coming out of the club would have been slightly different? I’ll touch further on that later.

Pre-empting the obvious retorts we would be drafting Brown with the pick we passed on.

Both Creswell and Longmire are Sydney men their word is as believable as Walsh’s on injuries. Also don’t fool Creswell’s views as anything to do with Collingwood he just wants to see his boys succeed.

What I have issue with now is not simply the steaming pile of dogshit trade price (I liked Murray then and clearly still do), but the completely predictable and ill considered justifications both from the supporters and the club. What I think you’ve ultimately chosen to forget is that Hine tried to pull a swifty on us, the supporters, by claiming that we didn’t understand the points system. The problem is that many are more analytical than he realised and peered right through his bullshit. Others not so much (you can decide who they are ).

Go back to the third post or thereabouts of this thread. I was always big on Murray, but as soon as the reality of how bad the deal was set in my mindset shifted from simply thankful for the good talent ID to both thankful and shitty for the awkward position we’ve now put ourselves in.

You strike me as someone cut from the same same cloth as myself in that you know all and in knowing this was the best way for us to attack this deal what extra flexibility do we now have to acquire Quaynor if he receives a bid circa pick 12? I’m curious to read your theories on how this deal gave us greater flexibility in attracting Quaynor and Kelly...

I don’t expect this discussion to go much further I only ask you to acknowledge that some amongst us don’t want to lick the bootlaces of people who dropped the ball!

You know what I also find irritating about this is that posters such as myself loki, Apex, mike123, CFC, Wicksy, ottoman etc. saw this coming 6 months ago. We knew that as soon as he started performing the masses would crawl out of the woodwork and go “how good is this” all you that called the club out can suck eggs nah nah nah nah nah. Stoods

I’m not upset with it just disappointed with how predictable it was.

I've agreed all along that the Quaynor points stuff was rubbish, but why are you assuming that the claim by Hine and suggestion by Sydney that a Category B rookie who has been offered a contract can't nominate for the draft is also rubbish? Also why do you assume that Murray would have been willing to nominate for the draft, if he was actually allowed? You're guessing that the draft was a genuine option.

I suspect you're right about Hine having to go as a negotiator. I reckon he has shot himself in the foot in the media a couple of times. He's said things like:
If you persuade a kid to nominate you and effectively walk out on his club, you've got to do the right thing by him and make sure you get the deal done.
Whilst I agree with Hine's sentiment, it was bloody stupid to say it as it has left him open to overpaying. I am open to the possibility that we paid more in trade than we needed to to get Murray, I just haven't seen any evidence or arguments to make me consider it to be more than a theory.

The argument that Untried Category B rookies go for a particular price that is way lower than what we paid is a silly argument. It's akin to suggesting that all houses in the one street should go for the median price, even if one of them is a manor house on a block that is three times the size of other blocks. It's akin to suggesting that all 18 year olds should have the same value in the draft. The new evidence in, Murray's performances, suggests that it's likely that Sydney would have valued him closer to the manor house than the median house in the category B street.

The argument that Sydney were bluffing and would have accepted much less is a pure guess.

Whether or not he could nominate for the draft and would have been willing to- at this stage, I'm going with Hine's claim and Hurleys suggestion.

There's never been any other real arguments or evidence to suggest that our negotiation was terrible on this occasion. What you claim as knowledge, still remains a theory to me and as the evidence of Murray's attributes and potential are beginning to come in, your theory of us dramatically overpaying, whilst still possibly true, is looking less likely.

Frankly, I think you went too early and too hard on both calls - good talent identification and poor negotiation. There wasn't enough evidence in on the first call and the second call will always remain a guess - unless someone from Sydney's side of the negotiation leaves and spills their side of the argument. To me it looks like you probably got lucky with one guess and unlucky with another.

As I said last night, your initial sentiment was perfect.

I might hold fire on this one for the time being. If he comes in and is best 22 that deal is worth it.

:

 

[Gone Critical]

I've agreed all along that the Quaynor points stuff was rubbish, but why are you assuming that the claim by Hine and suggestion by Sydney that a Category B rookie who has been offered a contract can't nominate for the draft is also rubbish? Also why do you assume that Murray would have been willing to nominate for the draft, if he was actually allowed? You're guessing that the draft was a genuine option.

I suspect you're right about Hine having to go as a negotiator. I reckon he has shot himself in the foot in the media a couple of times. He's said things like:
If you persuade a kid to nominate you and effectively walk out on his club, you've got to do the right thing by him and make sure you get the deal done.
Whilst I agree with Hine's sentiment, it was bloody stupid to say it as it has left him open to overpaying. I am open to the possibility that we paid more in trade than we needed to to get Murray, I just haven't seen any evidence or arguments to make me consider it to be more than a theory.

The argument that Untried Category B rookies go for a particular price that is way lower than what we paid is a silly argument. It's akin to suggesting that all houses in the one street should go for the median price, even if one of them is a manor house on a block that is three times the size of other blocks. It's akin to suggesting that all 18 year olds should have the same value in the draft. The new evidence in, Murray's performances, suggests that it's likely that Sydney would have valued him closer to the manor house than the median house in the category B street.

The argument that Sydney were bluffing and would have accepted much less is a pure guess.

Whether or not he could nominate for the draft and would have been willing to- at this stage, I'm going with Hine's claim and Hurleys suggestion.

There's never been any other real arguments or evidence to suggest that our negotiation was terrible on this occasion. What you claim as knowledge, still remains a theory to me and as the evidence of Murray's attributes and potential are beginning to come in, your theory of us dramatically overpaying, whilst still possibly true, is looking less likely.

Frankly, I think you went too early and too hard on both calls - good talent identification and poor negotiation. There wasn't enough evidence in on the first call and the second call will always remain a guess - unless someone from Sydney's side of the negotiation leaves and spills their side of the argument. To me it looks like you probably got lucky with one guess and unlucky with another.

As I said last night, your initial sentiment was perfect.




:

Think you have summarised it really well.

At the end of the day lots of the assessments we make of the club and players/staff etc is based on incomplete/imperfect knowledge. The nuts and bolts of the Murray negotiations clearly falls into this category.

Once you understand that and the result of the deal is good for the club its time to just enjoy the player. None of us really know the details of the negotiations and I daresay no one would want to reverse the deal now we know what we got. The posters who continue to believe they know this was a poor negotiation just dont understand the limitations of their knowledge.

 

[Darkyprotector]

You continue to miss the point.
Nobody is debating that we won the trade. Sam is going to be a very good footballer.
BUT in a year where mid tier players were getting traded for peanuts, we paid well over for a rookie. Well over!
If you debate that fact, then you're a moron and it's no wonder you're missing the point.

Fast forward 6 months and the people who were critical of the trade at the time are being told by the "toldyousoers" that we were wrong. We weren't. I have apologised for underestimating the player we were getting but the question, "did we pay too much for a rookie listed player? still has the answer of Y.E.S.

Absolute rubbish and as one who got it right from the start let me inform you that The kids a long long term player all going well who will have influence in every game we play in possibly one of the most influential parts of the ground
Williams , witts and what other duds you talking about paying zip
Consider the age difference , consider the disposal efficiency
You realise williams and witts cost us not much at all

You all fixate on the so called super draft lol
A pick 2 downgraded at a time when were looking at taking up to 4 discounted kids 25 % discount each time

Just back the friggin club

 

[wicksy]

Absolute rubbish and as one who got it right from the start let me inform you that The kids a long long term player all going well who will have influence in every game we play in possibly one of the most influential parts of the ground
Williams , witts and what other duds you talking about paying zip
Consider the age difference , consider the disposal efficiency
You realise williams and witts cost us not much at all

You all fixate on the so called super draft lol
A pick 2 downgraded at a time when were looking at taking up to 4 discounted kids 25 % discount each time

Just back the friggin club

Witts? Duds? Righto.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Yes, every north supporter I've talked to is baffled at how they got him for a pick in the 100's

They shouldn't be but they barrack for north so you have to question there judgement
Can't kick and 1 sided
Bad influence
Undisciplined on and off field
Not fast

Tell em to wait till they play someone who ain't finishing bottom 5

 

[Gone Critical]

Absolute rubbish and as one who got it right from the start let me inform you that The kids a long long term player all going well who will have influence in every game we play in possibly one of the most influential parts of the ground
Williams , witts and what other duds you talking about paying zip
Consider the age difference , consider the disposal efficiency
You realise williams and witts cost us not much at all

You all fixate on the so called super draft lol
A pick 2 downgraded at a time when were looking at taking up to 4 discounted kids 25 % discount each time

Just back the friggin club

Not your finest call Darky

 

[Darkyprotector]

Witts? Duds? Righto.

What suddenly you rate him
The gentle giant with a bung shoulder who can't mark , boot mobile and has no physical presence

Gee they all lined up for him , what a recruit

He's a cream puff

 

[Darkyprotector]

Not your finest call Darky

Disagree
Bung shoulder
Can't mark
Not rated by anyone in footy of any note
Grundy gawn Jacobs Kreuzer Ryder mcevoy Goldstein nankervis Naismith Martin Sandi nic nat bellchambers

Now that's 13 guys way ahead of him and some even take a mark and kick goals
Preust Marshall lycett Sinclair darcy smith all at least the same level
So gc I rekin I'm on the money
He's crap below his knees No physicality , shit tank and doesn't hit the scoreboard , can't play any other position either
It's a shame he didn't go to gws , notice they didn't try very hard

 

[wicksy]

What suddenly you rate him
The gentle giant with a bung shoulder who can't mark , boot mobile and has no physical presence

Gee they all lined up for him , what a recruit

He's a cream puff

Firstly, I always rate him so let's get that out of the way.
Secondly, go and watch some football games that don't involve Collingwood.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Think you have summarised it really well.

At the end of the day lots of the assessments we make of the club and players/staff etc is based on incomplete/imperfect knowledge. The nuts and bolts of the Murray negotiations clearly falls into this category.

Once you understand that and the result of the deal is good for the club its time to just enjoy the player. None of us really know the details of the negotiations and I daresay no one would want to reverse the deal now we know what we got. The posters who continue to believe they know this was a poor negotiation just dont understand the limitations of their knowledge.

As usual, you break it down well.

People like to believe they know everything and they themselves would do a whole lot better if they were the trade representative. Or they would have walked away from the deal (as that must be an alternative.)

But we don’t know all the facts so it’s just guess work on my part, as is there’s.

I thought we probably paid too much at the time, now I’m very content. That’s just how it rolls.

 

[sr36]

Absolute rubbish and as one who got it right from the start let me inform you that The kids a long long term player all going well who will have influence in every game we play in possibly one of the most influential parts of the ground

Stop gloating, you got it right due to blind faith. It was as pure a guess as any other. It's like gloating over your brilliance in winning a coin toss.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's like gloating over your brilliance in winning a coin toss.

That works in two up

Anzac Day reference as we heading to that big day.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Stop gloating, you got it right due to blind faith. It was as pure a guess as any other. It's like gloating over your brilliance in winning a coin toss.

I got it right because my blind faith ensued I did some friggin research instead of swallowing media crap
Asked questions and got the right info from o and m people ,passed it on to sooth the hysteria and got abused by those who hadn't seen him play
Yeah so when I get on here and are forced to read crap posted by the same olds clutching at straws in attempts to belittle derail or justify their own opinions I lmao
You call that support

 

[sr36]

That works in two up

Anzac Day reference as we heading to that big day.

I'm genuinely excited about this Anzac Day Match. I'm a bit concerned about their pace, but if we can overcome them convincingly, my belief will grow towards stupid prediction stage.

 

[Apex36]

Disagree
Bung shoulder
Can't mark
Not rated by anyone in footy of any note
Grundy gawn Jacobs Kreuzer Ryder mcevoy Goldstein nankervis Naismith Martin Sandi nic nat bellchambers

Now that's 13 guys way ahead of him and some even take a mark and kick goals
Preust Marshall lycett Sinclair darcy smith all at least the same level
So gc I rekin I'm on the money
He's crap below his knees No physicality , shit tank and doesn't hit the scoreboard , can't play any other position either
It's a shame he didn't go to gws , notice they didn't try very hard

You might want to compare Witts’ numbers to some of those blokes you’ve listed, including marks per game. He stacks up pretty favourably against most. But you won’t, because you’ve made up your mind about him just like you made your mind up about Scharenberg a few months ago on that back of one spray from Dunn. Laughable.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I've agreed all along that the Quaynor points stuff was rubbish, but why are you assuming that the claim by Hine and suggestion by Sydney that a Category B rookie who has been offered a contract can't nominate for the draft is also rubbish? Also why do you assume that Murray would have been willing to nominate for the draft, if he was actually allowed? You're guessing that the draft was a genuine option.

I suspect you're right about Hine having to go as a negotiator. I reckon he has shot himself in the foot in the media a couple of times. He's said things like:
If you persuade a kid to nominate you and effectively walk out on his club, you've got to do the right thing by him and make sure you get the deal done.
Whilst I agree with Hine's sentiment, it was bloody stupid to say it as it has left him open to overpaying. I am open to the possibility that we paid more in trade than we needed to to get Murray, I just haven't seen any evidence or arguments to make me consider it to be more than a theory.

The argument that Untried Category B rookies go for a particular price that is way lower than what we paid is a silly argument. It's akin to suggesting that all houses in the one street should go for the median price, even if one of them is a manor house on a block that is three times the size of other blocks. It's akin to suggesting that all 18 year olds should have the same value in the draft. The new evidence in, Murray's performances, suggests that it's likely that Sydney would have valued him closer to the manor house than the median house in the category B street.

The argument that Sydney were bluffing and would have accepted much less is a pure guess.

Whether or not he could nominate for the draft and would have been willing to- at this stage, I'm going with Hine's claim and Hurleys suggestion.

There's never been any other real arguments or evidence to suggest that our negotiation was terrible on this occasion. What you claim as knowledge, still remains a theory to me and as the evidence of Murray's attributes and potential are beginning to come in, your theory of us dramatically overpaying, whilst still possibly true, is looking less likely.

Frankly, I think you went too early and too hard on both calls - good talent identification and poor negotiation. There wasn't enough evidence in on the first call and the second call will always remain a guess - unless someone from Sydney's side of the negotiation leaves and spills their side of the argument. To me it looks like you probably got lucky with one guess and unlucky with another.

As I said last night, your initial sentiment was perfect.




:

Great reply ,terrific post Sr 36

I'd add referred by a recent life member and a ex player who coached him
For those who ignore the points argument speak to the afl as that's the system
Oh and if ISSAC goes before 12 we get a 25% discount firstly and secondly in a SO CALLED SUPER DOOPER DRAFT OF ALL TIME he'd then be worth what were forced to pay
And then there's our other discounted selections to consider
Gee it could be funny if we finish above Sydney as well

 

[Darkyprotector]

You might want to compare Witts’ numbers to some of those blokes you’ve listed, including marks per game. He stacks up pretty favourably against most. But you won’t, because you’ve made up your mind about him just like you made your mind up about Scharenberg a few months ago on that back of one spray from Dunn. Laughable.

Have a crack

I also pointed out that it appeared the penny had dropped

 

[jimmy35]

It's amusing watching the gyrations to avoid those 3 words "I was wrong".

I voiced the concerns at the start that we had overpaid for Murray. On the surface, with what "we" knew at the time, it seemed to have some substance. That view was always intertwined with the suspicion that Sydney had seen us coming and out manoeuvred us at the trade table. That had to be based on the concern he wasn't worth that price.

Guess what? He is worth the price. Fast forward and it seems he is going to slot immediately into our 22 for the whole season and fix a major need in our backline. We were not in the possession of much knowledge of the kid so made some assumptions about his value. Our assumptions of where the two clubs valued Murray were clearly ill founded. Sydney and Collingwood had much more knowledge and at the end of the day seem to have conducted a fair negotiation. Now we are in a much better position to judge his value we can view it in a different light. It's now easy for me to say "I was wrong".

Anyone sticking to the line the negotiation was badly handled while conceding Murray is worth the price we paid is talking nonsense.

Essence of the deal

Sydney. "You guys like Murray, this is what we reckon he is worth"

Collingwood. " Yeah we like him and this is what we want to pay"

Haggle haggle haggle

Sydney. " At the end of the day, trade time is closing, this is what we will accept"

Collingwood. " OK after the toing and froing that's a price we are prepared to pay"

Deal done

Hindsight. Sydney got good compensation in the circumstances and we got a bargain it seems. Classic win win.

That's without considering who gets picked up with the picks swapped which is irrelevant because that will come down to each clubs talent ID and the strength of the draft. The draft picks have an assumed value and that's all you can go on at the time. It was good trading.

Sydney weren’t about to throw him on the footy scrapheap, which is where a lot of the ‘we overpaid for rookie about to be listed’ brigade. They rated him, ran him through how their system allows him to be placed and we paid fair market value for the player.
Mind boggles that now the trades not been bedded that people think otherwise.

 

[Darkyprotector]

You might want to compare Witts’ numbers to some of those blokes you’ve listed, including marks per game. He stacks up pretty favourably against most. But you won’t, because you’ve made up your mind about him just like you made your mind up about Scharenberg a few months ago on that back of one spray from Dunn. Laughable.

Educate me
Who out of that 13 would you rate him ahead off over the journey
Didn't even dominate vfl

So many clubs wanted him , who?

 

[CFC2010]

Hine needs to understand this saying above.
Telling the other 17 teams (enemies) what we plan to do in 12 months time in the draft is ludicrous.
If he was in the Mafia he would be swimming with the fishes by now.

Back on topic (sr36 ) I think this week will be his biggest test in such a short career.
This game is as big as a Final IMO and it separates the boys from the men.
Really looking forward to this Anzacday game.

 

[sr36]

View attachment 485236

Hine needs to understand this saying above.
Telling the other 17 teams (enemies) what we plan to do in 12 months time in the draft is ludicrous.
If he was in the Mafia he would be swimming with the fishes by now.

Back on topic (sr36 ) I think this week will be his biggest test in such a short career.
This game is as big as a Final IMO and it separates the boys from the men.
Really looking forward to this Anzacday game.

View attachment 485239

The one possible saving grace with Hine's loose tongue is that he talks so much gobbledy gook that most of the time nobody really knows what he's talking about. Having said that, I really like him.

I'm pretty bullish about Murray's prospects in big games. His playing style suggests a fearless confidence that makes me think him unlikely to feel the pressure. But every week is a big test for him I reckon. His impact has been bloody large, bloody early, but the downside of that is that other teams will be doing their homework. Like a young batsman who scores an early century, club's are going to look for and probably find a weakness to exploit. It'll then be his job to find a way around the weakness. Hopefully he either doesn't have an exploitable weakness or can overcome any that he has, because his strengths are bloody breathtaking.

 

[Apex36]

Educate me
Who out of that 13 would you rate him ahead off over the journey
Didn't even dominate vfl

So many clubs wanted him , who?

On the bolded, are you for real? And you accuse others of not doing any research!

He’s currently ahead or breaking even with at least half or more of those guys you listed.