The Brad Ebert Story, feat. WC, Port and WB

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Doesn't effect anything as Ebert has to agree to be traded there.

Reigning premiers, very close to Adelaide. Would be silly not to seriously consider it.
Things just got very interesting...
I always say the two clubs you never want to trade with are collingwood and port, as they never offer fair trades.

 

[Coledinho]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Who turns down Geelong? Thats like saying "Get out of the bed Jennifer Hawkins, Ive got Magda Szbunaski coming up in a few minutes"

 

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Ebert's made it known that his desire is to return to Port Adelaide and Port Adelaide only. It's not Brad Ebert who is "screwing over" West Coast in a deal but Port Adelaide who isn't budging from what some people suggested the deal would be roughly for, their second round pick.

A player nominating only one club then threatening to walk for free in PSD is screwing a club.

WCE should have dealt with this last year though. Poor list management IMO, this is assuming WCE were aware ebert had interests of going to Port.

 

[archiemoses]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Geelong has to be a tempting place to play footy? Also, I think he will go well at Geelong. Hard body will complement their midfield I reckon.

Hope this increases Port's urgency.

Adelaide please offer 24!

 

[pantskyle]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Might go for the chance for a premiership next year.

 

[Malibu#27]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Geelong has to be a tempting place to play footy? Also, I think he will go well at Geelong. Hard body will complement their midfield I reckon.

Hope this increases Port's urgency.

Adelaide please offer 24!

#24 will go to GWS with #10 for a mini draft pick.

 

[PAFC66]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Reigning premiers, very close to Adelaide. Would be silly not to seriously consider it.
Things just got very interesting...
I always say the two clubs you never want to trade with are collingwood and port, as they never offer fair trades.

Thats bullshit. We have done plenty of trades with you guys since we came into the comp.

 

[manureid]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

So if he could not get a game in the West Coast team, would he be thinking he is a walk up start to the Cats team?

 

[Coledinho]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Thats bullshit. We have done plenty of trades with you guys since we came into the comp.

Anyone remember the last trade Port Adelaide didnt bitch about? Stevens, Josh Carr etc

 

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Thats bullshit. We have done plenty of trades with you guys since we came into the comp.

Collingwood and port have bad reps in the trade circles. I have heard it from plenty of people.

This isn't ports problem though, West Coast let ebert run down his contract, if he wanted to leave they should have dealt with it last year.

 

[juddy_Like]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Only problem with Geelong is that he wants 1. To play and 2. To play in the midfield.

Ebert will be good but to dislodge Selwood, Bartel, Corey and the million other class midfielders they've got is a big stretch.

 

[shooshka]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

at least Geelong have now confirmed the thoughts of many WC fans (and some PA fans) - he's worth #28 at least...

this will delay the negotiations a little now i think!

 

[ausbacker]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

A player nominating only one club then threatening to walk for free in PSD is screwing a club.

WCE should have dealt with this last year though. Poor list management IMO, this is assuming WCE were aware ebert had interests of going to Port.

Not really. The players have slim to no power when it comes to ending up at the destination of their choosing under current AFL rules. The one bargaining chip they have is the PSD. Next season, assuming status it will be free agency. I have no problem with players using the tools available to them to achieve their outcome.

At the time of drafting, West Coast had to know of the strong pull toward Port Adelaide given the Ebert name. Whilst I'd be just as happy for him to stay with West Coast, crying foul given the conditions of AFL drafting across 2010/2011 isn't a good enough excuse for me. West Coast was always going to come out on the poorer end of any deal given our investment in Ebert as a high pick.

So yes, I agree with you that it was optimistic on West Coast's behalf to believe we could get any more out of an Ebert deal.

 

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

So if he could not get a game in the West Coast team, would he be thinking he is a walk up start to the Cats team?

Shit load of retirements and he isn't a bad player, just had a ****ing stinking game against collingwood, was clearly worst on ground, lost his place and says that's why he is leaving.

Personally I think he wanted to leave even if he did play in the finals.

 

[zero]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

So if he could not get a game in the West Coast team, would he be thinking he is a walk up start to the Cats team?

he played 22 games this year, in a top 4 side with no injuries. so im not sure what you think "can not get a game" means exactly

plus hes still developing. he will improve next year and the year after.

 

[fpm84]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

I'd gladly take him for #26 if he wanted to play for us.

Ling has retired which automatically opens up a permanent spot in our midfield. Bartel and Selwood are in their prime, but Joel Corey only has a year or two left.

 

[Adz2332]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

How does this change much?

 

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Not really. The players have slim to no power when it comes to ending up at the destination of their choosing under current AFL rules. The one bargaining chip they have is the PSD. Next season, assuming status it will be free agency. I have no problem with players using the tools available to them to achieve their outcome.

At the time of drafting, West Coast had to know of the strong pull toward Port Adelaide given the Ebert name. Whilst I'd be just as happy for him to stay with West Coast, crying foul given the conditions of AFL drafting across 2010/2011 isn't a good enough excuse for me. West Coast was always going to come out on the poorer end of any deal given our investment in Ebert as a high pick.

So yes, I agree with you that it was optimistic on West Coast's behalf to believe we could get any more out of an Ebert deal.

My major concern is that Gaff is going to do the same thing next year.
Any player that has less than a year left of their contract is a flight risk.
There is no more good faith and as a business if a player is not signed up for more than 12 months and he is under 26-27 years of age he is a serious flight risk and may as well be put on the trade table when the eagles at least have some bargaining position.
The positives of keeping with gaff is that he may extend next year and that he is unlikely to nominate a club as his home is melbourne, but then again he may very well nominate a club.

 

[Macca19]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

I always say the two clubs you never want to trade with are collingwood and port, as they never offer fair trades.

Youve got no idea at all what youre talking about. Zero.

Cummings for Schofield wasnt a fair trade? Pick 22 for Jay ****ing Nash wasnt a fair trade? First round picks for Motlop and Lonie? Pick 28 for Symes? 2 picks for a 30yo Hardwick? Montgomery for Eagleton?

Youve got no clue at all. Just sprouting garbage like a sheep because we didnt want to be ****ed over by Nick Stevens.

 

[Spadge]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

so the only source for this Geelong rumour is the Advertiser?

that makes it so much more believable... not

 

[Macca19]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Anyone remember the last trade Port Adelaide didnt bitch about? Stevens, Josh Carr etc

Anyone remember the last trade anyone didnt bitch about? Everyone bitches, everyones at a stand still until its nearly too late and you give fair work. Deal with it.

 

[The Magenius]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

How does this change much?

Others clubs are willing to pay more, it shows without any doubt that port is trying to rip west coast off.
Also who would not want to play for a team that could be one of the greatest of all time ?
It changes everything.

 

[ausbacker]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

My major concern is that Gaff is going to do the same thing next year.

Gaff is an interesting one. All West Coast can continue to do is win and afford him the opportunity to develop as a footballer. Seems like this is always the case with our young and high Victorian footballers. It's definitely a case to follow and I'd be interested to see the stats on high picks leaving after their first contract expires.

Any player that has less than a year left of their contract is a flight risk.

I have a feeling players will be more open to leaving as the draft system continues to evolve over the next few seasons. CBA negotiations and the AFLPA realising they have actual power over the AFL will prove this.

There is no more good faith and as a business if a player is not signed up for more than 12 months and he is under 26-27 years of age he is a serious flight risk and may as well be put on the trade table when the eagles at least have some bargaining position.

I agree, for the reasons mentioned above. It also proves the value of putting high end performers in the front office.

The positives of keeping with gaff is that he may extend next year and that he is unlikely to nominate a club as his home is melbourne, but then again he may very well nominate a club.

At least it keeps topical discussion interesting for us internet warriors.

 

[chachi11]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

TRADE WEEK..!!

Seriously, this is the one trade I thought would get done pretty much in a day or so...


GIVE WCE PICK 28 AND GET OVER IT...!!!!

There must be so much macho bs in that trade room, its not funny..!!

 

[Coledinho]

Re: Brad Ebert Part 2

Anyone remember the last trade anyone didnt bitch about? Everyone bitches, everyones at a stand still until its nearly too late and you give fair work. Deal with it.

Has any club in trade history ever bitched this hard about 5 draft positions? No they have not