View Full Version : Another trade winner
Ben Finnin has been delisted by the Cats. After not getting a senior game all year in a struggling side.
So not only did we get an experienced goalsneak in Ronnie Burns. We released an unwanted player one year out from his initial contract expiring. (If that wasn't already obvious - it is two years minimum for newly drafted players, right?)
On top of that, we had Geelong paying a good portion of Burns' contract.
We were big, big winners in this deal.
This comes after Carlton delisted Eccles earlier in the week. Who did we give him up for? Ah yes, Kris Massie.
Thank you Geelong. Thank you Carlton.
It just demonstrates how chancey trading and drafting is in the AFL. A young kid at U17 level can look like a champion but not be able to step up to AFL level and other ordinary looking players can take the step.
It's all very well in retrospect to criticize trades but often our club hasn't had opportunities due to not finishing down the bottom of the ladder. Then a lot of established Victorian players are not keen to move interstate and it seems a lot of young Victorian players suffer from "home sickness" compared to their non-Victorian counterparts and trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff seems very difficult.
Cheers,
a.j.
macca23
24 Oct 2003, 21:18
Originally posted by DaveW
Ben Finnin has been delisted by the Cats. After not getting a senior game all year in a struggling side.
Yep, the experts were right again when they said we were mortgaging our future with the Burns - Finnin swap. :rolleyes:
Stiffy_18
24 Oct 2003, 22:36
Originally posted by DaveW
On top of that, we had Geelong paying a good portion of Burns' contract. And they still are;)
We can say what we like about our drafting but I must admit our trading has been pretty good over the years. If our drafting can be as good as our trading we would be on a roll;)
Asgardian
25 Oct 2003, 00:52
Yep, looks like I got that one wrong.
BUT, I still reckon Burns is, has been in 2003, and will be in 2004 & beyond, a DUD.
All said and done though, Adelaide won that trade encounter
Stiffy_18
25 Oct 2003, 01:06
Originally posted by Asgardian
Yep, looks like I got that one wrong.
BUT, I still reckon Burns is, has been in 2003, and will be in 2004 & beyond, a DUD.
All said and done though, Adelaide won that trade encounter At least we got some good games out of Ronnie in 2003. Cats got bugger all out of Finnin.
spindoctor
25 Oct 2003, 01:10
Burns played great in a number of games this year, was FAR from a dud. Was a lively target, kicked some great goals and single-handedly won us a couple of games - before he went off against Brisbane with that injury, he was electrifying and we probably would have won with him on.
Obviously your idea of a player not being a dud is they have to play 22 top-5 player games or something? 22 into 5 doesn't go...
dyertribe
25 Oct 2003, 01:24
Originally posted by Asgardian
BUT, I still reckon Burns is, has been in 2003 ...
23 goals in 18 games (plus assists) despite suffering niggling injuries and competing in a forward line that was never settled?
I'd say that's a good result for an old recruit under the pump before he'd even arrived.
Originally posted by Asgardian
Yep, looks like I got that one wrong.
BUT, I still reckon Burns is, has been in 2003, and will be in 2004 & beyond, a DUD.
All said and done though, Adelaide won that trade encounter
Yep we won that one hands down,
I was one who questioned the wisdom of trading Burns but not for the reason of losing Ben Finnan, mainly i was concerned with how Ronnie's attitude & fitness level would work out but i was proven wrong & to be honest Ronnie had a reasonable year & with a bit of luck will have an even better one in 04.
spindoctor
25 Oct 2003, 12:53
Burns has still got a nice amount of pace on him for a bloke over 30.
And I think he thrived not being the no 1 target in the forward line like he had been at Geelong. He is a goalsneak, not a key forward.
Though with the emergence of Johncock, Schuback and Ladhams he may be surplus to our requirements. Schuback has some lightning pace on him...
MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
25 Oct 2003, 14:42
Yep we won that one for sure!
In my opinion we were always winners in that one - we got Ronnie Burns and experienced player with known talent and we gave Geelong a kid who hadn't even played an AFL match. I guess with Ben there was the "he could be" factor but the wise old heads at the AFC knew best.
I was a bit sad to see Andrew Eccles delisted.........I was a fan of his ;) at the Crows. We got a good trade for him in Kris Massie and he has fitted in very well into our side. Andrew will always have a place at the AFC though, the 98 Grand Final confirms this.
k
xx
dyertribe
25 Oct 2003, 15:06
Originally posted by spindoctor
Though with the emergence of Johncock, Schuback and Ladhams he may be surplus to our requirements. Schuback has some lightning pace on him...
No worries for Rockin' Ronnie there... Stiffy will take Bicks' slot in the midfield rotation.
CrowBoi
25 Oct 2003, 15:21
Originally posted by dyertribe
No worries for Rockin' Ronnie there... Stiffy will take Bicks' slot in the midfield rotation. ...along with Laddhams who's pretty much in that rotation already on the wing...
Ronnie's spot is secure :)
Demon37
25 Oct 2003, 15:29
Sorry to burst your bubble... but:
Didn't Adelaide trade Daniel Wells (pick 2) for Wayne Carey?
Polly12
25 Oct 2003, 15:29
Could not agree more. Adelaide are the king of trades. The one I like most is Daniel Schell from Freo for the draft pick that delivered the Dockers Paul Medhurst! The Dockers would have been happy with a bag of apples for Schell.
dyertribe
25 Oct 2003, 16:21
Originally posted by Demon37
Sorry to burst your bubble... but:
Didn't Adelaide trade Daniel Wells (pick 2) for Wayne Carey?
We also got horny Torney out of that deal...
How are Peter Vardy, Nick Pesch, Brent Williams and Matthew Collins doing?
dyertribe
25 Oct 2003, 16:23
Originally posted by Polly12
Could not agree more. Adelaide are the king of trades. The one I like most is Daniel Schell from Freo for the draft pick that delivered the Dockers Paul Medhurst! The Dockers would have been happy with a bag of apples for Schell.
You gave us Andrew McLeod for Chris Groom!
Freo way to go!
Demon37
25 Oct 2003, 16:27
Originally posted by dyertribe
We also got horny Torney out of that deal...
How are Peter Vardy, Nick Pesch, Brent Williams and Matthew Collins doing?
And you also lost Kane Johnson...
Vardy has been good when fit. As for the others, God knows why we went after them.
dyertribe
25 Oct 2003, 16:31
Originally posted by Demon37
And you also lost Kane Johnson...
Like all the other whinging homesick Vics that the interstate sides have had the misfortune of drafting/recruiting (Stuart Anderson, Jeff White, Tom Gilligan, Laurence Angwin, Trent Croad, Nick Stevens, et al) we were always going to lose Sugar. It's a miracle we got seven seasons and two Premierships out of him.
As for the Crow-Dee trades... look on the bright side, you offloaded Clay Sampson and Trent Ormond-Allen to us and you did get Anthony Ingerson from us ;)
Scotty's_Girl
25 Oct 2003, 16:39
Originally posted by dyertribe
... Laurence Angwin
:mad: crows highest ever draft pick
macca23
25 Oct 2003, 17:48
Originally posted by dyertribe
You gave us Andrew McLeod for Chris Groom!
Freo way to go!
:D :D :D :D :D
That would take about 20 Schell deals at least for Freo to break even.
A bag of apples for Schell??? P*ss off - I like apples!!! ;)
Cyclops
25 Oct 2003, 18:04
Pies/Crows has netted you James (the centreman not the drunk) for Jonathon Ross the drunk. Another win for the Crows. Any others?
The picks for players is hard to figure, as a pick is such a punt, at least with an actual player you have something to look at.
Maybe the Carey deal was a stinker, but you got your player, North still had to pick Wells. I guess it wasn't a hard decision, but he could've been another Honeybun.
Even so, I still think the Crows lost that one, even before the Blues picks were disallowed.
Kane McGoodwin
25 Oct 2003, 19:54
Originally posted by dyertribe
We also got horny Torney out of that deal...
How are Peter Vardy, Nick Pesch, Brent Williams and Matthew Collins doing?
Also, from the Dees we got Nathan Bassett, who has turned out to be a very handy pickup!
Originally posted by Demon37
Sorry to burst your bubble... but:
Didn't Adelaide trade Daniel Wells (pick 2) for Wayne Carey? We got raped on that deal; that's common knowledge. But what does that have to do with the price of fish?
Originally posted by dyertribe
We also got horny Torney out of that deal... Did we? Depends which way you look at it.Originally posted by Demon37
And you also lost Kane Johnson...
Make up your mind. It's either Johnson or Wells. It certainly wasn't both.
Oh we're from..
25 Oct 2003, 22:19
Originally posted by DaveW
We got raped on that deal; that's common knowledge. But what does that have to do with the price of fish?
Did we? Depends which way you look at it. Make up your mind. It's either Johnson or Wells. It certainly wasn't both.
By memory it was the tigers who initially had pick 4, which ended up to be pick 2 thanks to the cheating blues, who therefore gave up Daniel Wells in their bid for Kane Johnson.
Stiffy_18
25 Oct 2003, 22:36
Originally posted by Polly12
Could not agree more. Adelaide are the king of trades. The one I like most is Daniel Schell from Freo for the draft pick that delivered the Dockers Paul Medhurst! The Dockers would have been happy with a bag of apples for Schell. This coming from a freo supporter. When we make a blunder of the propotions that you did when you traded McLeod for Chris Groom, then come back and troll but until them keep your trap shut and go back to your board.
Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
Yep we won that one for sure!
In my opinion we were always winners in that one - we got Ronnie Burns and experienced player with known talent
Geelong didn't lose anything by getting rid of Ronnie.If anything,it gave players like Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett more game time,which would be beneficial in the long run.
Finnin didn't deserve to be delisted, the kid had talent.
Bockchoy67
25 Oct 2003, 23:51
I mean, I feel for Ben Finnin and al, but we really did well in that deal. I actually thought Finnin had something going for him. Shows how unorthodox the development of young players is.
The Massie deal was in my opinion the best deal the Crows have ever made. Eccles was reasonable, but definitely no Kris Massie.
The Scott Stevens was an excellent trade as well. :)
macca23
26 Oct 2003, 00:06
Originally posted by Shaitan
Finnin didn't deserve to be delisted, the kid had talent.
He was a bad choice by the Crows in the first place. Not tall enough to be a tall, not quick enough to be a small. One of those who just don't fit any category at AFL level.
Originally posted by JUBJUB
Geelong didn't lose anything by getting rid of Ronnie.If anything,it gave players like Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett more game time,which would be beneficial in the long run.
Given that Geelong is in a developmental stage, that makes sense. A bit of short term pain for long term gain.
On the other hand Ronnie did fit where Adelaide was at the time.
Young Ablett is going to be a gun - he really has talent and the footy smarts. He's a pleasure to watch.
Stiffy_18
26 Oct 2003, 00:07
Originally posted by JUBJUB
Geelong didn't lose anything by getting rid of Ronnie.If anything,it gave players like Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett more game time,which would be beneficial in the long run. True BUT you lost your best small forward at the time and practically got nothing in return for him while still paying half of his wages for the remainder of his contract which means that you paid half of his contract in 2003 and you will still be paying half in 2004. ;)
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
True BUT you lost your best small forward at the time and practically got nothing in return for him while still paying half of his wages for the remainder of his contract which means that you paid half of his contract in 2003 and you will still be paying half in 2004. ;)
I think someone mentioned Ronnie kicked only 23goals this year.Ablett,Johnson and Chapman all kicked either thesame or more,so that was a bonus for us.
If Ronnie was there,they wouldn't have kicked anywhere near that.
I don't mind us paying Ronnie to play for you.We can watch him ruin the Crows season. ;)
Kane McGoodwin
26 Oct 2003, 11:30
Originally posted by JUBJUB
I think someone mentioned Ronnie kicked only 23goals this year.Ablett,Johnson and Chapman all kicked either thesame or more,so that was a bonus for us.
If Ronnie was there,they wouldn't have kicked anywhere near that.
I don't mind us paying Ronnie to play for you.We can watch him ruin the Crows season. ;)
I think it is fair to say that it was best for both Ronnie & Geelong that they parted their ways. However, Ronnie has proved to be a more than handy acquisition for the Crows in a year when many of our other forwards were injured. The fact that we are getting part of his salary paid for & we gave up virtually nothing in return is a huge bonus.
Porthos
26 Oct 2003, 13:45
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place.
Kane McGoodwin
26 Oct 2003, 13:56
Originally posted by Porthos
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place.
True, but I would prefer to be without rather than having them on our list!
dyertribe
26 Oct 2003, 21:49
Originally posted by Porthos
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place.
Yeah but with draft picks from #1-#79 it's a lucky dip...
At the trade table there's somewhat of a form guide to go by.
Originally posted by Porthos
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place. Every club drafts duds.
Stiffy_18
26 Oct 2003, 22:00
Originally posted by DaveW
Every club drafts duds. Very true BUT you have to admit we have drafted more than our fair share of duds:(
dyertribe
26 Oct 2003, 22:04
Does any one of you young whippersnappers remember when "duds" was slang for 'clothes'?
Ah those were the days... good times :)
Stiffy_18
26 Oct 2003, 22:06
Originally posted by dyertribe
Does any one of you young whippersnappers remember when "duds" was slang for 'clothes'?
Ah those were the days... good times :) Bored are we??????:p
Originally posted by DaveW
Ben Finnin has been delisted by the Cats. After not getting a senior game all year in a struggling side.
We were big, big winners in this deal.
Yes we did win in that trade. I also agree with the thinking offered by some of the Geelng fans. Losing players does allow others to take more responsibilty and improve.
But what the trade doesn't reveal is what we could've got if we had've drafted some young kid with Burns' spot on the list. We also possibly could've traded Finnin for a draft pick instead.
This is hypothetical, however.
All in all I am quite content with the fact we gambled on Burns. He filled a role for us and wasn't bad at all.
As long as this type of recruiting doesn't happen year after year, though. There are only so many grandpa's one club should recruit.
Mong
Originally posted by Mong
But what the trade doesn't reveal is what we could've got if we had've drafted some young kid with Burns' spot on the list. We also possibly could've traded Finnin for a draft pick instead.
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn.
Jars458
27 Oct 2003, 11:26
Originally posted by Demon37
Sorry to burst your bubble... but:
Didn't Adelaide trade Daniel Wells (pick 2) for Wayne Carey?
No we traded Kane Johnson to Richmond who gave us their pick four. We also gave up another pick and got Jason Torney.
The fact Carlton were banned from the draft at a later stage changed the whole thing around.
Kane Johnson was always leaving and for us to get pick 4 for him was a good thing whenn you consider what has happened this year
You are simplyfing things to say we traded Wells for Carey.
Jars458
27 Oct 2003, 11:27
Originally posted by Porthos
The only flaw with bragging about trading away duds is that it means you draft duds in the first place.
I agree michael stevens
The invisible mullet
27 Oct 2003, 11:50
The Crows were probably looking for more in the ND than during the trade period this year.
Stiffy_18
27 Oct 2003, 12:10
Originally posted by DaveW
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn. Spot on. Why did we go for Shirley and Begley late in the draft? Because by our calculations we didn't think there was no youngster worth taking that late.
Maybe we could've taken Skipworth or Parker in the draft, or Patful or whoever. I think if on the senior list Parker may have slipped in a game or two this year.
Stiffy, you shouldn't be saying there was nothing worth taking in the draft considering the way you rave about Parker. On our list we might have had a better chance to see what he's got and could've played him in the Wizard Cup.
We had a spot free on the primary list in 2003, so we still could have drafted "some young kid". They'd be hard to find though at the arse-end of the draft where Carlton took Mick Martyn.
True but we always wanted to leave one spot available to give us some flexibility later. If we didn't take Burns we could've drafted someone 'some young kid' and still kept one spot free. I'm not saying this would've been a better option but it was an alternative. Burns may very well have kept someone like Parker or Patful off our list last year.
Mong
Stiffy_18
27 Oct 2003, 13:25
Originally posted by Mong
Maybe we could've taken Skipworth or Parker in the draft, or Patful or whoever. I think if on the senior list Parker may have slipped in a game or two this year.
Stiffy, you shouldn't be saying there was nothing worth taking in the draft considering the way you rave about Parker. On our list we might have had a better chance to see what he's got and could've played him in the Wizard Cup.
Mong There is a big difference between Parker that rocked up to pre-season training at the end of 2002 to the one that finished the 2003 season. Parker of last year wouldn't have guaranteed a selection in the national draft because he was a risky proposition as he was one dimensional. He could go a whole game without getting a possesion, all he did was spoil.
Parker was a player you would take a risk with on your rookie list. This year he has developed his game out of sight. Now its expected of him to get 20 touches a game at CHB. Hell he even racked up 30+ possesion games on a few occasions. When it gets to the bottom end of the draft its a risky business and clubs would rather punt on a player via Rookie List as they would have to pay him half the salary that he would be commanding if he got picked up in the National Draft.
Its a game of $$$, would you pick up a player that is a risky proposition and commit to him for 2 years @ $46K a year or pick him up in the rookie draft for $18K a year?????? I think the answer is obvious;)