Traded #22: Jake Carlisle - Pt.1 - Traded with some other stuff for pick 5, 24 and a Bird (cont in Part 2)

[pebblesofsand]

If you had a gun defender rather than Zac Dawson you'd have a nice 'name-a-game' DVD to watch every now and again.

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

 

[Eleven 38]

No but the words "gun" and "defender" don't really sit that well for me.

Don't get me wrong Carlisle's a good player but the only defender I'd think of trading for a top 10 pick would be Alex Rance.

1 to 10 pretty much reserved for forwards and mids.

Rance is worth way more than pick 1, not just a top 10 pick. Your kidding yourself if you think pick 5 would get Rance.

 

[Eleven 38]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

Meanwhile over at Hawthorn Josh Gibson and Brian lake are winning B&Fs and Norm Smith's.

 

[ant555]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

Crap. The sides with a good balance between all three make the GF.
Our problem was no forwards.

 

[DapperJong]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

So you don't want him then? k

 

[TheFrenchCut]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

West Coast might disagree after the grand final they had.

 

[Foxx]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

Having one of the best midfields and forward lines in two set off eras since the late 80's early nineties, and again in the last decade hasn't done St Kilda much good.

Drive for show and putt for dough mate.

 

[Jobe is King]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

So what is a defender who can shut down a match winning forward worth?

 

[DapperDon]

Apparently you have three "gun" defenders - hasn't done you a lot of good.

Mids and forwards win matches therefore are worth more.

No, complete teams win premierships.

We don't have a forward line and need more midfield power. Your current forward line isn't going to be better than Riewoldt, Milne and Kosi and they got nothing. You need a complete team, Carlisle takes you towards that.

it amazes me that people still underrate defenders, I mean, Geelong won a GF with a young Tom Hawkins and Nathan ****ing Ablett yet they had a phenomenal defense. I guess that was just a fluke though.

 

[Dacksaredown]

For who, Essendon or St Kilda?

The mega-trade deal sucks for every team involved except Gold Coast. Not that we would complain if it went through, but it's one
of the stupidest trades I've ever seen. Port swaps pick ten for five with St Kilda to get Dixon and St Kilda gets Carlisle for this pick 10? Crazy.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Nah you've got me wrong - I don't underrate defenders - just think they are more "makeable" than mids or forwards so therefore aren't worth the same at draft time. History of the draft (and player contracts) is unambiguously on my side.

Best side in the comp for the last 20 years in reality had a Pick 71 (Lake) and Pick 7 rookie draft (Gibson) as their key defenders.

How many ordinary defenders have become forwards later in their career - not many - usually works the other way because of the simple fact that playing defence is easier than playing forward.

Come on down Zac Dawson.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

What do you mean very hard to prove?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-23/no-consent-no-trades-aflpa

"THE AFL Players' Association will not be entertaining the idea of players being traded without their consent after Richmond coach Damien Hardwick called for the change to player movement rules at the weekend."

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1433&context=blr

"The AFL has stated that players involved in the trading period must consent to the swap before a deal can be finalised.77 Under the principles of contract law, if a player is under contract they can hold an employer to that contract"

The first link you post does not clearly disprove anything with regards to a player out of contract. They clearly talk about players still contracted. The second link is regarding free agency and the reasons they were introduced. Again both allude to the fact players always need to provide consent but no where do they clearly state a player out of contract must agree to the trade.

While I believe the player DOES need to provide consent regardless, it's harder to find proof of this than I originally thought.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Why dont the Saints just give us pick 5 instead of trading it to GC? I dont get it.

 

[carnthedons]

Why dont the Saints just give us pick 5 instead of trading it to GC? I dont get it.

They'll get ports first next year under the scheme

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Yeah I didn't think there was any ever doubt that players can't be traded without consent.

If they did Hooker would be at WCE

More anecdotal evidence that I think supports the notion. What I think is most interesting is that it is very hard to find a clear rule/law/regulation from the AFL site about it, whereas it's pretty easy to find most other things. I'm guessing it's buried in the collective bargaining agreements etc more-so than in the AFL rules.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

They'll get ports first next year under the scheme

So Saints still want thier cake and it too.

 

[MarkG]

They'll get ports first next year under the scheme

Off the plan. So they are building for 2025?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If Port actually trade 2x first rounders for Dixon we can confirm that Crazy Vossy has taken over the asylum.

 

[Fear Boner]

So Saints still want thier cake and it too.

Of course they do .... Why do you think this has dragged out aslong as it has ?

 

[DapperDon]

If Port are stupid enough to give Saints their future 1st round pick then good on them and well done Saints.

All that matters is we get a fair deal for Carlisle, pick 10 is fair enough. We all want 5 as it's a possibility but this way we keep both 2nd round picks and still have 2 top 10 picks. Nothing to be sneezed at.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Of course they do .... Why do you think this has dragged out aslong as it has ?

**** thier greedy.

 

[Pweter]

Nah you've got me wrong - I don't underrate defenders - just think they are more "makeable" than mids or forwards so therefore aren't worth the same at draft time. History of the draft (and player contracts) is unambiguously on my side.

Best side in the comp for the last 20 years in reality had a Pick 71 (Lake) and Pick 7 rookie draft (Gibson) as their key defenders.

How many ordinary defenders have become forwards later in their career - not many - usually works the other way because of the simple fact that playing defence is easier than playing forward.

Come on down Zac Dawson.

How many of the draftees come as mature bodied ready made KPDs with the ability to either pinch hit forward to win you games (refer 2013 games against Carlton and WCE)? You're not drafting an unknown quantity, and Carlisle showed late in the year that he hasn't lost any of his ability as a defender after his time playing forward. He will only get better once settled into that role again.

 

[Towno78]

Nah you've got me wrong - I don't underrate defenders - just think they are more "makeable" than mids or forwards so therefore aren't worth the same at draft time. History of the draft (and player contracts) is unambiguously on my side.

Best side in the comp for the last 20 years in reality had a Pick 71 (Lake) and Pick 7 rookie draft (Gibson) as their key defenders.

How many ordinary defenders have become forwards later in their career - not many - usually works the other way because of the simple fact that playing defence is easier than playing forward.

Come on down Zac Dawson.

Don't worry mate, think there's a few defenders in this thread who overrate their own ability

 

[Easy Mode]

More anecdotal evidence that I think supports the notion. What I think is most interesting is that it is very hard to find a clear rule/law/regulation from the AFL site about it, whereas it's pretty easy to find most other things. I'm guessing it's buried in the collective bargaining agreements etc more-so than in the AFL rules.

You made me google a little more..

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015-2016 CBA FINAL.pdf

No AFL Club shall exchange any Player unless the Player has been given as much notice as possible by the AFL Club of its intention to trade without any duress being applied by the AFL Club, its employees or agents to the player and the Player genuinely consents to the trade.

 

[SherbertLemon]

Gun defendars are wrth nothin.
Second Rounder At Best.
they are only defenders becuz ther not gud enouf to play forwd