List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade Talk 2016 Part 3

[RupetFan]

Heard James Stewart still loves the Pies... Fair chance he actually chooses us.

 

[jdpie]

Heard James Stewart still loves the Pies... Fair chance he actually chooses us.

By this time next week James Stewart will be better known than Rod Stewart

 

[Saintly Viewed]

and Dal Santo

There's always Collingwood stuff floating about.
Player signs contract he's now ours.
Nothing simpler.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

By this time next week James Stewart will be better known than Rod Stewart

That's Sir Rod Stewart.

 

[JustInsideFifty]

Please explain?

Ah Wallace said Rockliff was worth around Pick 23, then Barrett said somewhere in the 30s... I would have had him a bit higher than that...

 

[Scribe26]

You are having a crack at the only person that has got anything right so far and that includes your journo mates. The idea that we need to understand the role of a journo is laughable. I am not interested in being groomed to accept a poor level of journalism. How about just present the truth or at least say 'I don't know if this is true but do you think this would work.'

Barrett's attempt to claim the Mitchell trade story as his exclusive was embarrassing and really a reflection of the ego these guys have. Maybe instead of us understanding what journalism is about they understand it is not about them.

It is what happens when an industry has a conflict between regulating itself and needing the story to make money via click bait and sales. It is what happens when its own lawyers are looking at what the journo can get away with rather than what is appropriate via the facts of the story.

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

 

[Apex36]

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

Hi Damo

 

[Unknown Identity]

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

 

[jdpie]

That's Sir Rod Stewart.

And if James is any good and plays in the next Collingwood flag i would be more than happy to have him knighted Sir James

 

[CasuallyDressed]

Ah Wallace said Rockliff was worth around Pick 23, then Barrett said somewhere in the 30s... I would have had him a bit higher than that...

Damian Barrett needs psychiatric help.

 

[Anzacday]

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

Thank you.

 

[10571z]

I think "having too many midfielders" is a bit of a myth in the modern style of footy. You'd be better off having more midfielders who can rest in the forward or back pockets than back pockets who can spend small stints in the midfield.

Midfield players are generally fitter and your better ball users. Sure, some of them may be a little lesser when it comes to defensive abilities or scoreboard impact, but I feel like the interchange cap has probably thrown things further into midfielders' favour.

This is why, despite him allegedly being a complete flog, I wouldn't be mortified about bringing in Rockliff.

Mids should be able to play anywhere. Sidebottom, treloar, pendles and greenwood all can play up forward... still leaving guys like Rockcliffe, wells and de goey through the midfield... for example.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Mids should be able to play anywhere. Sidebottom, treloar, pendles and greenwood all can play up forward... still leaving guys like Rockcliffe, wells and de goey through the midfield... for example.

Exactly. Mids can play anywhere apart from KPP which you don't need many of. This myth about having too many mids is just crap.

 

[good4footy]

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

LOL. It is difficult for me to take what you say seriously when you bold my post and then misquote it in your post -dare I say it 'scribe26' like a journo would to 'help' with their story. It is not that hard and is the sort of standard that should be a non negotiable.

I also find you thinking I need your help very arrogant - once again like the journo's that have become the story. I can bag journalism in this country and still not need to turn it off or as you suggest cut myself off from mainstream media. I can pick and choose what I listen to, read and watch based on my own views of the journo. I can also choose to not be a sheep and just accept the crap that is being presented to us.

Hope that helps.

 

[BEEG]

Geez only person to get anything right on Bigfooty makes me not want to post updates, check out the last 6 months from Swan retiring 2 weeks before it was annouced, Caff taking a role at Collingwood, Brown being 50/50 on a contract 3 months back, plenty more, tough critics.

 

[Scribe26]

LOL. It is difficult for me to take what you say seriously when you bold my post and then misquote it in your post -dare I say it 'scribe26' like a journo would to 'help' with their story. It is not that hard and is the sort of standard that should be a non negotiable.

I also find you thinking I need your help very arrogant - once again like the journo's that have become the story. I can bag journalism in this country and still not need to turn it off or as you suggest cut myself off from mainstream media. I can pick and choose what I listen to, read and watch based on my own views of the journo. I can also choose to not be a sheep and just accept the crap that is being presented to us.

Hope that helps.

You're missing the whole point, but ok.

 

[jdpie]

Geez only person to get anything right on Bigfooty makes me not want to post updates, check out the last 6 months from Swan retiring 2 weeks before it was annouced, Caff taking a role at Collingwood, Brown being 50/50 on a contract 3 months back, plenty more, tough critics.

feeling a bit unloved Beeg ?

 

[doodles98]

Exactly. Mids can play anywhere apart from KPP which you don't need many of. This myth about having too many mids is just crap.

This be very true. Your flankers and back pockets are basically just made up of the guys not quite good enough to be mids. They either don't have the tank or speed or ball winning abilities. As a minimum you need 1 ruckman and 4 KPP's; leaving 17 spots for midfield sized players. Good things happen when you have enough quality to play a Hodge or a Macleod off a back flank...

btw mids can make a good FF too.. see Ablett snr, Gav Brown, Brad Johnson... Swanny would've.

 

[Anzacday]

For those that are interested in working out points values here's a link to the calculator...
https://www.draftguru.com.au/pick-value-calculator#

I also put it in the OP so it won't get lost.

 

[TradeDraft]

Barrett had two smarter plays:

1. Not address Aish or Greenwood whatsoever, just don't raise it, or
2. Raise it but through a lens that Hine has suggested differently, so that's the landscape, whether it's a change of tune, or a market correction, either way its some clarity out of the club which is a good thing for content, a good thing for the audience to hear.

Not go with the moreorless "well I heard it so I'm sticking to my guns despite whatever Hine said".

It's either petty or unintelligent.

Just makes him look like an Idiot that had No Idea

 

[TradeDraft]

Thank you.

So Jurno's are Trolls now?

 

[TradeDraft]

"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.

I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.

What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.

It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.

Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.

But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.

The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).

So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.

So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:

"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."

There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.

But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).

I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.

Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.

Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.

If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.

Hope that helps.

Hi Damo

 

[NT.Thunder]

I'll admit I've never gotten anything right on BigFooty.com but gee I enjoy reading everyone else's inside sources, keep em coming even if they are for shits and giggles

 

[SpongePie]

Geez only person to get anything right on Bigfooty makes me not want to post updates, check out the last 6 months from Swan retiring 2 weeks before it was annouced, Caff taking a role at Collingwood, Brown being 50/50 on a contract 3 months back, plenty more, tough critics.

I still love you <3

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Mids should be able to play anywhere. Sidebottom, treloar, pendles and greenwood all can play up forward... still leaving guys like Rockcliffe, wells and de goey through the midfield... for example.

Exactly. Mids can play anywhere apart from KPP which you don't need many of. This myth about having too many mids is just crap.

I think you're both missing the point. It's not about the mids and what they can and can't do, the issue is we have zero depth in any key positions. Sure Pendles can play forward, as can Greenwood, however, if Moore gets injured (again) or Reid gets injured (again) who on our list can fill the gap?

The best clubs in the AFL have a quality key forward and then atleast 1 player at the very least on the list who can play the role to an acceptable standard if for whatever reason the key forward goes down. Sydney - Buddy and Tippet, Hawthorn - Gunston and Roughhead, Crows- Jenkins and Walker, GWS - Cameron and Patton/Lobb, Geelong - Hawkins and Clarke, West Coast - Kennedy and Darling, North - Waite and Brown, Dogs - Stringer and Redpath. I think we should be trying to emulate how these clubs are run rather than Brisvegas who have 30 mids and no talls