List Mgmt. Weak Flog Jake Lever Requests Trade to Melbourne, Causes Player Revolt

[Golumless]

The club need to be called out on this trade, they got off the Danger trade lightly which a lot had to do wiith the fact he was a RFA and peopel actually felt sorry fopr Danger amd his life, not sure Lever will be shown the same courtesy

Also there wasn't much, if any room for Adelaide to do better which also saved Adelaide some backlash outside of a few nuffies.

Lever is a different thing all together because there is room to do more with Collingwood/Melbourne/St.Kilda.

 

[mistylake]

The club need to be called out on this trade, they got off the Danger trade lightly which a lot had to do wiith the fact he was a RFA and peopel actually felt sorry fopr Danger amd his life, not sure Lever will be shown the same courtesy

It's basically a campaignerston situation except we started playing Lever from the start because I guess he was showing better signs. Definitely need to dig our heels in hear and win the trade from day one. No more of this Dean Gore shit. Sorry Dean no hard feelings.
If you open your mouth, swear allegiance then **** us over for cash. Then we allow the other club to win we are just asking to be perpetually ****ed over from here on in.

 

[marty36]

Also there wasn't much, if any room for Adelaide to do better which also saved Adelaide some backlash outside of a few nuffies.

Lever is a different thing all together because there is room to do more with Collingwood/Melbourne/St.Kilda.

Danger could have been forced into the draft, Lever can also , Gibbs was forced to stay at Carlton, CC should be forced to stay if we dont get fair return if he wants to leave

Time to get tough , but the media seem a little more behind this one, so we need to ensure that the club is aware of the supporter backlash if they act like soft C's

 

[Golumless]

Danger could have been forced into the draft, Lever can also , Gibbs was forced to stay at Carlton, CC should be forced to stay if we dont get fair return if he wants to leave

Time to get tough , but the media seem a little more behind this one, so we need to ensure that the club is aware of the supporter backlash if they act like soft C's

Forcing someone into the draft is just stupid; why? Because 99% of the time a draft pick is better for a player is a much better situation then one that double downs on the self harm. Sending a player to the draft does not give any benefits to the club dumb enough to do that.

Gibbs is contracted, which meant Carlton had the power in that deal. Different situation entirely. Even CC is a different situation to that seeing I'd almost take unders for him to purely open up that spot for Gooch, but that's just because I rate that kid very highly.

The difference between this deal and Dangers is with this deal there isn't any existing circumstances that'll hamstring us. Unlike Geelong, none of those three clubs will need an exemption to AFL rules for them to complete the trades; one they most certainly wouldn't have got had we not accepted a deal for Dangerfield early. Unfortunately our lack of basket case means the AFL won't protect us.

Lever is one if we get unders the club deserves to be smashed because there is no circumstance which stops us getting value.

 

[Bay62]

Collingwood. Pick 6 and Maynard for Lever and 2nd rounder.

Lever getting added to the AA squad was a nice little bonus for us.

Maynard yes please

Come on home Maxie Jr

 

[Pugsley]

Maynard yes please

Come on home Maxie Jr

He knows he wants to.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

The club need to be called out on this trade, they got off the Danger trade lightly which a lot had to do wiith the fact he was a RFA and peopel actually felt sorry fopr Danger amd his life, not sure Lever will be shown the same courtesy

I don't know how much room we really had with Danger. If we let him go RFA we would of got a pick after our first round pick. If we matched and he didn't re-sign then he goes to the PSD and we lose him for nothing. Pick 8 was good. I dont think Milera is a bust yet. Dean Gore was silly, we should of gone harder at GHS or something (not that he has set the world on fire.)

 

[marty36]

I don't know how much room we really had with Danger. If we let him go RFA we would of got a pick after our first round pick. If we matched and he didn't re-sign then he goes to the PSD and we lose him for nothing. Pick 8 was good. I dont think Milera is a bust yet. Dean Gore was silly, we should of gone harder at GHS or something (not that he has set the world on fire.)

It wasnt a fair value, when a player is leaving, hands can be forced and we could have lost him for zero, which is fine but Danger wouldnt be at Moggs Creek either

Port did it and copped some hurt with Nick Stevens and got absolutely nothing, but the short term pain was well worth the long term gain

 

[GrommoT]

Also there wasn't much, if any room for Adelaide to do better which also saved Adelaide some backlash outside of a few nuffies.

Lever is a different thing all together because there is room to do more with Collingwood/Melbourne/St.Kilda.

​

 

[marty36]

Forcing someone into the draft is just stupid; why? Because 99% of the time a draft pick is better for a player is a much better situation then one that double downs on the self harm. Sending a player to the draft does not give any benefits to the club dumb enough to do that.

Gibbs is contracted, which meant Carlton had the power in that deal. Different situation entirely. Even CC is a different situation to that seeing I'd almost take unders for him to purely open up that spot for Gooch, but that's just because I rate that kid very highly.

The difference between this deal and Dangers is with this deal there isn't any existing circumstances that'll hamstring us. Unlike Geelong, none of those three clubs will need an exemption to AFL rules for them to complete the trades; one they most certainly wouldn't have got had we not accepted a deal for Dangerfield early. Unfortunately our lack of basket case means the AFL won't protect us.

Lever is one if we get unders the club deserves to be smashed because there is no circumstance which stops us getting value.

If you take that attitude we will lose out, the club need to be prepared to take a hit, as will Lever,Brisbane and GC have first picks and they will snaffle him and trade him next year if he wants to go, Lever wont want that and if he commits to another club, he needs to be damn certain how they will trade fo him, ATM he feels AFC are a soft hit, it makes it much much harder to leave if the player thinks the club will tak such action. It has worked for Port where players may not get to their prefered destination

 

[Pugsley]

 

[pirate bob]

It wasnt a fair value, when a player is leaving, hands can be forced and we could have lost him for zero, which is fine but Danger wouldnt be at Moggs Creek either

Port did it and copped some hurt with Nick Stevens and got absolutely nothing, but the short term pain was well worth the long term gain

Kind of feel like this is a conversation on a constant loop. Have you got a spoon in the pot Marty?

 

[Geoffa32]

It wasnt a fair value, when a player is leaving, hands can be forced and we could have lost him for zero, which is fine but Danger wouldnt be at Moggs Creek either

Port did it and copped some hurt with Nick Stevens and got absolutely nothing, but the short term pain was well worth the long term gain

What was the long term gain?

The only gain I can see out of the Nick Stevens scenario is the Players Union have negotiated to take all power from the clubs when it come to player movement.

Players now nominate a club and always get there. Since Stevens there has not been a player get to their club of choice.

Even Tippet and Luke Ball got to their club of choice via the Draft.

The empty threat of "throwing a player to the draft and end up wherever" is a fantasy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[marty36]

What was the long term gain?

The only gain I can see out of the Nick Stevens scenario is the Players Union have negotiated to take all power from the clubs when it come to player movement.

Players now nominate a club and always get there. Since Stevens there has not been a player get to their club of choice.

Even Tippet and Luke Ball got to their club of voice via the Pre Season Draft.

The empty threat of "throwing a player to the draft and end up wherever" is a fantasy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Its not an empty threat if you are prepared to carry through with it

Or is the best way to handle it to bang your fist on the desk and when they say no accept what evers going so not to force them into the draft?

 

[marty36]

Kind of feel like this is a conversation on a constant loop. Have you got a spoon in the pot Marty?

Against a loop of will he stay or will he go which is a 166 pages long

We may aswell start talking about what we would want for him and how the F we are going to get it

You can want what you like but you may need to call someones bluff also, so the ultimate trump card is to place him in the draft or accept a packet of chips if everyone doesnt play fair

 

[pirate bob]

Against a loop of will he stay or will he go which is a 166 pages long

We may aswell start talking about what we would want for him and how the F we are going to get it

You can want what you like but you may need to call someones bluff also, so the ultimate trump card is to place him in the draft or accept a packet of chips if everyone doesnt play fair

No problem.

The Dangerfield trade is different and was a separate set of circumstances though. I don't think that trade is very good to use as a comparison.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Forcing someone into the draft is just stupid; why? Because 99% of the time a draft pick is better for a player is a much better situation then one that double downs on the self harm. Sending a player to the draft does not give any benefits to the club dumb enough to do that.

Gibbs is contracted, which meant Carlton had the power in that deal. Different situation entirely. Even CC is a different situation to that seeing I'd almost take unders for him to purely open up that spot for Gooch, but that's just because I rate that kid very highly.

The difference between this deal and Dangers is with this deal there isn't any existing circumstances that'll hamstring us. Unlike Geelong, none of those three clubs will need an exemption to AFL rules for them to complete the trades; one they most certainly wouldn't have got had we not accepted a deal for Dangerfield early. Unfortunately our lack of basket case means the AFL won't protect us.

Lever is one if we get unders the club deserves to be smashed because there is no circumstance which stops us getting value.

I doubt very much that the club would send Lever to the PSD but to me that decision revolves around what we are offered and not what we would like to get. These are two different things. If Melb's offer adds nothing to our list then the club would have nothing to lose by sending Lever to the PSD. If Melb's offer is reasonable (defining reasonable is the big question) then yes we would be stupid to send him to the PSD. So Melb would understand that if they offer crap there might be a chance they wont get him because we send him to the PSD.

Privately I would like to see Melb offer us a shit trade and then see the club say no your off to the draft. This not only sends a message to the players but also to the other clubs.

 

[marty36]

No problem.

The Dangerfield trade is different and was a separate set of circumstances though. I don't think that trade is very good to use as a comparison.

I agree on the danger situation as more so morally we did the right thing.

In terms of by the book, it was no difference to Levers situation he could have been forced into the PSD, the trade wasnt totally terrible and better than a Compo pick, a lot of punts that havent paid off like Menzel and Gore but if they had come and tore it up, we would be grinning right now. That was a punt that didnt work so although im not happy with that trade hindsight is taking place here .

Should we go conservative with lever, be aggresive or be in the middle and expect something decent along with a punt, the third option is the one that sees everyone with the prospect of win win

 

[Donkey Magoo]

It wasnt a fair value, when a player is leaving, hands can be forced and we could have lost him for zero, which is fine but Danger wouldnt be at Moggs Creek either

Port did it and copped some hurt with Nick Stevens and got absolutely nothing, but the short term pain was well worth the long term gain

Sure, Id be happier pulling that trigger with a Lever or Gunston in years gone past but a top 10 pick was still there.

If we don't get what we deserve with Lever, we should definitely do it.

 

[pirate bob]

I agree on the danger situation as more so morally we did the right thing.

In terms of by the book, it was no difference to Levers situation he could have been forced into the PSD, the trade wasnt totally terrible and better than a Compo pick, a lot of punts that havent paid off like Menzel and Gore but if they had come and tore it up, we would be grinning right now. That was a punt that didnt work so although im not happy with that trade hindsight is taking place here .

Should we go conservative with lever, be aggresive or be in the middle and expect something decent along with a punt, the third option is the one that sees everyone with the prospect of win win

If he chooses to go home and chooses a club all I hope for is the best trade possible. Would love him to stay, however it may also provide the club a great opportunity. At some level we'll be restricted by what the other club has to offer in regard to players willing to come to Adelaide and draft picks available.

Ultimately the club has to act in the clubs and the teams best interest. I don't think now that either on a short or long term basis that sending a player to the PSD is in our best interest.

 

[marty36]

If he chooses to go home and chooses a club all I hope for is the best trade possible. Would love him to stay, however it may also provide the club a great opportunity. At some level we'll be restricted by what the other club has to offer in regard to players willing to come to Adelaide and draft picks available.

Ultimately the club has to act in the clubs and the teams best interest. I don't think now that either on a short or long term basis that sending a player to the PSD is in our best interest.

If he nominates Hawthorn and they say a 2nd round is all we have and we arent prepared to hand over any players I definetlky think he can go to the PSD, dont you?

Why shoudl we take unders, send a message so when or if players do go searching they better do their homework on if the move could be blocked due to the AFC getting bent over

The club he is going to has nothing to lose, but lever himself does if he ends up in Bris Vegas

 

[Donkey Magoo]

If he chooses to go home and chooses a club all I hope for is the best trade possible. Would love him to stay, however it may also provide the club a great opportunity. At some level we'll be restricted by what the other club has to offer in regard to players willing to come to Adelaide and draft picks available.

Ultimately the club has to act in the clubs and the teams best interest. I don't think now that either on a short or long term basis that sending a player to the PSD is in our best interest.

Long term it could be, if clubs and individuals know that the PSD threat is real, negotiations start from a different point.
Take Kurt for example, Sydney knew that we were in a weakened bargaining position and used it to their advantage from the outset.

 

[pirate bob]

If he nominates Hawthorn and they say a 2nd round is all we have and we arent prepared to hand over any players I definetlky think he can go to the PSD, dont you?

Why shoudl we take unders, send a message so when or if players do go searching they better do their homework on if the move could be blocked due to the AFC getting bent over

The club he is going to has nothing to lose, but lever himself does if he ends up in Bris Vegas

Long term it could be, if clubs and individuals know that the PSD threat is real, negotiations start from a different point.
Take Kurt for example, Sydney knew that we were in a weakened bargaining position and used it to their advantage from the outset.

I think if it has reached the point where you are threatening a player with the PSD the negotiations have gone hostile. Thats a hard position to come back from.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

I think if it has reached the point where you are threatening a player with the PSD the negotiations have gone hostile. Thats a hard position to come back from.

"You get more with kind word and a gun than you do with just kind words"
Al Capone
If they don't offer fair exchange value then they have made it hostile, they are playing off of the fact that we won't do it. They have nothing to lose if we make the deal regardless. If he gives us trading options then at least we can take the best bid.

 

[ad victoriam]

Don't know what all the huppla about, If Lever goes we are going to get min 1x1st round. Then they negotiate on steak knives whether that is Picks or a Player.
Now what would be good value, My absolute twisted arm min is 2017 1st (top 10) and a 2018 2nd, Mainly due to 2018 draft batting deeper,
My Preference and the one I believe we should push a 100% for is 2017 1st and 2018 1st. We don't need a Player swap we need low 1st round Picks and have an opportunity as the Clubs that are interested in him have low picks, lets not stuff that opportunity up by going for a Player. Unless that player is an absolute match winning Gun.