Recommitted Andrew Gaff [re-signed]

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm of the opinion that players that can get their own footy are definitely worth more than outside mids, especially ones that have a poor defensive game.

Such sweeping statements are so easily debunked.

Patrick McGinnity can get his own footy. Is he automatically worth more than an elite outside midfielder?

Why make blanket statements?

And, as you said, Gaff isn't contracted. The Pies had all the cards and in the end I think Brisbane paid a high price for him.

The price was reasonable at the time, given Beams was contracted. It looks higher in hindsight because Crisp has been very good. But at the time, he was steak knives and was of negligible value.

It remains a reasonable template for a deal for Gaff, admittedly with some rounding down to reflect the different contractual situations and the fact Beams was a more complete player.

How is this less reasonable than your suggestion that pick 8-10 on its own would suffice?

Also, I said I wouldn't want to pay much more than a first rounder, didn't say only a first rounder. I think this years first and next years third would be close.

Pick 40-something? That doesn't move the needle at all.

 

[bird_man]

Such sweeping statements are so easily debunked.

Patrick McGinnity can get his own footy. Is he automatically worth more than an elite outside midfielder?

Why make blanket statements?

The price was reasonable at the time, given Beams was contracted. It looks higher in hindsight because Crisp has been very good. But at the time, he was steak knives and was of negligible value.

It remains a reasonable template for a deal for Gaff, admittedly with some rounding down to reflect the different contractual situations and the fact Beams was a more complete player.

How is this less reasonable than your suggestion that pick 8-10 on its own would suffice?

Pick 40-something? That doesn't move the needle at all.

So what would you be willing to accept if you were at WC? Because you've already stated that using the Beams template that the price would change due to the fact he isn't contracted and that Beams is "more of a complete player"? They are two fairly big factors in the deal. Surely I can't be far off.

 

[Glen Buterol]

Brisbane got reamed in the Beames deal. It was obvious at the time & it still is. Using that transaction as a guide is incorrect.

The fact Beames was contracted & Brisbane needed a quality player traded in due to the many that had left meant the trade was heavily in the Pies favour.

 

[Great8]

So what would you be willing to accept if you were at WC? Because you've already stated that using the Beams template that the price would change due to the fact he isn't contracted and that Beams is "more of a complete player"? They are two fairly big factors in the deal. Surely I can't be far off.

This years first plus a second rounder or half decent player would be a starting point I think.

 

[Youdy]

I'm of the opinion that players that can get their own footy are definitely worth more than outside mids, especially ones that have a poor defensive game.

And, as you said, Gaff isn't contracted. The Pies had all the cards and in the end I think Brisbane paid a high price for him.

Also, I said I wouldn't want to pay much more than a first rounder, didn't say only a first rounder. I think this years first and next years third would be close.

Had a down patch this year preceding his severe concussion

What would you have wanted for a Montagna or NDS entering into their prime?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So what would you be willing to accept if you were at WC? Because you've already stated that using the Beams template that the price would change due to the fact he isn't contracted and that Beams is "more of a complete player"?

I think I've answered that question.

They are two fairly big factors in the deal. Surely I can't be far off.

And I think I've addressed this too.

A first-rounder on its own is patently unders. And throwing pick 40-something into the mix makes no difference.

You should understand that this is not a realistic approach.

Brisbane got reamed in the Beames deal. It was obvious at the time & it still is. Using that transaction as a guide is incorrect.

It's incorrect? Like it's a matter of fact?

I don't think Brisbane got reamed at all. That's the price you pay for a readymade midfielder who walks in and is immediately one of your top few players. A fit Beams is Brisbane's best player, no?

 

[bird_man]

I think I've answered that question.

No, you haven't. You said you would use the Beams deal as a template, but then went on to say that you'd have to adjust it due to the fact that Gaff isn't contracted and that Beams was a more complete player than Gaff...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, you haven't. You said you would use the Beams deal as a template, but then went on to say that you'd have to adjust it due to the fact that Gaff isn't contracted and that Beams was a more complete player than Gaff...

Yeah, so what is your question?

 

[bird_man]

Yeah, so what is your question?

Well, due to the fact that you've admitted that after using your template you would have to adjust because he's less of a complete player and that he isn't contracted, what would you be willing to accept... It's not that hard.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well, due to the fact that you've admitted that after using your template you would have to adjust because he's less of a complete player and that he isn't contracted, what would you be willing to accept... It's not that hard.

A first-rounder + second-rounder + player (assuming no Acres).

I've said that already. You're right - it's not that hard.

Alternatively, WC could try to work Lamb into the bargain.

 

[Choomah]

A first-rounder + second-rounder + player (assuming no Acres).

I've said that already. You're right - it's not that hard.

Alternatively, WC could try to work Lamb into the bargain.

you can have tom lee

 

[Sweet Jesus]

you can have tom lee

You can have Brant Colledge but we keep his filthy disco sex pest mo.

 

[bird_man]

A first-rounder + second-rounder + player (assuming no Acres).

I've said that already. You're right - it's not that hard.

Alternatively, WC could try to work Lamb into the bargain.

So even though he isn't contracted and he's less of a complete player, he's worth the same as Beams. That also makes his value similar to Treloar. I know he's an AA, but I'll have to agree to disagree with here, I think that's too much and I'd be disappointed if the club gave up that much for him.

Let's move on shall we.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So even though he isn't contracted and he's less of a complete player, he's worth the same as Beams.

If you think all first-rounders and all second-rounders are of equal value.

Most people would accept that pick 5 is worth more than pick 8-10. And that pick 25 is worth more than pick 28-30. And that's before we even discuss the possible players.

That also makes his value similar to Treloar.

Collingwood will end up parting with two top 10 picks for Treloar, admittedly with pick 28 coming back the other way.

That's more than I've suggested WC could demand for Gaff - and frankly more than Collingwood thought they'd be paying, especially when you consider the reduced flexibility they now have when trading. Did I say Gaff + WC's 2016 second-rounder for St Kilda's 2016 first-rounder + 2017 first-rounder? Because that would be a rough 'Treloar equivalent', assuming St Kilda miss finals again in 2017.

There's a bit of a pattern here with your statements not bearing scrutiny.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I wouldn't pay anywhere near as much for someone like Gaff as I would have for someone like Beams at the time he was traded, because not only was Beams MUCH more "complete" (much more tackling, much more contested ball, double the clearances), but he also hit the scoreboard so much more, which makes him so much more damaging and valuable. There's no comparing the two, especially when Beams was contracted, while Gaff isn't.

Lets compare their breakout seasons, Beams in 2012 when he was just 22yo and Gaff's 2015, when he was 23yo:

Beams...Gaff​

Disposals: .......31 .....29.5
Goals: ............1.2 .....0.4 (Beams 3 times more)
Contested poss: 12 ......8
Disp efficiency: 73% ..71% (Beams higher, despite Gaff playing outside!)
Clearances: ......5.8 ....2.8
Tackles: ..........4.2 .....2.5
Supercoach: ....122 .....101

So Beams got more of the ball, used it better, won 50% more of his own ball, won double the clearances, had a stack more tackles, and kicked about 3 times more goals per game.

You'd pay so much more for a Beams it wouldn't be funny and that's before you bring in the fact that Beams was contracted while Gaff won't be if he seeks a trade.

Gaff's absurdly low tackle numbers (just 16 from 15 games, WTF?) and worse kicking this year would also not be doing his trade value any favours, I wouldn't have thought.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I wouldn't pay anywhere near as much for someone like Gaff as I would have for someone like Beams at the time he was traded, because not only was Beams MUCH more "complete" (much more tackling, much more contested ball, double the clearances), but he also hit the scoreboard so much more, which makes him so much more damaging and valuable. There's no comparing the two, especially when Beams was contracted, while Gaff isn't.

Lets compare their breakout seasons

So clearly there is a comparison to be made, even if yours is superficial.

So Beams got more of the ball, used it better, won 50% more of his own ball, won double the clearances, had a stack more tackles, and kicked about 3 times more goals per game.

You'd pay so much more for a Beams it wouldn't be funny and that's before you bring in the fact that Beams was contracted while Gaff won't be if he seeks a trade.

Beams being a more complete player and the different contractual situations have both already been acknowledged.

But you don't actually indicate what you think would be a reasonable deal for Gaff so it's not clear where all this ends up.

Did you just swing by to agree with statements that have already been made?

 

[aussierulesrules]

So clearly there is a comparison to be made, even if yours is superficial.

You can call it superficial if you like and I'll just go and call them facts. Facts that paint a pretty clear picture.

Beams being a more complete player and the different contractual situations have both already been acknowledged.

What about how much more damaging Beams was by how much more he hit the scoreboard? I didn't think that had been emphasised enough and it's very important, as those who kick as many midfield goals as Beams was are like gold. Gaff, on the other hand, doesn't hit the scoreboard and also doesn't tackle.

But you don't actually indicate what you think would be a reasonable deal for Gaff so it's not clear where all this ends up.

Maybe you should do your research before saying things like that. It may leave you less time for the smartass comments, but it might not be the worst thing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You can call it superficial if you like and I'll just go and call them facts. Facts that paint a pretty clear picture.

They can be facts and superficial at the same time. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Besides, I thought you said there was "no comparison". Immediately before offering a comparison.

What about how much more damaging Beams was by how much more he hit the scoreboard?

File that under Beams being a more complete player. Again, already acknowledged.

Maybe you should do your research before saying things like that.

In that post, you don't indicate what you think would be a reasonable deal for Gaff. I don't need to do any "research" to observe that.

It may leave you less time for the smartass comments

I don't think that will be a problem.

 

[Swarhily]

WC would/should immediately inquire about Acres. Not unreasonably.

Let's assume St Kilda have pick 8-10. That on its own would constitute a s**t sandwich.

Acres doesn't want to come back home, loves Melbourne.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Acres doesn't want to come back home, loves Melbourne.

Case closed then.

 

[eth-dog]

Still think he's worth a pick between 5 and 10. St. Kilda's first straight up should get it done IMO

 

[aussierulesrules]

Sweet Jesus I stated earlier in the thread what I believe he is worth and I felt no great need to repeat myself.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Still think he's worth a pick between 5 and 10. St. Kilda's first straight up should get it done IMO

Clear unders.

Sweet Jesus I stated earlier in the thread what I believe he is worth and I felt no great need to repeat myself.

And you expect people to "research" your every utterance or to just know them by heart already?

If you've taken it upon yourself to offer a specific rebuttal to another person's post about what the player could reasonably command in a deal, then "repeating yourself" is hardly unreasonable. Is that really so onerous? Surely it goes hand-in-hand with making a coherent argument.

That said, if I had to guess, I'd gamble on your suggestion being predictably self-serving unders.

 

[aussierulesrules]

And you expect people to "research" your every utterance or to just know them by heart already?

A quick search of my previous posts in this thread by using the search function in the top right corner would have given you the answer in possibly less time that it would have taken me to write it again. You could have brought it up in less than 30 seconds.

Anyway, you said and I quote "But you don't actually indicate what you think would be a reasonable deal for Gaff" which is simply incorrect, as I stated very clearly earlier in the thread what it is. If you don't want to take the 30 seconds it would have taken to find it that's fine, but it would probably be best then to not say I haven't indicated what I think a reasonable deal for Gaff is when I have.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A quick search of my previous posts in this thread by using the search function in the top right corner would have given you the answer in possibly less time that it would have taken me to write it again. You could have brought it up in less than 30 seconds.

If you have a case to make, you can make it fully yourself. I'm not going to fill in the gaps for you.

Anyway, you said and I quote "But you don't actually indicate what you think would be a reasonable deal for Gaff" which is simply incorrect, as I stated very clearly earlier in the thread what it is.

That referred to the post in question, clearly, not everything you've ever written.

If you don't want to take the 30 seconds it would have taken to find it that's fine, but it would probably be best then to not say I haven't indicated what I think a reasonable deal for Gaff is when I have.

See above.

You're the one left with an incomplete argument. No skin off my nose.