Traded #30: Patrick Ryder - Traded to Port for pick 17 and 37

Mercuri Rising

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Posts
5,202
Likes
5,874
Location
essendon media mcgrafia
AFL Club
Essendon
I maintain that we shouldn't agree to it unless we can just give them either Hardingham or pick 53. I understand there's the bullshit "trade for 17 has to be commercially viable" yet the whole point of them giving us 17 as well is because 21 isn't enough for Ryder.
17 for 53 absolutely will not happen, under any circumstances, ever. Hardy for 17 would be an enormous stretch and an obvious rort, but it wouldn't be the dodgiest thing the Comission has OK'd by a long shot.
I don't mean to sound like I'm having a ping at you MR, I'm not. I'm a bit annoyed with the perception of some that the offer of pick 21 and our exchange of a low end player somehow how evens the ledger. That's p***weak. The bottom line is that if we receive picks there are no guarantees that we'll be able to find AFL ready players who'll be best 22 while we lose a top 10 player. I hope Dodoro holds his ground.
No worries mate, understood. I think people are just inclined to be happy to see any improvement on 17 + fringe at this stage. I'd love for us to get a higher pick through a third party, but I don't like our chances of getting a better-than-decent player out of Port.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mercuri Rising

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Posts
5,202
Likes
5,874
Location
essendon media mcgrafia
AFL Club
Essendon
I thought the "trade" for pick 17 was just literally anything - so we could trade them pick 100 for pick 17 just to formalise it. The idea is that they get paddy for pick 17 and we get more than pick 17. If you told me we would get another pick in the top 25 a week ago I'd honestly have taken it.

It's like Luke Delaney being traded for an unused 5th round pick with St Kilda and North - worth a whole lot more and works out as a straight swap for Dal after it all washes up.
You can at least make an argument for a player being commensurate in worth to a pick, even if it's a stretch. No-one in their right mind would exchange one pick for another without it affecting another trade, and the AFL will definitely not sign off on it.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,362
Likes
9,427
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
Which is why it shouldn't be tried. The club could get halfway through by releasing Paddy, then get shafted at the point of trying to get pick 17. It stinks.
It's ok, Essendon can just verbally agree on the provisa that the Hardingham for #17 is completed first. Then we reneg on releasing Paddy. That would be fun. ;)
 

GUMBLETRON

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
12,402
Likes
12,534
Location
NASA
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Coburg
This is pointless - as I've said, even if Port wanted to do a fair trade, they can't. There's no way a quality player is agreeing to move from a top 4 club to a rabble who can't even tell you who the coach is going to be next week.
Sure they can, they just need to find another pick from a third party. Just like Hawthorn did when Burgoyne left Port.
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
I would absolutely be insisting that the 'paperwork' for the first trade goes through BEFORE we release Ryder.. and that we have a solid, in writing, promise from the AFL about the compensation we would receive.

I would be very interested to see what a court would make of a rival club essentially 'taking over' the management of a player to try and incite them to break a contract. Very messy stuff.

However this 'release to a FA and get a compo pick' is just another reason to get rid of FA compo.. I mean this is absolutely now going to turn into a free-for-all..

Frawley won't be the first play 'encouraged' out the door.. knowing you are going to get a top 5 pick for an average player will do that... even mid table clubs or top clubs.. offloard a 'mid range' player.. and get a top 2- pick.. sounds great..

I do not like the slippery slope we are on. And I'm not quite sure why the AFL (and thus the other 16 clubs) should be 'paying' for Port Adelaide to get Ryder's services.. either Port cough up a fair trade, or the contracted player stays.. just like it has ALWAYS been.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
We finished 7th position. Our first round pick is 13, which AFL have taken away. But our end of first round pick is still 14, as per Free agency purposes, which will be back to 13 r
P
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
Considering #20 is a compo pick.. I don't see why it would be 'after' that pick.

The rules state it is after our 'first round draft selection'.. which is technically Pick 13..

Either way.. it seems like the best deal we are going to get.. I just think it stinks though.. the concept of it.. the sliminess of it all.

And I am going to back in our recruiters to pick up 3 very handy players with 3 picks under 21.. Could form the backbone of our midfield in 3 years times..
 

yaco55

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
35,436
Likes
11,848
Location
hong kong
AFL Club
Essendon
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71

We dont need two ready to go rucks - And we have to upgrade Ambrose.
 

bomberz20_72

All Australian
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Posts
612
Likes
633
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Manchester United
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
In a perfect world that would happen....

Too bad we live in a imperfect world
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
We dont need two ready to go rucks - And we have to upgrade Ambrose.
I think we need at least 3 ruckmen on the list. But each to their own.

Giles won't cost more than a 4th rounder.. and Gorringe is worth a 2nd round pick. Both would be good additions for us.
 

Mercuri Rising

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Posts
5,202
Likes
5,874
Location
essendon media mcgrafia
AFL Club
Essendon
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
I think you can forget about #13. This deal will be enough of a PR nightmare without the AFL effectively lightening our penalties (unless it's been misread and we do have #13 - even then, not going to be a good look for them). There are limits to what they'll do to lessen the risk of clause shenanigans.

I think #71 for Giles is hopelessly optimistic too, for what it's worth. Someone will offer more - maybe even Port themselves. Wouldn't mind the Kav + #53 part, if we go down that route. Not sure that Port would go for it, though, given they probably have very little interest in Kav or a late pick. They refused to part with #18 + #37 before, didn't they?
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
I think you can forget about #13. This deal will be enough of a PR nightmare without the AFL effectively lightening our penalties (unless it's been misread and we do have #13 - even then, not going to be a good look for them). There are limits to what they'll do to lessen the risk of clause shenanigans.

I think #71 for Giles is hopelessly optimistic too, for what it's worth. Someone will offer more - maybe even Port themselves. Wouldn't mind the Kav + #53 part, if we go down that route. Not sure that Port would go for it, though, given they probably have very little interest in Kav or a late pick. They refused to part with #18 + #37 before, didn't they?
Yeah.. I know.. but AFL might get involved and tell port to get it done.

Has become very clear the AFL don't want any players going down this 'clause' route.. could bring down the entire system (considering that the AFL is run under a 'qausi' legal system that could be unenforceable if challanged)
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Posts
202
Likes
63
AFL Club
Essendon
Essendon didn't come up with this. They aren't even keen on it. Yet your first reaction is oh we're cheating, we haven't learned our lesson.

Now you're making up reasons to berate the club.
Are you sure they didn't? http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2014-10-08/patrick-ryder-trade-update

"On Monday after Trade discussions it was apparent that Port Adelaide were not prepared to offer a deal that would satisfy Essendon from a trade perspective. In discussions with another club the issue of compensation picks were raised which later led us to contemplate whether a contract that was in place could be annulled, along the lines of Nick Dal Santo last year, to generate a free agency compensation pick."
Essendon approached the AFL on Monday to get an understanding of whether that was possible.
If the club has indeed come up with this because they believe they'll get pick 13 out of this, then I'm actually thinking this is a genius move now. But it's still going to result in more hate coming towards the club.

EFC get picks 13 and 18, in the process trimming a possibly non-essential player. And Port get Ryder + potentially a depth or development player for just pick 17 (only becomes 18 if FA comes into it). So many clubs and so many supporters will be so mad; because that's a win for both clubs IMO.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom