Broughton

[caterina]

you're being very unforgiving with what you admit is your own speculation, and i don't see how any of the above is more realistic than what broughton and bond have said from their own mouths. we got a mid range 2nd round pick from a club also willing to pay out the remainder of his contract. broughton came off the rookie list. we've come out ahead, but compared to some of the trades that went overs and other that went unders, the broughton trade was unspectacular. will broughton look good at his new club? yes. are we going to miss him? no. so what is it that we're losing from this trade? a favourite son, but that's about it.

Well I was speculating on why I think he got a bad trade, not speculating on if the trade was bad or not.
But in the grand scheme of things I ageee with you, as a standalone deal this is not a hanging offence even if I think it was unders. The more concerning thing is that there is a general pattern of substandard trading especially poorly executed attempts to trade players in. Anyway, happy to be in the minority on this and I think Bond has many good attributes but this is his blind spot.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Caterina, what trades should we have got done iyo?

 

[caterina]

Caterina, what trades should we have got done iyo?

Good idea Proud Bogan, let's reopen the Clark thread again

 

[Proud Bogan]

Good idea Proud Bogan, let's reopen the Clark thread again

No. You obviously think that this year we missed the boat somehow, excluding Broughton, so who did we miss??

 

[caterina]

No. You obviously think that this year we missed the boat somehow, excluding Broughton, so who did we miss??

My views on who we should have chased this trade period, and why Bond failed to achieve the modest goals he publicly set himself, are all on this site, use the search function if you are genuinely interested in my opinion, I stand by them all.
I don't want this to spiral out of control, I admire some of your posts and am perfectly comfortable that my views are defensible but that you don't agree with them. Go Freo.

 

[Nickos66]

My views on who we should have chased this trade period, and why Bond failed to achieve the modest goals he publicly set himself, are all on this site, use the search function if you are genuinely interested in my opinion, I stand by them all.
I don't want this to spiral out of control, I admire some of your posts and am perfectly comfortable that my views are defensible but that you don't agree with them. Go Freo.

Well said, let's not turn this into a John-hunt.

 

[Bender571]

Is this the same St Kilda that is known to be struggling with salary cap issues?...

In a vacuum on ability alone, Broughton was worth more than pick 37. In the real world, on a big contract, Broughton was not worth more than pick 37.

This.

I was under the impression you thought pick 37 was about right for Broughton and pick 60 irrespective of his contract. What makes you think he had a big contract?

Is this the same St Kilda that is known to be struggling with salary cap issues?...

The same St Kilda who lost one of their highest paid players

It happened towards the end of the trade period.

Fremantle probably shopped him around from the start, received a few offers, tried to do a deal with the highest bidder (Port?) but couldn't get anything done, then went back to the next best suitor (GC?) and went from there. Given GC's offer, the club probably kept working on other clubs (without luck), eventually received an ultimatum from GC (we're going to use pick 37 elsewhere...) and Fremantle settled for the only offer that was left.

That scenario seems unlikely considering GC only acquired pick 37 a few hours before Broughton knew GC were interested in him.

It all happened really quickly; I heard on Wednesday morning that the GC SUNS were interested, and by the afternoon I was signing the transfer forms

 

[Fred Ziffel]

I'm not a Bond fan-boi. I don't see what the fuss is about. It was Broughton's contract - signed off by Bond? - that left us struggling to get a deal done in the first place.

Or it could be considered well done. Bond gave him a back-ended contract, so presumably lower to start with when we got good service from Greg as an integral part of our backline, then when the time arrives to pay him big bucks ( bigger ) Bond finds another club who can pay him the price, thus Freo not having to pay it.
The fact that Greg is no longer a key member , under Ross Lyon, just makes the Broughton deal look better , for the same reason.
The risk of course would have been failing to find a club who has the capacity to pay his contract and is probably why this deal was done, ultimately. In the end it probably wasn't undervalue when not trading him would have been very undesirable for Fremantle, considering the money aspect.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

" That scenario seems unlikely considering GC only acquired pick 37 a few hours before Broughton knew GC were interested in him."

This may well have been the deal all along.

Get yourself a better draft pick to give to us for Broughton.
Clearly, all of us BF posters should have been told about this though.

 

[prattsta]

I was under the impression you thought pick 37 was about right for Broughton and pick 60 irrespective of his contract. What makes you think he had a big contract?

If you think of the draft in groups of players, rather than a simple ranking from best to worst, then pick #37 was about right for Broughton. It's a second round draft pick, which generally nets you a solid player. That is exactly what Broughton was/is.

I generally think of drafts like this:

1-3 superstars
4-10 elite
11-20 AA level
21-40 good/solid players
41+ average/fringe/development players

As for the contract, Port Adelaide said as much. Which also seems to make the most sense to me. Broughton is a good player, why the complete lack of interest around the league?

The same St Kilda who lost one of their highest paid players

St Kilda was clearly able to afford Goddard's previous contract. It was the new contract offers that St Kilda couldn't match. If Broughton comes in and eats up a majority of the money they just saved when when they lost Goddard, how does that help rectify that situation?

OUT: Goddard IN: $300-400k?
IN: Broughton OUT: $300-400k?

That scenario seems unlikely considering GC only acquired pick 37 a few hours before Broughton knew GC were interested in him.

Okay. Where does that leave us? GC was late to the party but nobody else was willing to give us anything better than pick #37? Why?

 

[valkorum]

I thought Goddard would have been on about $500k - $600k and that was too much for the Saints.

 

[prattsta]

I thought Goddard would have been on about $500k - $600k and that was too much for the Saints.

I have no idea what his last contract was, just they managed to pay it without breaching the salary cap. It was his new contract they weren't able to match.

 

[willoblue]

it's over
build a bridge
move on
good luck Broughts (except against us)
great luck to pick 37

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

I get your point but it's Gold Coast not GWS. They would have more players than us that have participated in a full pre season

First and second year players have decreased loads, you don't have your first full pre season until your 3rd year.

 

[Proud Bogan]

I was under the impression you thought pick 37 was about right for Broughton and pick 60 irrespective of his contract. What makes you think he had a big contract?

No. I am of the impression that the market sorted out his worth.

What I don't buy is that he was suddenly shopped late.

The deal itself was sudden, not the overall process.

You seem to be on a personal mission to put me back in my box.

Good luck with that.

 

[yakka man]

Right so every time someone goes into a car dealership and pays full ticket price for a car the market is sorting out the vehicles worth.

He's definitely worth better than pick 37, everyone knows that. But because of his expensive final year of his contract the club settled for less. I'm over it now, the clubs intentions are clear. They want to make massive plays for Franklin, Thomas, Wells etc. If they pull it off we will be re-visiting this thread saying that it was a master trade.

37 hurts but it was probably the trade that had to happen.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Anyone who pays full ticket price at a car dealership is an unadulterated moron.

Fact!

The rest of your shyte is equally lulzworthy and not fit for comment.

 

[kp junior]

Broughton at 22 years of age is worth a late first rounder IMO. At 26ish he's worth about pick 37. We'll get a good kid with the kid and everyone will shut up about it

 

[yakka man]

Anyone who pays full ticket price at a car dealership is an unadulterated moron.

Fact!

The rest of your shyte is equally lulzworthy and not fit for comment.

Wow, I'm shocked that you don't understand the comparison. You claim that pick 37 is market value for Broughton without comparison to the other trades that occurred in the trade period simply because that is the trade that was completed. You don't seem to grasp the fact that not every transaction is win/win.

No. I am of the impression that the market sorted out his worth.

Lol, yeah. Because the function of a competitive market/negotiation is to ensure that both parties always receive a fair deal.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Pretty sure that you grasp a lot more things than the average.

Get a job, Uni boy, and then get back to us.

 

[yakka man]

Pretty sure that you grasp a lot more things than the average.

Get a job, Uni boy, and then get back to us.

Nice comeback.

Can't win the argument so just throw around more insults. Real tough.

 

[feds2000]

Already making an impact at new club, cant knock this man on the field

was personally shocked when the club squeezed him out of his defensive role

"Broughton, who came from Fremantle during the Gillette AFL Trade Period, was the 'King of the Mountain' on Wednesday's climb down and up the Grand Canyon." In under 5 hours

grats

 

[Proud Bogan]

Nice comeback.

Can't win the argument so just throw around more insults. Real tough.

What argument?? There is no friggen argument.

You have a basic misunderstanding of market principles when they are constrained as such in the AFL free agency/trade period.

I can't help you with that.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that not every transaction is win/win.

Ummm...no. That would be you.

Nor can I help you with you pre-occupation with feeling to win something on the internet. Pathetic.

btw...have you ever held a full-time job?? Or was I on the money with that too?

 

[yakka man]

What argument?? There is no friggen argument.

You have a basic misunderstanding of market principles when they are constrained as such in the AFL free agency/trade period.

I can't help you with that.

The "argument" is the discussion that precedes your childish name calling when it doesn't go your way.

But by all means please pass on the AFL Trade period for Dummies book that you have read front to back. Until then I will go on with the assumption that you're not always right.

Ummm...no. That would be you.

Nor can I help you with you pre-occupation with feeling to win something on the internet. Pathetic.

btw...have you ever held a full-time job?? Or was I on the money with that too?

Right. And following people around on an internet forum and insulting them in the twisted hope of inciting a response is proper behaviour . I was just trying to work out why you always resort to the internet tough guy routine.

Where do you get this superiority complex from?

 

[Nickos66]

*sigh* I miss Clay.