Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[bodazoka]

Not sure what you're asking me here.

Therefore you can not definitely say that we lost a trade because of the difference in one spot in the draft

Agree or disagree with the quote?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I get the feeling that Ian Dargie is suggesting that fair compensation for Judd at the time was somewhat of an impossibility.

That's nice.

The club did the best they could with cards handed too them and moved on, we are in a relatively good shape and we got a “solid” return from the Judd trade as far as best twenty two contributors go.

I don't disagree.

I would add that Judd did us a favour by nominating Carlton rather than Collingwood.

Now the question should be. Did Carlton win the Judd trade?

Yes. Clearly.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Your insults don't make them any less boring.
You need to get over this superiority thing.
There is no need to bully the posters on this board and attempt to make them look stupid.
People are on this board because they like WCE and Footy.
The majority aren't looking for a fight.

Yawn.

I'm here to talk about football. You're the one whinging about being bored and trying to derail the discussion.

Go and practice your 'assertive voice' somewhere else. I can't be bothered humouring you.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Agree or disagree with the quote?

The quote doesn't make sense to me.

One spot in the draft? Do you mean the difference in a pick traded? In return for what?

What are you asking me?

 

[dajesmac]

That's nice.

Am I meant to respond to your feelings?

Back to your old habits Ian.

 

[greennick]

We would still have lost Ebert for unders.

If you buy a house for $500,000 and sell it for $300,000, that's a bad deal. If the house burns down a year later, it doesn't mean it was a good deal.

I agree with him. If you trade a 500k house for a 300k house and the 500k house is destroyed, why aren't you better off? Sure it may not have seemed like a good deal at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and with all other factors considered, surely it comes off better?

 

[keviewiggle]

Eastern Hills , you are correct.
The Eagles did the best they could with the cards they were dealt.
There were so many variables ,you mentioned a few but there are others.
What if Freo had not swapped No 1 pick for Croad but instead picked Judd.
What if WCE had picked Hodge at 3.
Would WCE had a brilliant 10 years with Hodge and Cousins as leaders.
Would the natural leader that Hodge was helped to prevent Cousins go off the rails.
Would Judd have had the same success at Freo.
Would he have left years earlier and Freo not got Kennedy in the trade.
Small things can change so much.
So as you said play the cards you are dealt and move on.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I agree with him. If you trade a 500k house for a 300k house and the 500k house is destroyed, why aren't you better off?

Because there are two independent events.

The fact the house burned doesn't mean the initial sale wasn't a bad deal.

Sure it may not have seemed like a good deal at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and with all other factors considered, surely it comes off better?

It was a bad deal. Period. You had an asset and lost it cheap. Bad deal.

The fact the house later burned down doesn't mean it wasn't.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Eastern Hills , you are correct.
The Eagles did the best they could with the cards they were dealt.
There were so many variables ,you mentioned a few but there are others.
What if Freo had not swapped No 1 pick for Croad but instead picked Judd.
What if WCE had picked Hodge at 3.
Would WCE had a brilliant 10 years with Hodge and Cousins as leaders.
Would the natural leader that Hodge was helped to prevent Cousins go off the rails.
Would Judd have had the same success at Freo.
Would he have left years earlier and Freo not got Kennedy in the trade.
Small things can change so much.
So as you said play the cards you are dealt and move on.

I wouldn't go so far...

 

[Eastern Rangers]

That's nice.

Perhaps you can set out a fair trade for Judd? I'll trade you my Charizard for your entire set of Pockemon game cards?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Now we are comparing players with houses? I don't see the comparison.

The fire analogy with wrong. I think it's a lot more like dry rot that isn't seen but was just hidden under the surface. Neither we, nor the buyer knew it was there.

 

[greennick]

Because there are two independent events.

The fact the house burned doesn't mean the initial sale wasn't a bad deal.

It was a bad deal. Period. You had an asset and lost it cheap. Bad deal.

The fact the house later burned down doesn't mean it wasn't.

Normally there are unknown variables that will impact future value that need to be taken in to account when assessing who won in the end. If we made that trade and your 500k house was destroyed in a flood, I'll be laughing at your homeless arse in my 300k house while you remember back to that day you swindled greennick out of his house, neglecting the fact it was you who got swindled in the end (check for the flood plains fool)...

He wasn't even arguing that WC did not get as good a deal at the time as most thought was fair, he was just arguing that with the benefit of hindsight we did OK. It is a bit of a straw man argument.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Ok. So what I think Dargie is saying is that the trades need to be taken in isolation and judged on face value. What we then do with the picks is irrelevant to the trade itself.

I agree with this.

Everything needs to be taken in isolation and not. It's hard to say lets just accept the trade is a good/ bad one when your not privy to what the clubs are doing or why.

It also doesn't mean we can't discuss in the years after the trade, the implicaitons of the trade on our team performance, list management ect...

That's unless you call the trade a win.

You need narrow and broad understandings otherwise you going to ignore either the detail or the bigger picture.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Normally there are unknown variables that will impact future value that need to be taken in to account when assessing who won in the end. If we made that trade and your 500k house was destroyed in a flood, I'll be laughing at your homeless arse in my 300k house while you remember back to that day you swindled greennick out of his house, neglecting the fact it was you who got swindled in the end (check for the flood plains fool)...

He wasn't even arguing that WC did not get as good a deal at the time as most thought was fair, he was just arguing that with the benefit of hindsight we did OK. It is a bit of a straw man argument.

You missed the point of the last 123 pages of crap and he wont like it.

You cant replace an established player with hopes and dreams. Thus at the time of trade you always loose.

You just can't beat that sort of logic.

 

[pantskyle]

Boys, boys you can both marry me.

 

[twce13]

 

[Double the Fist]

"Enough. This bickering is pointless. Dargie, release him!"

 

[fryzie]

I agree with him. If you trade a 500k house for a 300k house and the 500k house is destroyed, why aren't you better off? Sure it may not have seemed like a good deal at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and with all other factors considered, surely it comes off better?

Your logic is flawed. Using this analogy:

You wouldn't say to people "I lost 200k on my house when I sold it but then it burnt down 6 months later so it turned out to be a good deal!" The initial deal was still bad.

You'd say "I got screwed on a deal when I sold my house.. lost out 200k on the purchase price.. but then it burned down 6 months later so turns out I was pretty lucky to sell it at all!"

What Dargie is saying is the correct analysis for mine. They are two separate events and can't be measured as one, despite the fact the latter could only have occurred as a result of the initial event.

Can we move on now?

 

[Agent93]

Please for the love of God bring the footy back so Dargie has something to talk about rather than arguing semantics.

 

[Shupe]

Everything needs to be taken in isolation and not. It's hard to say lets just accept the trade is a good/ bad one when your not privy to what the clubs are doing or why.

It also doesn't mean we can't discuss in the years after the trade, the implicaitons of the trade on our team performance, list management ect...

That's unless you call the trade a win.

You need narrow and broad understandings otherwise you going to ignore either the detail or the bigger picture.

Sure. I agree. The trade was a bad one/a lose at the time.

Several years later we can now look at the trade and say "Hey, we didn't do so badly in the end with Masten and Kennedy". That's after the fact though.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Please for the love of God bring the footy back so Dargie has something to talk about rather than arguing semantics.

Isn't that all he does anyway?

 

[the harry]

Does he even enjoy posting here? I just looks like it frustrates him.

 

[JackJako27]

Does he even enjoy posting here? I just looks like it frustrates him.

People who debate at every opportunity like Ian does, enjoy it.

 

[Forward Press]

People still 'debate' with him?

 

[pantskyle]

People still 'debate' with him?

Only on a mass level.