Traded Bryce Gibbs [traded to Adelaide] - (cont. in Part 2)

[Asgardian]

As a Carlton supporter would you have done a straight swap Lever for Gibbs, both first round draft picks lever at 20 Rising Star Nom looking like a potential 250 gamer Gibbs at 28 not that long to go. Not at same level of ability ATM but years of upside ahead for Lever?

In a heartbeat, where's the paperwork?

Absolutely not.

That's the part that makes no sense.

Lever has a 10-12 year career ahead of him as a very good to elite player (as long as he remains fit)

Gibbs time as a top player for the Blues is coming to an end, maybe two years left tops

 

[slashin_velvet]

In a heartbeat, where's the paperwork?



That's the part that makes no sense.

Lever has a 10-12 year career ahead of him as a very good to elite player (as long as he remains fit)

Gibbs time as a top player for the Blues is coming to an end, maybe two years left tops

Sure, but it's a question of fit. Would lever be ahead of Weitering and Marchbank for us? If not, risking weitering in the hope he can be a solid forward when we know his defensive capabilities could be the wrong move for our club.

I would suggest a Lever for Gibbs trade would be fair, but I'm not sure I'd be happy with that deal, given our biggest weakness is mid and forward.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Seen plenty of Plowman and Marchbank at both AFL and NEAFL level, Lever is so far ahead it's not funny.

 

[marty36]

Sure, but it's a question of fit. Would lever be ahead of Weitering and Marchbank for us? If not, risking weitering in the hope he can be a solid forward when we know his defensive capabilities could be the wrong move for our club.

I would suggest a Lever for Gibbs trade would be fair, but I'm not sure I'd be happy with that deal, given our biggest weakness is mid and forward.

If SOS had knocked back lever for Gibbs it would have been blatantly clear that a trade was never possible.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Maybe he meant some of your rebuilding players are not the right type or good enough?

Can't go from needing a major rebuild to rebuilding with youngsters and mean that. I think some haven't caught up with what has been happening at Carlton the last 15 months.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What lack of knowledge in regard to a Carlton poster calling people sooks because they dare question Carlton superiorority. Carton are no good,there is plenty of evidence,even a heavily suspended Essendon defeated the Blues and still you all think your on the right track just because of Silvini.
If Gibbs was perfectly fine staying at Carlton he wouldn't have asked to leave. I'd take the fact he asked to leave when he had the chance as better evidence than a post event interview. What else was he going to say at this point.
It's the Blues supporters with no idea about their list. First you all think Murphy and Gibbs are still going to be around when your finally competitive enough to push for a flag,like it's just around the corner and you all keep constantly mentioning ten game players and in many cases zero game players as ready made stars who will make it 100%. No wait and see,no patience just its definite and if you have an opposing view your a hater or a sook. Unbelievable,and the typical Carlton arrogance that has led the club up this path and why it has struggled to get back.

1. A round 23 defeat in a dead rubber doesn't sum up our season and our progress during the year.

2. Gibbs never had a problem with anybody at Carlton. His and his partner's families live in Adelaide and they have a little one. You don't actually have to have a problem with your club to want to be closer to family. Your logic is flawed.

3. I don't think Murphy and Gibbs are going to be there for our next successes, or at least I don't include them in my analysis. Our next wave starts at Docherty and down in terms of age.

4. We also don't assume they are all going to make it but we are happy that we have got in players rated as juniors in a variety of positions. Us liking what we saw from Curnow or Silvagni and identifying early talent does not equate to impatience or arrogance.

And yes, you lack knowledge and the ability to understand how we are going about building the list. Your constant reference to Silvagni's arrogance for recruiting GWS 'rejects' shows zero understanding of why we did it, what we hope to gain out of it and what the alternatives were.

Any time you want to engage in a real debate about our list management instead of your fly by stock standard responses, I will be happy to accommodate you.

 

[slashin_velvet]

If SOS had knocked back lever for Gibbs it would have been blatantly clear that a trade was never possible.

Would you have traded a contracted Sloane for Jonothan Patton?

 

[marty36]

Would you have traded a contracted Sloane for Jonothan Patton?

Sloane hasn't requested a trade from the Adelaide football club, if he did we would look at it. As was the case with Danger we could have forced him into the draft being an RFA but we helped him get home

 

[Jeremias]

That's the part that makes no sense.

Lever has a 10-12 year career ahead of him as a very good to elite player (as long as he remains fit)

Gibbs time as a top player for the Blues is coming to an end, maybe two years left tops

It actually makes perfect sense.

Gibbs is one of our best and most important players, with 3 years remaining on his contract. If we're giving him up we're surely going to look to address a need rather than bolster a relative strength.

Most Carlton fans are buoyant about our key defensive stocks but acknowledge that when it comes to our forward line and in particular our midfield, the cupboard is just about bare.

As slashin_velvet said above, it is a question of fit and Lever is not the right fit for us as things stand.

Seen plenty of Plowman and Marchbank at both AFL and NEAFL level, Lever is so far ahead it's not funny.

But again, that's not the point - this has never been about Lever's quality. We acknowledge he's a very good young defender.

Weitering and Plowman were brought in together and last year showed they work well together; whilst Marchbank is highly regarded and someone we courted and had already committed to by the time Adelaide thought it appropriate to announce Gibbs wanted to go home.

Given the circumstances around the Gibbs scenario, it is not incumbent upon Carlton to appease Adelaide by becoming reactionary to their needs whilst foregoing our own.

It would have been absurd to do so.

 

[Jeremias]

Sloane hasn't requested a trade from the Adelaide football club, if he did we would look at it. As was the case with Danger we could have forced him into the draft being an RFA but we helped him get home

Ha!

You surely cannot be serious here. Dangerfield was gone regardless, you simply exercised your right to match a bid and force a trade.

On no planet did Adelaide help Dangerfield get home.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Sloane hasn't requested a trade from the Adelaide football club, if he did we would look at it. As was the case with Danger we could have forced him into the draft being an RFA but we helped him get home

lrn2hypothetical

 

[Dc9798]

Sloane hasn't requested a trade from the Adelaide football club, if he did we would look at it. As was the case with Danger we could have forced him into the draft being an RFA but we helped him get home

I doubt very much that we 'helped' Danger get home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[marty36]

Ha!

You surely cannot be serious here. Dangerfield was gone regardless, you simply exercised your right to match a bid and force a trade.

On no planet did Adelaide help Dangerfield get home.

We didn't excersize anything a trade was done and it was by both clubs. Adelaide didn't force it's rights. Not saying they shouldn't have. But they were fair in the process

 

[Jeremias]

We didn't excersize anything a trade was done and it was by both clubs. Adelaide didn't force it's rights. Not saying they shouldn't have. But they were fair in the process

OK. You obviously do not have a clear understanding of the situation.

Dangerfield was a RFA and once Geelong put a contract in front of him, Adelaide had two clear options - let him walk and receive a compensation pick in return, or match the bid and force a trade.

Adelaide chose the latter, exercising their right to extract maximum value for a player who was already out the door.

I don't know how you can possibly equate that to "helping" Dangerfield get to his location of choice, because that is quite clearly not the case. You actually made it more difficult.

 

[marty36]

OK. You obviously do not have a clear understanding of the situation.

Dangerfield was a RFA and once Geelong put a contract in front of him, Adelaide had two clear options - let him walk and receive a compensation pick in return, or match the bid and force a trade.

Adelaide chose the latter, exercising their right to extract maximum value for a player who was already out the door.

I don't know how you can possibly equate that to "helping" Dangerfield get to his location of choice, because that is quite clearly not the case. You actually made it more difficult.

They didn't match, you are completely wrong, go check what happened. The clubs sorted it without excersizing any rights it was done amicably by the clubs

 

[slashin_velvet]

They didn't match, you are completely wrong, go check what happened. The clubs sorted it without excersizing any rights it was done amicably by the clubs

The optics of the situation as an outsider don't actually mirror the reality.

Adelaide would have told Geelong they would match any bid in order to achieve more compensation. If they didn't do that, Geelong could have simply bid on him as a free agent, and you wouldn't have matched. Instead you made them give up more in a trade, rather than getting him for free.

Adelaide impeded Dangerfield in utilising his right as an uncontracted (but restricted) free agent.

 

[Jeremias]

They didn't match, you are completely wrong, go check what happened. The clubs sorted it without excersizing any rights it was done amicably by the clubs

Ah - indeed I am mistaken, my apologies.

The clubs went straight to the trade table, bypassing the FA formalities however ultimately arriving at the same conclusion.

Adelaide was always going to match Geelong's bid, therefore forcing a trade to go through in order to extract greater value for Dangerfield than the AFL compensation pick they would have otherwise received.

David Noble acknowledged at the time that this is the exact reason why a trade was arranged.

Regardless, your insistence that Adelaide helped Dangerfield get to Geelong is clearly false, and hilariously so.

 

[marty36]

Ah - indeed I am mistaken, my apologies.

The clubs went straight to the trade table, bypassing the FA formalities however ultimately arriving at the same conclusion.

Adelaide was always going to match Geelong's bid, therefore forcing a trade to go through in order to extract greater value for Dangerfield than the AFL compensation pick they would have otherwise received.

David Noble acknowledged at the time that this is the exact reason why a trade was arranged.

Regardless, your insistence that Adelaide helped Dangerfield get to Geelong is clearly false, and hilariously so.

They were forced to help and we're quite amicable about it, a bit to my disgust he was worth more than what we got, in hindsight they should have sent him into the draft

 

[marty36]

The optics of the situation as an outsider don't actually mirror the reality.

Adelaide would have told Geelong they would match any bid in order to achieve more compensation. If they didn't do that, Geelong could have simply bid on him as a free agent, and you wouldn't have matched. Instead you made them give up more in a trade, rather than getting him for free.

Adelaide impeded Dangerfield in utilising his right as an uncontracted (but restricted) free agent.

Why the hell would we have not matched clearly Roo said they would need to pay for Danger, not as much as I would have liked though

 

[Suma Magic]

As a neutral I reckon the Crows accepted unders on the Danger deal.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Why the hell would we have not matched clearly Roo said they would need to pay for Danger, not as much as I would have liked though

if you were TRUELY helping- you would have let him go for free agency compo.

Im not saying crows did the wrong thing - im just pointing out your rose coloured glasses.

 

[Jeremias]

As a neutral I reckon the Crows accepted unders on the Danger deal.

Of course they did - they were never going to get full value for him as an uncontracted player who wasn't coming back.

They took the best option available to them at the time.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Of course they did - they were never going to get full value for him as an uncontracted player who wasn't coming back.

They took the best option available to them at the time.

Sounds familiar to what a Melbourne club did with a contracted player in the most recent trade period.

 

[marty36]

if you were TRUELY helping- you would have let him go for free agency compo.

Im not saying crows did the wrong thing - im just pointing out your rose coloured glasses.

You could be right, but they should have gone hard ball like Carlton did on Gibbs, that made the trade possible by being amicable there is no way Dangerfield was only worth a 1st and 2nd rounder. Look what you wanted for Gibbs and sorry to say Gibbs has half the ability of Dangerfield as 99% of football supporters would agree

 

[Suma Magic]

Of course they did - they were never going to get full value for him as an uncontracted player who wasn't coming back.

They took the best option available to them at the time.

My opinion takes full account of the circumstances. I'm saying they got unders considering all factors at play.

I think they could have got more if they had held out for more. I guess we will never know though.