Opinion Beams Trade [Officially derailed: Now disussing the folly of gambling, net negative players and the merit of Sier]

[Thedivided]

People can complain about his form all they like but I'll make one guarantee at no stage this season barring injury will he be in the second so he must be doing something right.

 

[3rdMan]

We didn't overpay for a 28-29 year old.

My feeling is we paid the right price but bought the wrong product.

 

[partypie]

He's really battling, and its obvious.

Needs to find a gear, because at the moment he's not performing to the level anticipated.

Agreed - looks totally out of place at the stoppages unless someone feeds him the ball on the outside.

Defensive efforts are also poor a lot of the time but we largely knew what we were getting there.

Really does need to step his game up though as we can't be carrying underperforming stars at the pointy end of the season.

 

[Black_White]

At his best he is a superstar.
I worry though about his mental state. We know he has his demons.
He sometime seems disinterested on field.
I have genuine concerns for him in life after footy when he leaves the structure and reliability of daily club life.
Until then I’m sure his teammates and the club are getting around him and we will see a return to form that may push us past the post in September.

 

[jamieb1983]

Hell get going after the bye. From memory had a interupted pre season?

Hel be fine

 

[MarkT2]

And for the last time, he didn’t cost US two first round picks - the first pick would have been Quaynor anyway. More like one pick 15-18 + junk picks

The price was 2 first rounders. That's what we paid and that isn't debatable, it's fact. To think we wouldn't have used the first rounder last year and had another pick to use on Quanor is assuming our list managers are muppets.

I think he'll be a valuable player for us but 2 first rounders is expensive. Ask Adelaide about it right now.

 

[jmac70]

Agreed - looks totally out of place at the stoppages unless someone feeds him the ball on the outside.

Defensive efforts are also poor a lot of the time but we largely knew what we were getting there.

Really does need to step his game up though as we can't be carrying underperforming stars at the pointy end of the season.

He got 7 clearances last night

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The price was 2 first rounders. That's what we paid and that isn't debatable, it's fact. To think we wouldn't have used the first rounder last year and had another pick to use on Quanor is assuming our list managers are muppets.

I think he'll be a valuable player for us but 2 first rounders is expensive. Ask Adelaide about it right now.

I’m not sure that’s how it works.

My understanding is a club, to match a bid, must use its next available pick (and associated points thereof) to match said bid.

Let’s use Quaynor as the case study.

Assuming we wanted him as we had a “rights hold” and valued him as a first round selection.

Case 1 what actually happened:

By taking Beams (cost the R1 x 2 picks we gave) we applied our next pick (and points thereof and any shortfall you start digging into further selections) to snare Quaynor who a bid came for mid first round.
we could do this by cobbling our next pick and points.
All good.
Net result: Quaynor + Beams for two R1 picks (different years);

Case 2 we don’t entertain and pass on regaining Beams:

The bid comes for Quaynor mid first round as it did and prior to what would have been our live bid.
We match the bid and our first round pick goes and we get Quaynor.
Net result: We have Quaynor at cost of first round selection. We have NO Beams, we have next draft our first round pick (should again be very late first round).

My understanding is you can not cobble other late selections for matching points you must give the next live bid.

Or forfeit your hold on said player.

So in the Quaynor case, as the bid came we would have had to match using our first rounder.


Hence Beams de facto cost next season’s first round pick.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

He got 7 clearances last night

Was solid.

Got 20 odd possessions.
Some nice solid set ups.

Only one boo boo last night, the on the full. Happens.

Another solid game.

 

[3rdMan]

I agree that Beams cost us two first rounders, not one. Though we essentially had to trade the 2018 pick, to not do so would have been wasting the opportunity provided by the NGA/Academy system. If Beams had only cost our 2019 first we could have traded the 2018 for something else. We definitely weren't going to keep it.

The baseline for the Beams trade was always going to be the Gibbs to Adelaide deal. Crows gave up pick 10 and 16. We gave pick 18 and 2019 first (sticking to the main picks involved). The deals are comparable, with us giving up a bit less. With Beams possibly rated the better player at the time he was traded, it's a fair deal.

Both Gibbs and Beams were 28 when traded, so these deals are as comparable as you can get. The Lions would never have accepted less than two picks inside 20. Calling these picks first rounders makes the deal seem more impactful than it was. The 2018 pick ended up being 21 and next year's we hope will be similar. It wasn't a massive outlay (Aish cost us similar for example).

I'd prefer we went for a player other than Beams with two first rounders, a line-breaking half back or mid, but the deal was fair and the trade a sensible one given he wanted to return.

 

[Collingwoodity]

I'm fairly confident that by the time the season ends, many people will be eating their words.
I'm pretty sure he played better than Sidebottom last night.
The way some are talking about him you would think he has been spudding it up all year.
Yes, we know he is capable of better. It will come.

One game though.

Sidebottom has outperformed Beams this year by a decent margin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Collingwoodity]

SCG at night is a shithole for football.
Dewy and loose surface.

Yep. Difficult to criticise our players last night playing and that s**t ground against that s**t game style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkyprotector]

He's doing his job

Bit harder with 1 ball and
A team of high possession winners
Compare
Beams pendels Adams Mayne treleor Sidey Phillips
To
Beams zorko Robinson Christensen

Off course he's numbers are down

Looked to me the swans locked down on
Sidey
Mayne
Beams

They IMO Let Phillips and treleor
get loose and simply bottled it up again

When the heats on he will be fine

 

[4#Didak#4]

I don’t think we necessarily over paid, but I do think we got something that we didn’t overly need. He has lost a yard of pace but is still a great inside player. However when I look at who is our best 22 when available I lean to having a fit Sier instead of Beams. Sier just gives a different dynamic to that midfield in the age of monster mids. Not saying he is a better player than Beams but Sier makes us a better team.

 

[FuManchu]

He’s been flat all season, serviceable without being exceptional and so too has his good mate Sidebottom, except for that St Kilda game, where he showed a bit more.

Based on what we’ve seen so far, 2 second rounders would have been more appropriate.

 

[partypie]

He got 7 clearances last night

It sure didn't look like he did and irrespective of the game on the weekend I still stand by what I wrote above.

 

[Football God]

He’s doing his job by getting those quick centre clearances into our forward half.

 

[sirlothie]

I agree that Beams cost us two first rounders, not one. Though we essentially had to trade the 2018 pick, to not do so would have been wasting the opportunity provided by the NGA/Academy system. If Beams had only cost our 2019 first we could have traded the 2018 for something else. We definitely weren't going to keep it.

The baseline for the Beams trade was always going to be the Gibbs to Adelaide deal. Crows gave up pick 10 and 16. We gave pick 18 and 2019 first (sticking to the main picks involved). The deals are comparable, with us giving up a bit less. With Beams possibly rated the better player at the time he was traded, it's a fair deal.

Both Gibbs and Beams were 28 when traded, so these deals are as comparable as you can get. The Lions would never have accepted less than two picks inside 20. Calling these picks first rounders makes the deal seem more impactful than it was. The 2018 pick ended up being 21 and next year's we hope will be similar. It wasn't a massive outlay (Aish cost us similar for example).

I'd prefer we went for a player other than Beams with two first rounders, a line-breaking half back or mid, but the deal was fair and the trade a sensible one given he wanted to return.

If a gun picks you who will walk into your best 22 you take him no matter where he plays.

 

[Jabso]

Apparently he's taking on a more defensive role. Shadowing his opponent without it being a hard tag. Some footy show mentioned it and had the stats that he had kept his opponent pretty quiet.

 

[Scottabe_pendles]

Win this week and we've won our most consecutive games since last time Beams was here...... Can complain if we start losing (plus we still have Quaynor and Kelly)

We've had a crack to win one this year or next. That's all that matters right now (sucks if we lose anyone because of it - Grundy, JDG, Moore, Sier).

But again if we win one premiership then it's always worthwhile (which we haven't done yet so let's see!)

 

[loki04]

I’m not sure that’s how it works.

My understanding is a club, to match a bid, must use its next available pick (and associated points thereof) to match said bid.

Let’s use Quaynor as the case study.

Assuming we wanted him as we had a “rights hold” and valued him as a first round selection.

Case 1 what actually happened:

By taking Beams (cost the R1 x 2 picks we gave) we applied our next pick (and points thereof and any shortfall you start digging into further selections) to snare Quaynor who a bid came for mid first round.
we could do this by cobbling our next pick and points.
All good.
Net result: Quaynor + Beams for two R1 picks (different years);

Case 2 we don’t entertain and pass on regaining Beams:

The bid comes for Quaynor mid first round as it did and prior to what would have been our live bid.
We match the bid and our first round pick goes and we get Quaynor.
Net result: We have Quaynor at cost of first round selection. We have NO Beams, we have next draft our first round pick (should again be very late first round).

My understanding is you can not cobble other late selections for matching points you must give the next live bid.

Or forfeit your hold on said player.

So in the Quaynor case, as the bid came we would have had to match using our first rounder.


Hence Beams de facto cost next season’s first round pick.

You are assuming there is nothing else we could of done with that pick other then a trade for Beams or use on Quaynor.

Adelaide traded pick 19 and 2019 first rounder for Carltons pick in 2019 (looking a top 2 pick). We could of out bid them.

We could of made a play for the more explosive D.Shiel or other player.

So Beams still cost 2 first rounders that is what we paid no ifs, buts or corner shop spare change theory.


At the end of the day Beams has another 3 and a half years to make the deal worth it.

 

[loki04]

I agree that Beams cost us two first rounders, not one. Though we essentially had to trade the 2018 pick, to not do so would have been wasting the opportunity provided by the NGA/Academy system. If Beams had only cost our 2019 first we could have traded the 2018 for something else. We definitely weren't going to keep it.

The baseline for the Beams trade was always going to be the Gibbs to Adelaide deal. Crows gave up pick 10 and 16. We gave pick 18 and 2019 first (sticking to the main picks involved). The deals are comparable, with us giving up a bit less. With Beams possibly rated the better player at the time he was traded, it's a fair deal.

Both Gibbs and Beams were 28 when traded, so these deals are as comparable as you can get. The Lions would never have accepted less than two picks inside 20. Calling these picks first rounders makes the deal seem more impactful than it was. The 2018 pick ended up being 21 and next year's we hope will be similar. It wasn't a massive outlay (Aish cost us similar for example).

I'd prefer we went for a player other than Beams with two first rounders, a line-breaking half back or mid, but the deal was fair and the trade a sensible one given he wanted to return.

Just about everyone on here thought Adelaide over paid and Carlton walked away laughing at that deal.

 

[nahnah]

Beams is a way better player than Gibbs

 

[Kirby]

Apparently he's taking on a more defensive role. Shadowing his opponent without it being a hard tag. Some footy show mentioned it and had the stats that he had kept his opponent pretty quiet.

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that. So, he's essentially then performing the role that Pendles had for much of last year?

That may be why Pendles has been more free'd up this year?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

You are assuming there is nothing else we could of done with that pick other then a trade for Beams or use on Quaynor.

Adelaide traded pick 19 and 2019 first rounder for Carltons pick in 2019 (looking a top 2 pick). We could of out bid them.

We could of made a play for the more explosive D.Shiel or other player.

So Beams still cost 2 first rounders that is what we paid no ifs, buts or corner shop spare change theory.


At the end of the day Beams has another 3 and a half years to make the deal worth it.

Yes ofcourse there could be other uses of the picks, other permutations.

That said, it appears the club decided that for its pick it was taking Quaynor.
On that basis it used the benefits of that strategy to stretch the pick as part thereof for Beams.

So to use your style of wording, the club wanted and decided to get Quaynor and used that to assist in getting Beams no ifs or buts or spare change theory to be something else when that was all they wanted to do at the corner store.

Now whether that was the right strategy that’s a whole different discussion.