View Full Version : "10 clubs wont trade at all" - Why do we bother?
David_Brent
12 Oct 2006, 20:17
That was the what one club official said according to SEN.
Why do we even get remotely excited over this bundle of rumours. Of the mooted deals, Thornton and Everitt will probably just enter the PSD anyway!
This AFL trade period is a joke compared to other competitions. All the clubs are prudes :thumbsd:
Some years a team doesn't have anything worth getting rid of that is of any value or they are not after any of the players that are going around the table. It happens, they might be more active the following year.
This draft is a fairly good one, or at least has the reputation of being very good one, and most clubs are reluctant to get rid of their earlier picks, it limits what you can flog off.
No clubs are willing to give up good players to get good players.
Doubt we'll ever see a deal like the Salmon, Jarman, Barnard/Wellman trade ever again.
King Elvis
12 Oct 2006, 20:20
That was the what one club official said according to SEN.
Why do we even get remotely excited over this bundle of rumours. Of the mooted deals, Thornton and Everitt will probably just enter the PSD anyway!
This AFL trade period is a joke compared to other competitions. All the clubs are prudes :thumbsd:
The problem is that most clubs have become completely unrealistic in the value of players.
What about making the PSD different? It seems people exploit that shockingly these days.
They should use paper/scissors/rock to work out trade deals.
Metallica_Man
12 Oct 2006, 20:48
Maybe clubs should get a small money bonus for each trade they make :p
All the deals are always done on the Friday
David_Brent
12 Oct 2006, 20:54
All the deals are always done on the Friday
I know, but apparantly there arnt many deals being discussed. Hence the 10 clubs not trading comment.
Its true, teams over rate their own players. Look at what collingwood are asking for Tarrant!! Where as the Birss to saints for pick 59 to the dogs is fair. Because, even though Birss is better then 59 pick he will struggle to get games for the dogs next year because of his size, which the dogs have abundance of, so why not trade him cheaply to get something in return. Not to mention to be fair to the player who gets a fair go at another club.
Wally Matera
12 Oct 2006, 20:55
I thinks the system is fine - although long.
Its just a year that clubs are placing more value on their draft selections than other developed players. It will always peak and trough depending on the talent coming through the under 18's.
It will never ever get to the same depths of the English Premier League, where the manager virtually has to introduce everyone to everyone on an annual basis.
Porthos
12 Oct 2006, 21:00
Too many coaches are in their contract year next year. You don't get your contract renewed if you make a trade that has backfired in your final year.
For example, if Laidley wasn't contracted for 2007, Hay's poor form would've had him sacked for sure.
Polo_14
12 Oct 2006, 21:02
They should use paper/scissors/rock to work out trade deals.
BEST IDEA YET :thumbsu: :D
Not to mention to be fair to the player who gets a fair go at another club.
*cough* Hawthorn
*cough * Carlton
SweetLeftFoot
12 Oct 2006, 21:03
No clubs are willing to give up good players to get good players.
Doubt we'll ever see a deal like the Salmon, Jarman, Barnard/Wellman trade ever again.
Yeah, what happened to the days of good trades like Schwass for Grant. Both clubs and both players happy.
I don't mind a quite trade period.
Sure, we can't get excited about 10 big names changing colours but it gives the game a stronger sense of loyalty, and I don't mind it.
You guys can still speculate to your hearts content :thumbsu:. I mean, look at those trading games, they're ridiculous!
buymeonebay
12 Oct 2006, 21:05
There should be free agency, the weak clubs are looked after by draft order and rewarded for mediocrity
I don't mind a quite trade period.
Sure, we can't get excited about 10 big names changing colours but it gives the game a stronger sense of loyalty, and I don't mind it.
like anyone gives a **** about loyalty, supporters want to see their clubs improve
say what you will about the nrl system but when a side is near the bottom of the ladder atleast they have a go and get some good pickups, for every good player thats leaving a club an even better one is coming in
afl is boring
David_Brent
12 Oct 2006, 21:46
Compare the AFL to the NBA. We look like a bunch of prudish Granma's who dont want to take a risk. I am not expert on the NBA but big names are traded often and big deals occur.
It seems AFL clubs are scared of losing out on a trade. Not prepared to take the risk.
Compare the AFL to the NBA. We look like a bunch of prudish Granma's who dont want to take a risk. I am not expert on the NBA but big names are traded often and big deals occur.
It seems AFL clubs are scared of losing out on a trade. Not prepared to take the risk.
36 trades on trade deadline 2005.. Many more leading up to it
sharpie
12 Oct 2006, 23:18
I thinks the system is fine - although long.
they should delay the trade week by a fortnight, and reduce it to 2 days
clearly brisbane and the bullies came to an agreement long ago - no reason why clubs couldn't discuss the trades prior to trade week.
would need to delay it a fortnight to give the grand finallists a chance to assess their list without rushing
Compare the AFL to the NBA. We look like a bunch of prudish Granma's who dont want to take a risk. I am not expert on the NBA but big names are traded often and big deals occur.
It seems AFL clubs are scared of losing out on a trade. Not prepared to take the risk.
You want them to trade just for your entertainment?
giantroo
13 Oct 2006, 06:57
All the action starts today.