Page 87 of 188
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:58 am
by swoop42
Yep it seems we value Varcoe more than an early 20's selection.
Stuff that Lumumba and pick 48 for pick 23 please. They gave 23 for Vince.
Pick 30 for Varcoe.
We've had to settle for less in the Beams deal, Melbourne can put on hold there desire to land pick 12(why the want to retain 23) until after a trade for a player they want in Lumumba is settled.
They can find another way to land pick 12 that satisfies the tigers.
We've had to settle for less on both trades IMO if we don't get pick 23 out of it.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:50 am
by Piesnchess
September Zeros wrote:Piesnchess wrote:BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:
GWS is not releasing Boyd for Griffen. Dangerfield is not leaving Adelaide. Bottom line is Beams stays, doesn't gets to see his family, not happy staying at Collingwood unless we convince him otherwise. Alternative is we trade Beams for an experienced hard nut in Greenwood who plays out of the centre. We also get a big bodied mid with potential to improve. We also get a high draft pick at pick 5 to net a gun player.
Yes, my thoughts exactly, its not a bad deal really, we were never gonna get danger or boyd, but we get a tough nut in the centre, an experienced finals player, and with such a young team we need that, and we get pick five for a gun. Its not what I really hoped, but hey, you have to give something to get it. and look, beams was very good with us, but he never really dominated in Finals, and whilst he had some great games, he had some ordinary ones too, he was not in the class of Pendles IMHO. I think we have done pretty good out of this, and lets not forget we still have sharenberg and freeman to even play one game yet, both top ten picks, we have a lot to be happy about, really.
Can't agree.
Let me ask a question. If beams wasn't leaving and only Harry was, do you think we'd still be able to land greenwood with the Harry trade and some draft pick exchanges? I believe we would.
So I take issue with people saying that it's ok because we're getting greenwood in the beams deal.
What we are getting in the beams deal is pick 5, 25 and crisp (rookie draft pick 40) End of story. Which is crap.
Because the deal has been complicated by involving other clubs (which don't be fooled has been orchestrated by Brisbane as a smoke screen) because of this we now lose the pick 25 to get greenwood and we lose beams and Harry. The real sweetner in all of this is varcoe
No matter how much we talk about it, no matter how much I think about It, I still end up at the same conclusion......it's a dead set loss to us as it stands.
Never mind that it was initially pick 4 as well just to salt the wounds a little more.
The only way I'll ever draw any comfort form this trade is if we can land another mid 20's pick, do that and I'll feel compensated. Don't do it and I'll be disappointed with the outcome and the club.
As for dayne and Brisbane who have both screwed us on this one......I reserve my response until I see the deal has been signed.
Yet you forget pick five could perhaps be a gun, didn't we get Pendles at pick five, get another pendles type and we are in front id say. No good retaining beams, half hearted, sour, down on the club, for one mediocre year, its useless. I think we can come out of this ok at least.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:51 am
by Piesnchess
September Zeros wrote:Piesnchess wrote:BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:
GWS is not releasing Boyd for Griffen. Dangerfield is not leaving Adelaide. Bottom line is Beams stays, doesn't gets to see his family, not happy staying at Collingwood unless we convince him otherwise. Alternative is we trade Beams for an experienced hard nut in Greenwood who plays out of the centre. We also get a big bodied mid with potential to improve. We also get a high draft pick at pick 5 to net a gun player.
Yes, my thoughts exactly, its not a bad deal really, we were never gonna get danger or boyd, but we get a tough nut in the centre, an experienced finals player, and with such a young team we need that, and we get pick five for a gun. Its not what I really hoped, but hey, you have to give something to get it. and look, beams was very good with us, but he never really dominated in Finals, and whilst he had some great games, he had some ordinary ones too, he was not in the class of Pendles IMHO. I think we have done pretty good out of this, and lets not forget we still have sharenberg and freeman to even play one game yet, both top ten picks, we have a lot to be happy about, really.
Can't agree.
Let me ask a question. If beams wasn't leaving and only Harry was, do you think we'd still be able to land greenwood with the Harry trade and some draft pick exchanges? I believe we would.
So I take issue with people saying that it's ok because we're getting greenwood in the beams deal.
What we are getting in the beams deal is pick 5, 25 and crisp (rookie draft pick 40) End of story. Which is crap.
Because the deal has been complicated by involving other clubs (which don't be fooled has been orchestrated by Brisbane as a smoke screen) because of this we now lose the pick 25 to get greenwood and we lose beams and Harry. The real sweetner in all of this is varcoe
No matter how much we talk about it, no matter how much I think about It, I still end up at the same conclusion......it's a dead set loss to us as it stands.
Never mind that it was initially pick 4 as well just to salt the wounds a little more.
The only way I'll ever draw any comfort form this trade is if we can land another mid 20's pick, do that and I'll feel compensated. Don't do it and I'll be disappointed with the outcome and the club.
As for dayne and Brisbane who have both screwed us on this one......I reserve my response until I see the deal has been signed.
Yet you forget pick five could perhaps be a gun, didn't we get Pendles at pick five, get another pendles type and we are in front id say. No good retaining beams, half hearted, sour, down on the club, for one mediocre year, its useless. I think we can come out of this ok at least.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:38 am
by collie dog
It will all pan out today, but I would put Crisp in the Corrie category.
What an underwhelming trade period again for the Pies.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:40 am
by collie dog
Piesnchess wrote:
Yet you forget pick five could perhaps be a gun, didn't we get Pendles at pick five, get another pendles type and we are in front id say. No good retaining beams, half hearted, sour, down on the club, for one mediocre year, its useless. I think we can come out of this ok at least.
Man you change you mind more often that Lara Bingle. A few days ago it was make Beams stay!
You really accept every bit of tripe the Westpac Centre throws at you don't you.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:41 am
by HAL
collie dog wrote:It will all pan out today, but I would put Crisp in the Corrie category.
What an underwhelming trade period again for the Pies.
That is only what you think.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:56 am
by Deja Vu
Muppet Maher suggested on SEN this morning that we could get Brayshaw with Pick 5.
If that happens this could be a good deal for us. We lose Beams but replace him with a big bodied mid in Greenwood who can tag, and a pure midfielder in Brayshaw who may play 200 games. Anything Crisp provides is a bonus
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:59 am
by Member 7167
collie dog wrote:It will all pan out today, but I would put Crisp in the Corrie category.
What an underwhelming trade period again for the Pies.
How about we give this new Collingwood player a fair good. None of us has have had the opportunity to fully assess his worth to us. He wants to come back to Victoria, he wants to play for the Pies. That a good starting point.
Like all trade periods, the success or otherwise can only be assessed a few years down the track. Until then pull you head in.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:00 am
by HAL
Deja Vu wrote:Muppet Maher suggested on SEN this morning that we could get Brayshaw with Pick 5.
If that happens this could be a good deal for us. We lose Beams but replace him with a big bodied mid in Greenwood who can tag, and a pure midfielder in Brayshaw who may play 200 games. Anything Crisp provides is a bonus
I can't think of anything. You think of something.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:09 am
by MatthewBoydFanClub
collie dog wrote:It will all pan out today, but I would put Crisp in the Corrie category.
What an underwhelming trade period again for the Pies.
Were you at the Brisbane game at the MCG this year? Crisp is definitely not a Corrie type player. You're judging him from his rookie position in the draft when Brisbane picked him up. Like any player, he has weaknesses, mainly to do with his kicking, which can be rectified. He is only 21. We wouldn't be drafting him if we didn't see him as in our best 22. To remind you, Maxwell, Lumumba, Blair, Keeffe, Frost and Witts were all picked up in the rookie draft.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:12 am
by Member 7167
We as a club were somewhat compromised from the start in respect to this trade period with Beams and H wanting to leave the club for whatever reasons.
I agree with Piesnchess in this one. The true value of the trades will not be known for some time until we realise the potential of Crisp and pick 5, we see what Levi Greenwood can contribute to our midfield and assess if Varcoe is a good replacement for H.
Lets be honest, how many of us rated Beams when we first drafted him?. He would have been described as a good kid at best.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:11 am
by Breadcrawl
Turnabout is fair play people.
Hopefully we have already offered Rockliff a million a year to come to us at the end of next year.
We may have lost the battle, but it came down to lose or be petulant children, and I am proud that we chose to be the grownups.
That said, we can still win the war, and teach Brisbane that they in fact are not *&^*(&%$% geezers and that when you play with fire, you get burned
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:29 am
by Member 7167
September Zeros wrote:Let me ask another question if collingwood had pick 5 and 25 would you trade them for dangerfield if it meant throwing in the recently departed Kyle Martin as a kicker.
My guess is you wouldn't be able to sign the papers fast enough.
In effect thats what Brisbane is looking to do / has done.
You tell me who the winners are.
We were compromised during this whole process. Brisbane's actions in setting this up are appalling.
If we had retained Beams he may have been of little value to us next year, or even worse - been a destructive influence. At the end of the day we should do the best deal we can and cut and run.
I would also doing some research on ex Victorian players who are currently playing for Briscum and start offering a few dollars in the background. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Even if we don't pick up anybody it may end up giving them a few headaches and at the very least put some pressure on their salary cap.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:50 am
by swoop42
Deja Vu wrote:Muppet Maher suggested on SEN this morning that we could get Brayshaw with Pick 5.
If that happens this could be a good deal for us. We lose Beams but replace him with a big bodied mid in Greenwood who can tag, and a pure midfielder in Brayshaw who may play 200 games. Anything Crisp provides is a bonus
Only chance would be saints going McCartin, Melbourne taking Petracca and Wright with GWS/Dogs surprisingly overlooking him in preference for something else they believe they require more.
The dogs a key position player, GWS might take a chance on someone like Lever who has a high ceiling but is a risk coming off a knee.
Small chance but I'd be majorly surprised and if Petracca goes at 1 then he's no chance to slip to 5 as Melbourne will take him.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:28 pm
by mosig
Member 7167 wrote:
I would also doing some research on ex Victorian players who are currently playing for Briscum and start offering a few dollars in the background. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Even if we don't pick up anybody it may end up giving them a few headaches and at the very least put some pressure on their salary cap.
I have been thinking that a bit lately... seeing as every player is attempted to be linked to Collingwood by their managers.. why doesn't Collingwood engage in it's own strategy feigning interest in a move to falsely inflate the value of players (we dont want)... therefore creating list pressure and headaches for all the other clubs...?