Good pick up, will be interesting to see what pick we used to get him
Official GIANTS trade period thread
- Thread starter Scully2Folau
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #352
Interesting from Gilham's manager and interest in the past week from GWS: "the Giants had to free up a couple of spots on their list to get it done, I think they made a decision on a couple of players late there"
well here is the deal:
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane
Trade pwork - GWS swap Jed Anderson (NT), On-Traded r2 (cur. 29) r4 (curr. 68) to Hawks for S Gilham, On-Traded r2 (cur. 28) r3 (curr. 65).
Patrick Keane
Trade pwork - GWS swap Jed Anderson (NT), On-Traded r2 (cur. 29) r4 (curr. 68) to Hawks for S Gilham, On-Traded r2 (cur. 28) r3 (curr. 65).
Sunny_
Brownlow Medallist
Throwing in Jed seems to be a bit steep? Nice on the downgrade to pick 28 though!
- Thread starter
- #356
Probably could have, but mightn't have wanted to use a list spot on Anderson.
- Thread starter
- #358
Yep effectively Anderson for Gilham, then upgrading 29 to 28 and 68 to 65. I guess we weren't keen on listing Anderson, Emma Quayle said the club hadn't spoken to him in a while.
- Thread starter
- #359
Good trading for a need I reckon. It's become clear we weren't going to pick up Anderson and would've been shopping him during the trade period. Gilham mightn't be the best value, but we don't know what else was on offer.
What was the point of trading picks as well? 29 for 28 and 68 for 65. Why not just come out and say Jed Anderson for Stephen Gillham? The rest is just nothing for nothing, not even steak knives.
Don't know enough about Anderson to know whether this is a good trade or not. Gillham will be handy down back and that's where we need bodies. We have enough kids - and we're getting more in the draft so giving away one we never really had anyway is not a real problem as far as I can see.
Don't know enough about Anderson to know whether this is a good trade or not. Gillham will be handy down back and that's where we need bodies. We have enough kids - and we're getting more in the draft so giving away one we never really had anyway is not a real problem as far as I can see.
Mountain Giant
All Australian
- Oct 11, 2011
- 911
- 231
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Sydney FC, Philadelphia Eagles
Maybe for slightly higher value if trading on?
Nothing wrong with this trade. You can't keep every potential kid for the same position.
- Thread starter
- #362
in: #2, #3, #12, #14, #28, #65, #69, GC end-1st compo (exp. 2014), Stephen Gilham
out: MD1, MD2, GWS end-1st compo (exp. 2015), Jack Hombsch, #21, #25, #46, #68, Jed Anderson (NT), Dom Barry (NT), Jake Neade (NT), Tom Lee (pre-listed)
out: MD1, MD2, GWS end-1st compo (exp. 2015), Jack Hombsch, #21, #25, #46, #68, Jed Anderson (NT), Dom Barry (NT), Jake Neade (NT), Tom Lee (pre-listed)
OK so we walk away with Gilham and pick 1,2,3,12,14 & 28
So thats 7 possible ins, and that leaves another 3 spots we could fill.
So thats 7 possible ins, and that leaves another 3 spots we could fill.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,190
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #364
I expect (but have often been wrong with regards to the Giants' recruiting) we'd be having a look at what mature bodies get delisted and pick up three as free agents. Or, if we don't rate any, then leave it as is.
Hodge is God
Norm Smith Medallist
Good pick up on Gilly 
Fantastic player, leader and I have been told a fantastic bloke.
Will be great for your young list and will also be a great addition to your back line. In adding a premiership player.
Fantastic player, leader and I have been told a fantastic bloke.
Will be great for your young list and will also be a great addition to your back line. In adding a premiership player.
Ilovethehawks
Team Captain
There are big wraps on Anderson but nobody really knows what he will turn out to be, where as Gilham has proved that he is a decent full back but just couldnt crack into the Hawthorn side after his injuries. He will be good for you guys, especially in a side as young as GWS, his experience will be invaluable, pretty sure Sheedy got what he wanted.
I really like this pickup A calm head down back was a priority to help Davis out.
Using Obeanie's logic, maybe WCE should offload Shuey, Natanui and Kennedy to us. After all maybe they're sick of West Coast. Maybe, what a great word for "let's make up a scenario".
I repeat, since you don't seem to understand, trading Jed costs GWS Jed. After all he can't be on our list if we trade him. Have a look into the concept of opportunity cost.
"Maybe" he doesn't want to play for us... Of course, "maybe" he does, or "maybe" he doesn't care where he ends up. But unless he actually confirms that he won't play for GWS, trading him costs GWS the opportunity to have him on our own list.
I really don't get what's so hard to get about that.
Bounce.
WOW!!!!
.
Maybe he ended up doing exactly what I was trying to discuss before you started being a knob about it.
But you obviously know better.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,190
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #371
Bounce.
WOW!!!!
.
Maybe he ended up doing exactly what I was trying to discuss before you started being a knob about it.
But you obviously know better.
Oh for *'s sake, stop misrepresenting my post.
What I was pointing out all along was that trading Jed costs us Jed. We traded him, yes - and he's not on our list, is he? Which he could have been if we didn't trade him away. It's not like the mini-draft picks which literally didn't cost us anything because we couldn't use them ourselves - in Jed's case we could have kept him, so trading him costs us the opportunity to have him on our list.
I was never commenting on whether or not we would take him. I was, and am, pointing out a fallacy in your argument that trading him cost us nothing, but given you never got it every other time we went around in circles I doubt you are going to understand basic logic now.
Hows this for basic logic. If a player said "I don't want to taken under the zone selection provisions and play for GWS but yes I'd be happy for you to arrange a trade to a club I do want to play for" then GWS get something for nothing. How does this "cost GWS Jed Anderson, you never had him in the first place and the only way GWS could get him was if he agreed, and he didn't.
Both player and club must agree to use the zone selection option so by a player saying no or GWS not wanting that player they lose absolutely nothing. Why, because he was not under contract and GWS never had an option to get him unless he agreed.
How can you lose (incurr a cost) for something you never had? This is as basic as it gets, if you can't work it out go phone a friend or something.
The Giants figured it out, GWS seemed pretty smart and thats why they did exactly this with not one, not two but three NT zone selection players.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,190
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #373
Yet again I'll refer you to the idea of opportunity cost.
The definition:
Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative forgone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices.
It is indeed basic economics.
I would suggest its time to move on as all that happened was that the trading of NT zone players allowed GWS to get pick 14, 28 and to bring in Gilham which had more value to GWS then holding on to those 3 NT zone selections. Especially given how much more young talent will be joining GWS this year through the draft.
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #375
Bullet dodged..
