Mega Thread Dayne Beams trade (Its over, thread closed)

[Lord Wilberforce]

He did his ACL in august so he could be back before May.

Krakouer in 2012 did his ACL in february and played finals (in which he was very good)

Yep, I remember that. However, the way the media reports it, and people have been talking about it here, you'd think he'd be out for a whole 12 months - which is not true.

It will be a hard road back, but we should be thinking about him featuring at some point next year.

 

[Subprime]

If he wanted to come, I think Scharenberg and pick 4 is a good deal for him, not as good as pick 2 and 3 Melbourne will offer but if he said strictly he wants to come to Collingwood that would be my offer for him.

Doubt Adelaide would like it though, pick 4 (don't know who it is) and a bloke who would be out for the season next year and would have missed two full AFL seasons through injuries.

Scaharenbergs value would have diminished big time after that ACL injury on top of the two feet surgeries he had.

Be an interesting hypothetical as to whether Adelaide would prefer Aish/Scharenberg and pick 4 or picks 2 & 3.

Doubt either will happen but you never know.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Brisbane clearly are not very good at this trading game. Can't wait til next year when another bunch of players walk on them and they move on to the next coach.

Yes because that's a yearly occurrence.

 

[weevil]

Dean Warren's only dealing with the media atm mate... Hine hasn't heard from him yet. So ATM he can bang his chest and make all the big statements he wants, but in the end he's gonna have to satisfy the HINEMEISTER and that's where the game will get interesting. Hine just calmly pointed out "yep we have a contract with Dayne"....the ball is totally in Brisbane's court.

And didn't Bucks say he'd take pick 4 and Hanley? That was my recollection.

Both sides are feeling each other out via the media. Collingwood are saying they have him under contract and Brisbane are saying they are happy to wait a year until he is out of contract. Most importantly both sides are also saying they will work to get a deal done. Both sides are smart enough to realise it's in no one's interest for this to drag on.

Then the chest banging from both sides (and their fans) can come to an end.

 

[MarkT2]

Trading is a little different now with Free Agency. The best players are tied up and only that 15-22 player becomes available in the main. The cost of prising someone else out amidst 16/18 teams is a pretty tough operation when everyone else is all over them.

It seems that Hawthorn and Geelong can still firstly work out exactly what they need, then target it and then land it. I'd add Sydney but they also have an unfair advantage. They are the two most successful clubs for a reason and we aren't for a reason. It is all function of being a well run club. We have a natural advantage of a huge following Take that away and we'd be in serious strife and our administration wouldn't look nearly as polished.

 

[DaicosianMarvels]

Be an interesting hypothetical as to whether Adelaide would prefer Aish/Scharenberg and pick 4 or picks 2 & 3.

Doubt either will happen but you never know.

If I was an Adelaide fan I would say no to Scharenberg and pick 4 for Dangerfield. Pick 2 and 3 are clearly the best deal imo, Adelaide can on trade them and get something decent.

Collingwood fans would think Pick 4 and Scharenberg is insane but they are the same ones that think pick 4 and Aish is fair for Beams. Aish has at least proved that he can play. Scharneberg will be 21 when he plays his first game of AFL football.

If people think Beams is worth 2 first rounders than so is Dangerfield. Pick 4 and Scharenberg are both first rounders, like I said though Adelaide would laugh at us if we offered them that.

It will come down to does Danger want to play for Melbourne, the answer is probably not so he will most likely stay at Adelaide next year and walk in to a Geelong or Hawthorn as a free agent. We have no chance at all to get him once he becomes a free agent.

 

[Hollow Knight]

probably time you stop posting unwanted dribble on here and post it on your board your suppose to be looking after

I don't mod the Brisbane board popin.

Joel Patfull is featuring in a lot of trade hypotheticals so I am providing the latest context and information. If a Collingwood mod has an issue with that I will happily move on. Until then...

 

[popin]

I don't mod the Brisbane board popin.

Joel Patfull is featuring in a lot of trade hypotheticals so I am providing the latest context and information. If a Collingwood mod has an issue with that I will happily move on. Until then...

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN..............................................

 

[MarkT2]

Both sides are feeling each other out via the media. Collingwood are saying they have him under contract and Brisbane are saying they are happy to wait a year until he is out of contract. Most importantly both sides are also saying they will work to get a deal done. Both sides are smart enough to realise it's in no one's interest for this to drag on.

Then the chest banging from both sides (and their fans) can come to an end.

It is in Colliongwood's interest to keep Beams and work on him over the year while accomodating a very flexible fly in fly our arrangement. Unfortunataly we have neither the foresight nor the courage to do that and in any case it wouldn't fit well with our leading teams startegy.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...curing-magpie-midfielder-20140930-10null.html

I'm not sure if this article has been referenced yet but Peter Schwab states that he has been dealing with the Pies directly ..........I think we can discount what that other flog says to some extent.

I imagine that with some reasonable heads at the table (Schwab/Hine) a deal will get done - it'll likely go down to the wire but Brisbane would be nuts to let this go. There'll be enough names drop at other clubs for this to be done if they work hard enough to involve other clubs.

 

[weevil]

so you think a trade that doesn't include some sort of young talent will be equal value for a top 10-15 midfielder?
You guys seem to overrate your "culture" and the quality of your young players. On the one hand you have two veterans reportedly wanting out, and on the the other you are reportedly chasing Mitch Robinson.
Patfull and Merrett are both quality players but will not get you anything of value in return - and will be of no use to us.
Your top 2 draft picks are not enough (IMO) nor are they what we are looking for... plus your team seems to think Pick 4 on it's own is adequate.
If you want to use those picks to find a 3rd party that can offer us something anywhere near the equivalent of Beams - good luck on that... but the onus is on you guys to make it work. If you can't find a 3rd party, then without throwing in a quality young player - I doubt you will get Beams this summer.

You are fighting a number of strawmen there. I'm very confident both teams will come to an acceptable resolution.

 

[MightyPies1]

Don't want to besmirch the sanctity of a Jay Clark trade rumour article but Patfull's manager just tipped a bucket of cold water on the rumour of him demanding a trade.

Said that Patfull Is thinking of moving to Sydney when his career is over but if the club wanted to move him on he would listen to offers from Sydney clubs but in the meantime, they are discussing contract extensions with Brisbane despite him already having another year to run.

This article is from a month ago FWIW... Doesnt sound like a dude who wants out.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...oining-the-lions/story-fnia3y5f-1227018633738

Merrett in the other hand might be moved on, he is in a frustrating rut and a change could be good for all parties. GWS or the Suns might be interested which could create opportunities in the Beams trade.

Probably time to remove Leuenberger from trade hypotheticals though, he pretty much lost his tradeable status when the Ryder thing didn't happen.

Sorry to chime in chunky.

But you coming on here ans suggesting that we accept Merrett who has no trade value and nothing to us is trolling.

Basically it appears more and more that Beams is after money, and if you don't come to the trade table with a suitable trade you don't get the chocolates Bems is a contracted player.

 

[Subprime]

If I was an Adelaide fan I would say no to Scharenberg and pick 4 for Dangerfield. Pick 2 and 3 are clearly the best deal imo, Adelaide can on trade them and get something decent.

Collingwood fans would think Pick 4 and Scharenberg is insane but they are the same ones that think pick 4 and Aish is fair for Beams. Aish has at least proved that he can play. Scharneberg will be 21 when he plays his first game of AFL football.

If people think Beams is worth 2 first rounders than so is Dangerfield. Pick 4 and Scharenberg are both first rounders, like I said though Adelaide would laugh at us if we offered them that.

It will come down to does Danger want to play for Melbourne, the answer is probably not so he will most likely stay at Adelaide next year and walk in to a Geelong or Hawthorn as a free agent. We have no chance at all to get him once he becomes a free agent.

There is no go home risk with Aish or Scharenberg and picks 2 & 3 this year have shown as much at AFL level as Scharenberg. I don't see much difference so we will differ there.

Anyway all hypothetical as Dangerfield seems happy at the Crows.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

I wonder given both Patful and Merrett on the way out, we can add Lachlie Keeffe to the Beams deal to ensure that we can get a Hanley/Aish/Redden.

Something like

Beams + Keeffe for Pick 4 + Hanley/Aish/Redden.

I think we can afford to move Keeffe on with Reid likely moving back to the backline if we recruit Mitch Clark and or Peter Wright with pick 4 to play key forward.

 

[jmac70]

It is in Colliongwood's interest to keep Beams and work on him over the year while accomodating a very flexible fly in fly our arrangement. Unfortunataly we have neither the foresight nor the courage to do that and in any case it wouldn't fit well with our leading teams startegy.

I believe an option similar to that has already been put to Beams which he has rejected. Just how accommodating do you expect the club to be? Setting a precedent in which a player can live interstate and fly in for games would be pretty dangerous.

 

[Rusty22]

Trade News: Pick 4 to the Pies for Beams. Done deal.

 

[Old Spice]

It seems that Hawthorn and Geelong can still firstly work out exactly what they need, then target it and then land it. I'd add Sydney but they also have an unfair advantage. They are the two most successful clubs for a reason and we aren't for a reason. It is all function of being a well run club. We have a natural advantage of a huge following Take that away and we'd be in serious strife and our administration wouldn't look nearly as polished.

Someone made an interesting observation last night on Finey's show - see if you can pick it.

2014 - Hawthorn
2013 - Hawthorn
2012 - Sydney
2011 - Geelong
2010 - Collingwood
2009 - Geelong
2008 - Hawthorn
2007 - Geelong

Of the last 8 GF winners Geelong and Hawthorn have snaffled 6 flags between them. You can argue chicken and egg, are they good because they get players or do they get layers because they are good. I think it's pretty clear that their continued elevated position in the finals makes it easy for them to attract players.

 

[MarkT2]

Name one poor trade in the last 4 years?

(And leave Shaw-for-Adams out of it, because that's contentious and I'd disagree with you)

Leave it out? That was a bloody poor trade IMO - not just the deal which itself was poor, but the decision to exit Shaw in the first place and it has contrtibuted to Beams wanting out - by his managers admission on radio this morning. The status of the list and the dynamic at ther club is a function of a number of decisions and it is well and truly more than trading decisons but I love to know what ones you think have been good post the 2010 off season - apart from the Shaw deal of course.

On trades though, half the problem is that we have done bugger all whereas we could have traded AND retained and remained strong contenders had we made different decisions. Instead of trading we have taken freebies at the low end of the FA market and none of them have been particularly positive in themselves while it was facilitated trades out for draft picks which has been a big part of why the list is where it is. You can argue the Dawes or the Wellingham trades were individually good because we may have got quality players (water left to flow there) but as a part of the overall list management strategy it has been catastrophic. It isn't those specific players in isolation so much as the sum of all the outs and ins. It's all part of the trading and list management strategy. That all works in with the cluture push. It is all part of the outcome which has been list decimation and hasn't even left the remaining team any better culturally by any observable measue and if you go by our efforts in most of the key game latter in the year I'd say the spirit is lower then it has been for a long time.

 

[DaicosianMarvels]

Trade News: Pick 4 to the Pies for Beams. Done deal.

Collingwood were so happy with that deal, that they accepted it 6 days before the trade period started. Here we all thought like idiots that it would be done on the last day.

 

[MarkT2]

Someone made an interesting observation last night on Finey's show - see if you can pick it.

2014 - Hawthorn
2013 - Hawthorn
2012 - Sydney
2011 - Geelong
2010 - Collingwood
2009 - Geelong
2008 - Hawthorn
2007 - Geelong

Of the last 8 GF winners Geelong and Hawthorn have snaffled 6 flags between them. You can argue chicken and egg, are they good because they get players or do they get layers because they are good. I think it's pretty clear that there continued elevated position in the finals makes it easy for them to attract players.

They are very well run. Everything flows from there. They make good decisions with off field people who make good decisions with on field people.

 

[MightyPies1]

I wonder given both Patful and Merrett on the way out, we can add Lachlie Keeffe to the Beams deal to ensure that we can get a Hanley/Aish/Redden.

Something like

Beams + Keeffe for Pick 4 + Hanley/Aish/Redden.

I think we can afford to move Keeffe on with Reid likely moving back to the backline if we recruit Mitch Clark and or Peter Wright with pick 4 to play key forward.

It would have to be this.

Beams plus Keefe for pick 4, 24 and Aish would be more like it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

But you coming on here ans suggesting that we accept Merrett who has no trade value and nothing to us is trolling.

Merrett in the other hand might be moved on, he is in a frustrating rut and a change could be good for all parties. GWS or the Suns might be interested which could create opportunities in the Beams trade.

One day you might actually attack me based on something I've actually said MightyPies. I thought I was on your ignore list anyway. Not interested in your personal attacks anymore.

Regardless of your insistence on trying to create trouble at every turn, I am constructive on other team's boards and am not going to be drawn into a slanging match on your home turf.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Trade News: Pick 4 to the Pies for Beams. Done deal.

Seems legit - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-30/pies-no-to-no4

 

[jmac70]

Leave it out? That was a bloody poor trade IMO - not just the deal which itself was poor, but the decision to exit Shaw in the first place and it has contrtibuted to Beams wanting out - by his managers admission on radio this morning. The status of the list and the dynamic at ther club is a function of a number of decisions and it is well and truly more than trading decisons but I love to know what ones you think have been good post the 2010 off season - apart from the Shaw deal of course.

On trades though, half the problem is that we have done bugger all whereas we could have traded AND retained and remained strong contenders had we made different decisions. Instead of trading we have taken freebies at the low end of the FA market and none of them have been particularly positive in themselves while it was facilitated trades out for draft picks which has been a big part of why the list is where it is. You can argue the Dawes or the Wellingham trades were individually good because we may have got quality players (water left to flow there) but as a part of the overall list management strategy it has been catastrophic. It isn't those specific players in isolation so much as the sum of all the outs and ins. It's all part of the trading and list management strategy. That all works in with the cluture push. It is all part of the outcome which has been list decimation and hasn't even left the remaining team any better culturally by any observable measue and if you go by our efforts in most of the key game latter in the year I'd say the spirit is lower then it has been for a long time.

So in summary you are saying that we should only trade experienced players for other experienced players of approximately the same level?

 

[MightyPies1]

One day you might actually attack me based on something I've actually said MightyPies. I thought I was on your ignore list anyway. Not interested in your personal attacks anymore.

I scan through your posts. Anyways you'll get pick 40 or 50 for Merrett, he's irrellevant to the Beams trade. IN fact it's looking like at some point GC will say hi and trump you guys.