View Full Version : Rupert Betheras for Lindsay Gilbee
Thoughts of this possible trade?
Porthos
13 Oct 2003, 13:31
Something like "Haha, dream on."
Also "Why do so many footballers have ****ed up names?"
evertonfc
13 Oct 2003, 14:25
Scotland + something else.
Gilbee is going to be a top draw midfielder, and MM knows it.
Betheras, Scotland...handy...but why would the Bulldogs want either?
Gilbee is head and shoulders above both.
Lockyer24
13 Oct 2003, 14:37
I'll keep Scotland thanks. Solid midfielder in a GF team vs midfielder who can't get a game for the worst side in the competition, and is a midget.
Its amazing our players perceived lack of trade value compared to duds like Gilbee. Anyone would think we are bottom 8 fodder.
SCRAY72
13 Oct 2003, 14:43
I like Betheras but he is not a priority. With Murphy moving to the midfield, Giansiracusa playing in the midfield more regularly and of course Cooney we should be looking to cover our many weaknesses.
Originally posted by SCRAY72
I like Betheras but he is not a priority. With Murphy moving to the midfield, Giansiracusa playing in the midfield more regularly and of course Cooney we should be looking to cover our many weaknesses.
Murphy and Giansiacura weigh 75 kg. Combined.
Betheras is a totally different type of player who can provide strength in the midfield and forward line.
We'd have to give away more. however, to get Gilbee.
evertonfc
13 Oct 2003, 14:55
Originally posted by Lockyer24
Its amazing our players perceived lack of trade value compared to duds like Gilbee. Anyone would think we are bottom 8 fodder.
If Gilbee is a dud, then why has MM and Eddie been having dinner with him recently?
He's worth a ****load more than what Collingwood fans seem to think.
evertonfc
13 Oct 2003, 14:56
Originally posted by hotpie
We'd have to give away more. however, to get Gilbee.
You most certainly would.
morgoth
13 Oct 2003, 15:06
Everton
Why has he been playing twos in the wooden spoon team whilst stars like Dimma get a game in front of him. Please he has been in the system for some time and has not established himself.
Betharas is about right, maybe McGough. Scotland is a good mid-filed player who gets more games than Gilbee in a very strong midfiled unit.
bogan_blue
13 Oct 2003, 15:07
Originally posted by Hoggy
Thoughts of this possible trade?
First of all he's been officially delisted, so he can't be traded anyway, since he's no longer on Cabbagewood's list, he just puts himself into the draft.
Second of all the Doggies aren't stupid.
Collingwood would have to throw in a Richard Cole type player to get Gilbee.
You have to give up quality to get quality, not crap like Betheras.
I thought Betheras was delisted~
2 quick for me Bogan Blue.
Betheras will be delisted and has 0 trade value.
Deal with it.
Now, what was that I heard about Gilbee for Kingsley? ;)
morgoth
13 Oct 2003, 15:14
Yawn
Contracts expire after the trade period, therefore he is a pie player until then and we can trade him if a deal comes up. After that he goes into the pre-season.
Most clubs will tell a player we will delist you unless a suitable trade can be arranged and this is what has happened to Rupe.
Captain Sensible
13 Oct 2003, 15:18
So why give away a promising midfielder when we could just wait and pick Betheras in the PSD?
SCRAY72
13 Oct 2003, 15:21
Originally posted by hotpie
Murphy and Giansiacura weigh 75 kg. Combined.
Betheras is a totally different type of player who can provide strength in the midfield and forward line.
We'd have to give away more. however, to get Gilbee.
We will have Cooney,Hahn and West to do the inside work, as I said good player don't need at this stage, too many other holes to fill.
Murphy will put on a bit a more weight next year, Gia will always be skinny.
The Pies made enquiries about the Gilbee and are pursuing him,the Dogs aren't pursuing Betheras.
Lockyer24
13 Oct 2003, 15:22
bogan_blue obviously watching your beloved Navy Blues the last 2 years you have trouble distinguishing what is quality.
Betheras is an unfair trade I agree. Cole, absolutely not. 1st round pick, Rising star, still a bit rough but has massive potential. Scotland - wouldn't do it. Much more proven at AFL level than Gilbee.
A ontraded 2nd/3rd round pick or one of our backup talls the likely deal if it goes through.
I'd trade Scotland for Gilbee.
I wouldn't trade Cole for anybody. We wouldn't get what he is worth becuase of his unfulfilled potential.
Originally posted by bogan_blue
First of all he's been officially delisted, so he can't be traded anyway, since he's no longer on Cabbagewood's list, he just puts himself into the draft.
Second of all the Doggies aren't stupid.
Collingwood would have to throw in a Richard Cole type player to get Gilbee.
You have to give up quality to get quality, not crap like Betheras.
First of all numbnuts, the club has said they will be delisting him - that means if they can find a trade for him they will take that instead of swapping brown paper bags full of money underneath the table.
But I'm not surprised that Carlton fans don't fully know the draft system - I mean the board doesn't know how to use it. :rolleyes:
And what sort of insult is Cabbagewood? You're a ****ing idiot.
Rupert Betheras would be in the top 10 of a rabble club like Carlton and you know it.
What about McGough for Gilbee?
NOBODY gets delisted prior to the trade week. Why would you do that?
NorthBhoy
13 Oct 2003, 16:30
Originally posted by Hoggy
Rupert Betheras would be in the top 10 of a rabble club like Carlton and you know it.
It would read:
Rupert Betheras (c).
No sh1t.
Originally posted by Tank
What about McGough for Gilbee?
DONE
Originally posted by SCRAY72
the Dogs aren't pursuing Betheras.
Maybe not but you will get muscle pretty cheap. He'd be more than handy and wouldn't cost the earth. He's better than Dimattina!!!!
Originally posted by hotpie
NOBODY gets delisted prior to the trade week. Why would you do that?
Exactly - if I'm not mistaken - Port are trying to get a deal done with the Kangaroos for Brent Guerra even though he was "delisted".
Originally posted by bogan_blue
First of all he's been officially delisted, so he can't be traded anyway, since he's no longer on Cabbagewood's list, he just puts himself into the draft.
Second of all the Doggies aren't stupid.
Collingwood would have to throw in a Richard Cole type player to get Gilbee.
You have to give up quality to get quality, not crap like Betheras.
get your facts right before shooting off at the mouth mate.
He is not officially delisted until after the trading period finishes
grinspoon
14 Oct 2003, 02:33
haha cole, ya right. scottland is worth a bit, and thats why he has been chased by 8 clubs. gilbee was called shhithouse all year by ur supporters. as for scott west doing the inside work... he is the biggest reciever in the game... cant kick either.
Originally posted by grinspoon
haha cole, ya right. scottland is worth a bit, and thats why he has been chased by 8 clubs. gilbee was called shhithouse all year by ur supporters. as for scott west doing the inside work... he is the biggest reciever in the game... cant kick either.
8 clubs??? VFL or VAFA?
Bulldog supporter never bagged Gilbee. We aren't Tigers fans.
Scott West West a reciever?
Oops I forgot you like Grinspoon.
SCRAY72
14 Oct 2003, 09:14
Originally posted by grinspoon
haha cole, ya right. scottland is worth a bit, and thats why he has been chased by 8 clubs. gilbee was called shhithouse all year by ur supporters. as for scott west doing the inside work... he is the biggest reciever in the game... cant kick either.
Scott West, receiver? You are an idiot.
A lot of players were probably booed this year because we were disgraceful a few too many times but Gilbee wasn't one of them.
Scotland, chased by 8 clubs? Crap. There is a difference between chasing and making enquiries. After yesterday at Optus Oval, there would be 50 players that have 8 clubs chasing them.
doggies40
14 Oct 2003, 11:41
Originally posted by hotpie
NOBODY gets delisted prior to the trade week. Why would you do that?
If nobody gets delisted the why did the doggies delisted 3 players in september?
http://westernbulldogs.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=122406
Originally posted by doggies40
If nobody gets delisted the why did the doggies delisted 3 players in september?
http://westernbulldogs.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=122406
Some people are idiots - you are one of those.
Originally posted by Hoggy
Some people are idiots - you are one of those.
Why Hoggy?
The article says de-listed. No one will want to trade for those 3.
Originally posted by Ching
Why Hoggy?
The article says de-listed. No one will want to trade for those 3.
They were told they will be delisted. Its a formality that that will happen, but I'd be pretty sure the forms have not yet been submitted to the AFL. Its irrelevant really, if you cant get a game for the wooden spooner you are hardly likely to be tradeable.
SCRAY72
14 Oct 2003, 15:07
Originally posted by hotpie
Maybe not but you will get muscle pretty cheap. He'd be more than handy and wouldn't cost the earth. He's better than Dimattina!!!!
Then keep him. Sounds like he would have been handy using his muscle in the GF.
Originally posted by SCRAY72
Then keep him. Sounds like he would have been handy using his muscle in the GF.
Yes.
Water under the bridge now. Stick with your team of weaklings for all I care. Rupe will play AFL next year and he will be handy for somebody.
SCRAY72
14 Oct 2003, 15:17
Originally posted by hotpie
Yes.
Water under the bridge now. Stick with your team of weaklings for all I care. Rupe will play AFL next year and he will be handy for somebody.
Have I upset you in some way?
All I said is that Betheras is not a priority for the Bulldogs.
Originally posted by SCRAY72
Have I upset you in some way?
All I said is that Betheras is not a priority for the Bulldogs.
All I said was he wouldn't have to be a priority for you. You need more than one or two high draft picks to dig your way out of the hole you are in, and I don't see why you would blindly knock back cheap, experienced, skilled, physical players like Rupe.
Thats all.
SCRAY72
14 Oct 2003, 15:28
Originally posted by hotpie
All I said was he wouldn't have to be a priority for you. You need more than one or two high draft picks to dig your way out of the hole you are in, and I don't see why you would blindly knock back cheap, experienced, skilled, physical players like Rupe.
Thats all.
Well if he is cheap we can pick him up cheap, not for Gilbee.
Lindsay is no world beater and is coming along slower than expected but this trade would be more beneficial to Collingwood as Collingwood made it clear early that Betheras is not part of the long term plans. Carlton, Melbourne,Essendon and Richmond would also be interested in him. Prime candidate for the pre-season draft.
Originally posted by SCRAY72
Well if he is cheap we can pick him up cheap, not for Gilbee..
Thats what I said originally. We would have to give you more.
scooter600x
14 Oct 2003, 15:41
Betheras said in an interview this morning he didn't go on the end-of-season trip to London so he could field offers for next year. Unfortunately for Rupert he didn't get any.
Kretiuk #35
14 Oct 2003, 15:42
Originally posted by hotpie
All I said was he wouldn't have to be a priority for you. You need more than one or two high draft picks to dig your way out of the hole you are in, and I don't see why you would blindly knock back cheap, experienced, skilled, physical players like Rupe.
Thats all.
A "Hot-Pie" is an oximoron, everyone knows that Collingwood supporters are the ugliest of the AFL kind..
Gilbee is better then Rupe, thats the reality of it...
If hes the best player in the Pre Season, then we'll get him for nothing, but thats the only way I can see Rupe as a Bulldog...
I wouldn't call it a hole really, your just in self-delusion, as every supporter knows, with the #1 & #4 picks, along with our developing juniors, Grant, Alvey back along with our coach having more experience at the top, we've got alot to look forward too next year... Don't think otherwise...
I'm not saying we're going to be top 8 material, but we're well on our way, as we've been in a similar position this time at the end of 96.... The only difference is this time, we have a guy called Scott Clayton doing our Drafting:)
Go away
Originally posted by Kretiuk #35
Gilbee is better then Rupe, thats the reality of it...
Read the thread, idiot. I don't disagree.
But you need experience to assist the kids along. Sitting there thinking "we'll get him for free" is indicative of the way the Bulldogs played this year - standing back waiting for somebody else to do all the hard work and invariably being beaten to the ball by the opposition.
Kretiuk #35
14 Oct 2003, 15:51
Originally posted by hotpie
Read the thread, idiot. I don't disagree.
But you need experience to assist the kids along. Sitting there thinking "we'll get him for free" is indicative of the way the Bulldogs played this year - standing back waiting for somebody else to do all the hard work and invariably being beaten to the ball by the opposition.
Thats why I said it was the REALITY OF IT... I did NOT say that you disagreed, I just finalised the point that Gilbee is better..
hahaha you think that we're waiting on Rupert in the pre season draft? hahaha...
The likihood of Rupert being the best in the pre season draft, is very highly imaginative.... As Scooter said, no-one offered him any spots, just because he plays for Collingwood doesn't make him good, just means he doesn't have as much of the workload...
Nice generalisation though, saying we sat back and watched the opposition beat us to the ball... Interesting how we let everyone beat us to the ball and still got the most posessions in the H & A Season... lolllllll give it up
Originally posted by Kretiuk #35
Nice generalisation though, saying we sat back and watched the opposition beat us to the ball... Interesting how we let everyone beat us to the ball and still got the most posessions in the H & A Season... lolllllll give it up
Uncontested marks because you have no game plan and kick backwards 30 metres don't count.
Kretiuk #35
14 Oct 2003, 15:57
Originally posted by hotpie
Uncontested marks because you have no game plan and kick backwards 30 metres don't count.
Generalisation after generalisation... good work girl
"No Game Plan" - lol
Thats all I thought you had, bye:)
Originally posted by Kretiuk #35
Generalisation after generalisation... good work girl
"No Game Plan" - lol
Thats all I thought you had, bye:)
Game plan:
Lose almost every game.
Lose Brown
Lose Gilbee
Pick up Stevens at number one in the preseason draft
Put Chris Grant in a time machine and make him 22 again
Rely on four players (again)
Recruit more skinny kids
Ignore any players from top clubs.
Win another wooden spoon
Go broke.
Kretiuk #35
14 Oct 2003, 16:31
Every game? 3-18-1 right
Brown wants a club that'll over pay him? Only Collingwood and Richmond would be interested in Money bag unloyal players..
Gilbee = Will most likely stay, his name is only coming up in the
trade period as an option for the club
Stevens @ #1 would be nice, I bet you wish you had that luxury!
Uhhh grant in a time machine? Yeh well I see your original, prehaps Buckley should consider that option alongside Grant
Four players? No but our four best players could get a game in any other side:D
Recruit more skinny kids = Wallace's old plan, scraped it like a **** when he left the club and left us in this mess
Ignoring Rupert is what a smart club would do, hes more of a pre season option
Another wooden spoon? yep 4 in 80 years isn't bad
Go broke? Wishful thinking, IDIOT, shall I remind you that our finances improved from last year and we'll be set in a few years time:D