Player Watch Jarrod Witts (Traded to GCS 2016)

[TW Sherrin]

If anyone burnt the club in the witts trade it was witts.

Dunno how he escapes criticism for what happened.

 

[Brent24]

If anyone burnt the club in the witts trade it was witts.

Dunno how he escapes criticism for what happened.

In what way? By nominating a club?

 

[Apex36]

Oh my, check BF after a week and we are still talking about this! If Witts is on our list where does he play this week?

In the seniors ahead of Grundy based on the head to head tonight.

 

[Apex36]

In what way? By nominating a club?

By refusing to be traded in 2015 as a part of the Treloar deal.

 

[Brent24]

By refusing to be traded in 2015 as a part of the Treloar deal.

Absolutely no reason for him to be criticized for wanting to stay at our club.
Purely the clubs fault for not getting full value for him.

 

[Apex36]

Absolutely no reason for him to be criticized for wanting to stay at our club.
Purely the clubs fault for not getting full value for him.

I can't fault him for fighting for his spot, but it certainly shits me that he walked out 12 months later for next to nothing. It's set us back a fair way. If he'd gone in 2015 we would have had pick 7 to use last year on a gun kid.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

By refusing to be traded in 2015 as a part of the Treloar deal.

Shame on him for letting Collingwood down by wanting to stay a Collingwiod player.

 

[Brent24]

I can't fault him for fighting for his spot, but it certainly shits me that he walked out 12 months later for next to nothing. It's set us back a fair way. If he'd gone in 2015 we would have had pick 7 to use last year on a gun kid.

No doubt it would have been handy. Was it ever confirmed GWS would have taken our 1st and Witts?

 

[Apex36]

Shame on him for letting Collingwood down by wanting to stay a Collingwiod player.

Already said I can't fault him for fighting for his spot.

Keep up.

No doubt it would have been handy. Was it ever confirmed GWS would have taken our 1st and Witts?

I don't think anything was confirmed regarding what else would have been required, but as far as I'm aware, the original deal was to be our first and Witts, then when he scuttled that it was going to be our first and second, which Gubby apparently agreed to but then Dave Matthews and Richmond cracked the shits and made all sorts of moves including official complaints to the AFL (who investigated us but found nothing) and ended up forcing us to give up two firsts with a second in return. We got shafted pretty hard all round on that deal. Should have been straight forward but all the drama created by others who shouldn't have been involved meant we didn't get it done until the final day.

 

[Brent24]

Already said I can't fault him for fighting for his spot.

Keep up.

I don't think anything was confirmed regarding what else would have been required, but as far as I'm aware, the original deal was to be our first and Witts, then when he scuttled that it was going to be our first and second, which Gubby apparently agreed to but then Dave Matthews and Richmond cracked the shits and made all sorts of moves including official complaints to the AFL (who investigated us but found nothing) and ended up forcing us to give up two firsts with a second in return. We got shafted pretty hard all round on that deal. Should have been straight forward but all the drama created by others who shouldn't have been involved meant we didn't get it done until the final day.

I love Treloar but it definitely seems we were made to overpay.
Then we basically give Witts away...really infuriating trading recently.

 

[ppoiter]

I can't fault him for fighting for his spot, but it certainly shits me that he walked out 12 months later for next to nothing. It's set us back a fair way. If he'd gone in 2015 we would have had pick 7 to use last year on a gun kid.

Pretty sure that pick was traded to Freo who used it on Griffin Logue

 

[legendstatus]

Who *en cares about * Witts?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Pretty sure that pick was traded to Freo who used it on Griffin Logue

Its not a given that trading Witts would have allowed us to keep pick 7 . Not sure how anybody can simply assume that to be fact. Besides, its irrelevant. You cant trade contracted players against their will.

As for last night, yes Witts had a slight edge on Grundy but we already knew he was the slightly better tap ruckman. Grundy however is the more complete footballer around the ground.

 

[Apex36]

Its not a given that trading Witts would have allowed us to keep pick 7 . Not sure how anybody can simply assume that to be fact. Besides, its irrelevant. You cant trade contracted players against their will.

As for last night, yes Witts had a slight edge on Grundy but we already knew he was the slightly better tap ruckman. Grundy however is the more complete footballer around the ground.

It's a pretty safe assumption that if Witts had been involved in the Treloar trade that a second first round pick wouldn't have been required from our end. We'd have still had our 2015 or 2016 first if he'd been involved, you can take that to the bank. You're correct with the rest though.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Pretty sure that pick was traded to Freo who used it on Griffin Logue

Was yes

 

[Rorzza]

To GWS and kept our second 1st round pick in the Treloar deal!

 

[Scodog10]

It's a pretty safe assumption that if Witts had been involved in the Treloar trade that a second first round pick wouldn't have been required from our end. We'd have still had our 2015 or 2016 first if he'd been involved, you can take that to the bank. You're correct with the rest though.

IMO, I would look at it that we saw how "highly rated" he was by Gubby last off-season. Given we got a half eaten Kit Kat and packet of Doritos for him I'm hard pressed believing that Gubby would have accepted him as a major piece in any deal for Treloar. In hindsight I'm sure we'd have got more for him the year before just not from GWS!

 

[Apex36]

IMO, I would look at it that we saw how "highly rated" he was by Gubby last off-season. Given we got a half eaten Kit Kat and packet of Doritos for him I'm hard pressed believing that Gubby would have accepted him as a major piece in any deal for Treloar. In hindsight I'm sure we'd have got more for him the year before just not from GWS!

I don't think I implied that he was highly rated by Gubby, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that we'd have had to give up a second 1st rounder if Witts had been a part of the trade either.

Given the original deal was originally meant to be a first and second before the Matthews/Richmond drama, and was then changed to two firsts with a second back our way, I'd wager a deal involving Witts may have been a first, Witts and third, then may have been upgraded to first Witts and second. Would still have been a huge amount to pay, more than Geelong paid for Dangerfield.

 

[Scodog10]

I don't think I implied that he was highly rated by Gubby, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that we'd have had to give up a second 1st rounder if Witts had been a part of the trade either.

Given the original deal was originally meant to be a first and second before the Matthews/Richmond drama, and was then changed to two firsts with a second back our way, I'd wager a deal involving Witts may have been a first, Witts and third, then may have been upgraded to first Witts and second. Would still have been a huge amount to pay, more than Geelong paid for Dangerfield.

You definitely didn't it was me that brought him into it because, IMO, it's an element that has been overlooked in the general discussion. It's largely just been a given that they'd have accepted 1st + Witts which I'm not as convinced by.

I'd agree that there's a chance that a second first round pick may not have been required, but not if it was Witts to GWS. My take is that in order to protect that 2016 1st round pick we would have needed to involve a 3rd club because Gubby had the same ill informed opinion of Witts as most GWS supporters on here. It's all speculation of course I think we're overlooking just how average Gubby's rating of our list is/ was.

 

[pablo disco bar]

So who won the ruck duel witts or grundy?

 

[Apex36]

So who won the ruck duel witts or grundy?

Witts by a hairs breadth.

 

[ZEV]

Witts by a hairs breadth.

In all fairness Grundy did almost get broken backwards in half early in the game which must have affected him some how

 

[Apex36]

In all fairness Grundy did almost get broken backwards in half early in the game which must have affected him some how

Ok? That doesn't really change the result, and honestly at that point Witts was giving Grundy a bath anyway. Things didn't really even up until the second half, so it's not really a legitimate excuse given Grundy's performance after that clash actually improved...

 

[ZEV]

Ok? That doesn't really change the result, and honestly at that point Witts was giving Grundy a bath anyway. Things didn't really even up until the second half, so it's not really a legitimate excuse given Grundy's performance after that clash actually improved...

I've never seen a Collingwood ruckman in my life that would have been able to play on after getting bent in half like this.

[/URL]

Grundy is a freak and a monster

 

[Apex36]

I've never seen a Collingwood ruckman in my life that would have been able to play on after getting bent in half like this.

[/URL]

Grundy is a freak and a monster

I'm not arguing with you there, and I'm not trying to pot Grundy.

The question was asked who won the battle. I answered Witts, by a hairs breadth. Regardless of what else happened during the game the result of that battle isn't going to change....