Brad Smith rumour!

[ImperialPurple]

Quit fooling yourselves Shockers.

Smith was a very handy pick up that will fill a void in the team while a couple of the younger guys develop.

get a grip E4E... thread started by a non-freo person, about a rumour, which if it were true (and I am sure it is not), would paint your club in a very dim light. "WCE pick Smith so Freo can't".

He would have been handy for us, yes; you picked him with a late pick because he is old, and you would be best served picking up the younger guys you had your eyes on, possible 10-15 year servants of the club, before a 25 year old. Which is exactly what your club did.

Am I disappointed we didn't get him? No. The future starts now for us, we have no more time to trial a 25 year old who will likely be very good at AFL level, but like all draftees, also may not. If Polly, Pav and young Murph don't start doing the forward line thing in 2005 and start getting it right pretty quickly, then it will be another wasted year as was the attempts last year at turning Simmonds into a FF. That's just my opinion - from someone who sits in the stands each fortnight, and spends way too much time on an internerd (quote MM) footy forum.

rickjames comment was an aside response to frank's jibe - that in essence the only real difference between the Carr and Stenglein trades was pick 43.

 

[theorangeapple]

Bit of a laugh that giving picks 11,27 n a throw in 43 for Carr is too much...but West Coast in essence gave 12 n 28 for Stenglein... i never thought pick 43 would have so much weighting on it

You know which player you would rather of had

u are right to an extent. u were lucky that port respected carr too much to dump him in the PSD. once u said no to schammer or pavlich what more could they ask for?? taking a clubs first 3 picks not only improves ports draft but also takes alot out of the club your trading with.

trading cannot be compared, each club has its own objectives. u guys gave up pick 3, 20 and mcphee for headland. we gave up pick 8 for chick. is headland that much of a better player than chick? even before they joined their new clubs both had shown good form, chick on a more consistant basis. headland played 10 good games in a dominent side.

 

[Bestbird]

Bit of a laugh that giving picks 11,27 n a throw in 43 for Carr is too much...but West Coast in essence gave 12 n 28 for Stenglein... i never thought pick 43 would have so much weighting on it

You know which player you would rather of had

More like

Freo 11,27,43 for Carr
WC 12,28,50 for Stenglien and B Smith

Debate on who is better between Carr and Stenglien is mute

Carr was what Freo needed, a harder edge for your midfield

Stenglien was what WC needed, A defensively minded midfielder who can take a contested mark

 

[Mead]

More like

Freo 11,27,43 for Carr
WC 12,28,50 for Stenglien and B Smith

Debate on who is better between Carr and Stenglien is mute

Carr was what Freo needed, a harder edge for your midfield

Stenglien was what WC needed, A defensively minded midfielder who can take a contested mark

I don't think getting Smith should be included as part and parcel of the Stenglien deal- at that stage, absolutely anything could have happened with the draft picks.

What I think should be taken into account was that Melbourne sent us #29 for Paul Johnson, which was so definitely over the market rate that it seems hard to understand unless it was part of the three way Stenglein deal- so in the end, I think it was.

West Coast Lose: #12, #28, Paul Johnson,
Adelaide Lose: Stenglein
Melbourne Lose: Thompson, #29

Melbourne Get: Johnson, #12
Adelaide Get: Thompson, #28
West Coast Get: Stenglein, #29

The big difference between us and Freo was that we were able to replenish our draft pick stocks so ,in the end our draft order was more or less the same minus our first round pick and a couple of guys definitely not in our best 22. I daresay Freo could have done better with Simmonds and Longmuir if Simmonds hadn't definitely decided to sod off to richmond for a massive contract- given their ruck woes, Saints might have been prepared to shell out Heath Black + 2nd rounder for the pair.

 

[ImperialPurple]

The big difference between us and Freo was that we were able to replenish our draft pick stocks so ,in the end our draft order was more or less the same minus our first round pick and a couple of guys definitely not in our best 22. I daresay Freo could have done better with Simmonds and Longmuir if Simmonds hadn't definitely decided to sod off to richmond for a massive contract- given their ruck woes, Saints might have been prepared to shell out Heath Black + 2nd rounder for the pair.

Therein is the difference - spot on mead. I was going to go there myself, but lost the urge in the end.

You guys were able to replenish somewhat with a 2nd and 3rd rounder from trades. You got way too much for Johnson (no complaints from you tho I am sure!), and prob, Morrison was about right, or if anything maybe a little under-valued.

We had little choice with Simmonds, who would have been our most valuable trade possibilty - in the end, getting Black for Simmonds was the absolute best case scenario given the circumstances.

Of the delistees, none were ever going to be worth jack, and that only left T-Lo. CC had said that given his very high personal standing within the club, that every effort would be made to trade him to a club where he would get more opportunities. The pick 4073 or whatever we got from Carlton was just token - Carlton was prepared to give him opportunities, so the club dealt with Carlton and basically got nothing in return (we passed on that pick). They could have held onto him as a "depth" player, but they chose to respect his wishes and helped him out. Whether that is good or bad footy business I don't know but at least the club has a heart.

We needed a couple more quality midfielders, now we have them. In 2003 we had 4 picks in the top 30 from which we picked 3 possible KPPs, so I think "sitting out" for one year in 2004 is not going to be too damaging to us over 5 or 6 years.

But back to the topic at hand... (in summary form only!) getting Smith would have been "nice", but pretty happy we didn't, and I seriously doubt WCE are that petty as to pick a player just so we can't.

 

[Bestbird]

I don't think getting Smith should be included as part and parcel of the Stenglien deal- at that stage, absolutely anything could have happened with the draft picks.

What I think should be taken into account was that Melbourne sent us #29 for Paul Johnson, which was so definitely over the market rate that it seems hard to understand unless it was part of the three way Stenglein deal- so in the end, I think it was.

West Coast Lose: #12, #28, Paul Johnson,
Adelaide Lose: Stenglein
Melbourne Lose: Thompson, #29

Melbourne Get: Johnson, #12
Adelaide Get: Thompson, #28
West Coast Get: Stenglein, #29

The big difference between us and Freo was that we were able to replenish our draft pick stocks so ,in the end our draft order was more or less the same minus our first round pick and a couple of guys definitely not in our best 22. I daresay Freo could have done better with Simmonds and Longmuir if Simmonds hadn't definitely decided to sod off to richmond for a massive contract- given their ruck woes, Saints might have been prepared to shell out Heath Black + 2nd rounder for the pair.

Your spot on but

I included Smith in the Deal more in reply to Rickjames comment of " I never though pick 43 had so much weight riding on it". As i am sure the Dockers would have loved to have use that pick to get B Smith

 

[Mead]

Your spot on but

I included Smith in the Deal more in reply to Rickjames comment of " I never though pick 43 had so much weight riding on it". As i am sure the Dockers would have loved to have use that pick to get B Smith

Fair point.

I actually reckon Smiffy might have been a lot better off if the dockers, crows, or one of the sides without a vacant FF position had nabbed him.

 

[rickjames]

I am in agreeance that there is no way that wc would pick a player to spite freo, but even if they would have it doesnt matter as they had the pick before freo... Smith could provide a handy foil, or more than handy depending on the opportunities given (Seaby vs Smith??)

 

[willo-selly kenobi]

Well in all honesty I can't imagine the club being that immature as to pick up a player just to spite Freo, particularly when any hatred between the coaches appears minimal unlike perhaps when Malthouse was in charge.

Anyway, I rate Smithy very highly. Also, as KPPs tend to take longer to develop, it makes more sense to me to draft them a bit older. Brad is a proven KPP at senior WAFL level, as opposed to picking up a teenage KPP prospect who -- particularly that late in the draft -- won't be ready to play that position for a few years anyway.

 

[Skooks]

Yeh thats crap , i feel he will add another dimension to the WCE forward line

 

[Oddjob]

I just find it a little strange you guys would draft a 26yr forward when you have lots of young, tall forward prospects.

But none who can play the FF position and kick goals like Smith!

 

[coasting]

Of course we weren't going to allow Brad Smith to fall through to the Dockers first pick. That might have given them a dangerous forward line. We shafted them royally. That will teach them to trade away all their picks. Now they will have to rely on Pol-hack as their FF