- Aug 5, 2013
- 2,236
- 1,953
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I don't recommend it. But I also think its mostly irrelevant.
It's also not the only "Actually Adelaide totally had a good deal sorted but the dog ate it" theory perpetuated here.
Last edited:
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
News Brad Crouch decision (ADL chickenshit, decline to match, receive 23)
- Thread starter Deaneus!
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's also not the only "Actually Adelaide totally had a good deal sorted but the dog ate it" theory perpetuated here.
I have had some time now to think about this one, take the emotion out of it, listened to the club, the various commentators that have said we did the right thing and the possibilities at pick 23, and you know what....
... I still think we ****ed this one right up
... I still think we ****ed this one right up
I’m staggered the booga sugar is so common in society as well, sorry just don’t get it
Didn't St Kilda say they are not interesting in trading out their first round pick this year? And now they've just done it. This B Crouch trade/compensation/theft is a gift that keeps giving.
Last edited:
******* LOL
St Kilda move down a few spots in the first round as well as bring in Crouch and Higgins.
Can see why they would not trade that pick for Crouch. Needed it to stay in the first round and get Higgins.
They were never gonna use pick 17 on Crouch.
Had they done that, no Higgins and their first pick is 58. Or whatever that gets pushed out to.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Can see why they would not trade that pick for Crouch. Needed it to stay in the first round and get Higgins.
They were never gonna use pick 17 on Crouch.
Had they done that, no Higgins and their first pick is 58. Or whatever that gets pushed out to.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
Nah, they don't need to use their first to get Higgins. Richmond are probably ok with a future 2nd for Higgins on its own (I assume they saw a chance to upgrade slightly and went for it).
The risk I see is we get skewered in a trade of 17 for Crouch + 22 (or 32). Especially if we lacked any interest in keeping Brad, or if Brad refused to stay.
But why would St Kilda take themselves out of the first round for a guy they can get in the PSD?
Use that pick to sweeten the Higgins deal and stay in the first round.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
Brad is a better player than Higgins, that said, even 17 for Brad + our pick in the 30s is still ridiculously bad.
WeedsMullet84
Cancelled
- Oct 31, 2018
- 2,982
- 4,825
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Celtic, Glenelg
Lethlean basically confirming on Trade Radio that they would have walked away if the Crows had matched.
Of course he is.
But St Kilda could get Crouch without a trade.
I am not saying he is not worth a first rounder. Just that the way FA works that was how the Saints had planned to get him, or PSD.
They would not trade pick 17 to us, but would trade it for another player.
They get two players who will be best 22 for them and stay in the first round.
The alternative is that get Brad Crouch and their first pick is 58.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
- Mar 21, 2014
- 13,679
- 10,332
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Canadiens, Maroons.
- Banned
- #1,688
Premature ejeclebration.
So salary dumps are happening left, right and center.
Really need some clarity from the AFC as to whether this was actually a factor in the Crouch situation, otherwise, nothing to suggest it's factual.
Really need some clarity from the AFC as to whether this was actually a factor in the Crouch situation, otherwise, nothing to suggest it's factual.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,300
- 151,806
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #1,690
Wasn't ours specifically so that the Saints could artificially boost Crouch's contract and net us Band 1?
Different to a club trying to create cap relief for themselves.
Is it any different to clubs paying players wages at other clubs to increase the pick they get for them?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,300
- 151,806
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #1,692
Still a transaction between two clubs that they both think is fair and both are happy to do
This was to finagle something extra out of a 3rd party (the AFL compensation pick in this case)
If there was no compensation pick involved and it was just us and the Saints dealing players, picks, cap space it would have been fine
Didn’t it happen with the hawks and Melbourne (ie Melbourne traded picks cheap after the frawley deal)?
- Oct 28, 2014
- 9,807
- 23,772
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Agree, once it was reported like that you knew there was no way it’d get up.
It was something the club really needed to negotiate with the saints from the get go.
If it had actually happened, the club should have clarified that was an avenue they tried. For all of the BS they've fed us about this situation to date, that hasn't been amongst it. I think Caro is simply repeating what she's read here and on Twitter without any validation.
Of course it's not. Nor is the AFL refusing an agreed trade to Suns last year for 11.
I thought he'd be 1. Much earlier than expected, I'll have to have a look. Worth noting our Tom Lynch snuck in as well. We'll see a few our boys in that list.
Tex, Stengle and Sloane for sure. He'll pot us when doing JJ and Betts as well given we're paying their salary.
