Justin Reid

[jackster83]

Why was it a disaster? Because Carlton chose to stuff as around and never had an interest in a fair deal? or we traded a player noone really wanted for a lower pick than we got him for?

To lose your head of football to a rival club right before the most important time of year for the off-field team is a disaster.

It left someone inexperienced with the task of improving our list.

Do you remember when we used to get Harper to negotiate player contracts? Remember when Gunston caught poor old Phil off guard?

 

[Sanders]

anyone who thinks this is anything other than a complete embarrassment for us has rocks in their head

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/0fe4cd0b94e65ec5f39b189acdfc5e76

"Ross is publicly refusing to play the blame game — “I’m not going to bag the Crows or Carlton,’’ he said — but it is understood Adelaide had virtually guaranteed the family that they would find a way of securing Bryce in a bid to bolster an understrength midfield to take the step from semi-finalist to flag contender."

of course we did, we promised them if they nominated us we'd get it done. the reasons we didn't seem to range from an inexperience list manager dropped in the proverbial at the last minute, to misreading the opposition, to not trying hard enough to bridge the gap.

does anyone really believe a contracted player will come out in favour of us anytime soon?

no ******* wonder we're a team that has made top 4 once in a decade, and that was a fluke.

 

[Vhaluus]

If losing Noble was such a disaster the Crows should have made him honor his contract til after the trade period.

 

[Sanders]

I would go further and say that there are 2 divergent views at the club at board level. 1 view that went to considerable lengths to get Gibbs, it then does not make sense to not overpay another 2nd rounder.
Another view ( The go to the draft view) that was determined not to compromise our position come draft time, as in determined not to pay overs.

Both views coloured our vision and focus, which explains why we did not even attempt to trade up and get a better position in the draft. How can you do that, when essentially all your first round and second round picks for 2 years were in a permanent state of FLUX?

that seems highly likely to me. one side spending all it's tickets getting sign off to pursue him, but with sufficient opposition that they couldn't get sign off to up the offer to a second as well.

and as you say, the inverse that the draft minded lot were sidelined waiting whilst the get gibbs brigade backed in their instincts that Carlton were bluffing.

end result is a s**t show where we're going to the draft with a fairly mediocre range of picks and no gibbs.

I also just can't believe this farce has gone unnoticed by our senior players who must be wondering if we're fair dinkum about not wasting their prime.

 

[fairfooty]

I am sick of hearing people trying to claim that Reid "was outplayed by Silvagni", if he outplayed we surely we would have either handed over 13 + our 2017 1st round or McGovern/Crouch etc.

People seem to be overlooking that Silvagni went into the trade period openly demanding overs and refusing to budge. We told him from the start would we would pay a fair price for Gibbs, but would never entertain paying overs. Despite this Silvagni overestimated his position and thought he had the whip hand and mistakenly thought that if he held out long enough that we would cave at the 11th hour and sell the farm for Gibbs.

SOS took a massive gamble and went all in expecting to get overs, but we called his bluff and left him walking away with a player who didn't want to be at the club anymore.

For as long as I can remember people have been demanding the club to make a stand against being continually rogered at the trade table and yet when the club actually does that it still gets slammed regardless.

I do think that we should have moved on from Gibbs after the first day or two rather than sit there waiting for something to happen. Maybe if we made some enquiries elsewhere it might have sent a signal to Carlton that we weren't going to come running begging for a deal on the final day.

Frame it.

 

[Stiffy_18]

If you analyze Carltons historical dealings with us, they have been great trading partners who have come to the table in good faith. My question is, why the departure of this pattern for this particular trade? They have obviously seen something or know something that offended them, in a situation that on the surface looks to be a familial reason. Carlton are a very old school club. They have taken on the chin pastings from us regarding Jacobs and Betts.

When you are effectively in a fight of Natural Selection against 17 other clubs, it is best not to underestimate your foe or else you will find you have already lost the fight before you partook.

Its a different team at Carlton this time around from the CEO to list management team and football department. SOS was only here for the trade last year where we got Menzel for Kerridge and pick 28. He was reasonable in that deal because he needed a pick to get his GWS fettish satisfied. They were also into Kerridge and Menzel was not his pick so out he went.

What has happened in our previous dealings with Carlton is irrelevant now because they have had a complete overhaul on and off the field.

 

[Sanders]

Its a different team at Carlton this time around from the CEO to list management team and football department. SOS was only here for the trade last year where we got Menzel for Kerridge and pick 28. He was reasonable in that deal because he needed a pick to get his GWS fettish satisfied. They were also into Kerridge and Menzel was not his pick so out he went.

What has happened in our previous dealings with Carlton is irrelevant now because they have had a complete overhaul on and off the field.

they have 100% the same team as last trade period.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Conversations mean everything, so I beg to differ from your opinion on that. What we don't know is if they tried to get a second, I'm hoping they did but what was reported doesn't give me confidence that they in fact did.

Re Hartlett, other than digging in his heals there were no takers at what Powder were asking and his contract value. Lets see how that pans out.

There were reports that Essendon made and offer that PA were going to accept before Hartlett decided he is staying. I really doubt that we wouldn't have tried to trade but it takes three parties to want to get the deal done!

Players unfortunately have too much power and can stop the trade by saying no. Just as Carlton didn't want to trade Gibbs and kept him. Just as GWS kept McCarthy last year. DMac in particular we have tried to trade during the draft sanctions and he dug his heels in because he had the power with a long term deal.

 

[Stiffy_18]

they have 100% the same team as last trade period.

Which is what I said if you bothered to read properly. When deal for Jacobs and Massie were done it was an entirely different team. We had no other trades with Carlton between the Jacobs trade and Menzel trade.

 

[Sanders]

Which is what I said if you bothered to read properly. When deal for Jacobs and Massie were done it was an entirely different team. We had no other trades with Carlton between the Jacobs trade and Menzel trade.

you put in a but.

there is no but. it is EXACTLY the same team. end of

 

[Stiffy_18]

you put in a but.

there is no but. it is EXACTLY the same team. end of

For you of course there is no but.

Sanders logic:

Whatever the club says is a lie
Whatever negative gets said about the club is the truth
Anything else is irrelevant!

 

[Sanders]

For you of course there is no but.

Sanders logic:

Whatever the club says is a lie
Whatever negative gets said about the club is the truth
Anything else is irrelevant!

Didn't you just say the club was lying over its dealings with Gibbs before the trade period?

 

[King Elvis]

I think perhaps the most damning indictment of all came from Roo when he admitted just now that they assumed Carlton were bluffing and would come to them at the last minute cap in hand

if you want to go all in assuming the other bloke is bluffing best not be wrong

Perhaps they should've spoken with Bryce's old man - apparently he was of the opinion that Carlton would almost certainly refuse to trade.

 

[jenny61_99]

Of course you think we made the right decision

When have you ever thought otherwise?

Lots of times. You just choose to only focus on the times I don't disagree.

 

[jenny61_99]

What? Lyons was not a free agent. We had a contract in front of him, which we could have improved rather than giving him away.

The deal we got for Lyons was so bad it allowed Gold Coast to accept Hawthorn's weak offer for O'Meara. Gold Coast actually said this. We got screwed.

Was he or was he not contracted? If he wasn't contracted, he was a free agent. It is really that simple.

 

[jenny61_99]

Lyons, thought we could have got a bit more for.
Henderson, Kelly, Otten, Mackay (I know WW wont agree with this)
I think given Mackays age we should have cashed in to some extent, in the same way Carlton should have done with Gibbs.

Getting it done is another matter though and whilst we may have had intent it relies on other parties needs and wants.

We shopped Mackay around for a couple of years... nada. Like I said, if WE don't want him, what makes you think a) someone else will and b) what he would be worth. It's hilarious... we don't want him, but hey he's worth at least a first round pick.

 

[Scorpus]

Was he or was he not contracted? If he wasn't contracted, he was a free agent. It is really that simple.

Just because you are uncontracted doesn't make you a free agent

 

[jenny61_99]

Just because you are uncontracted doesn't make you a free agent

It kinda does. Could he have gone into the PSD and gone to another club for nothing?

 

[Scorpus]

It kinda does. Could he have gone into the PSD and gone to another club for nothing?

He could have gone into the PSD, but it rarely happens (if ever). Used as a meaningless threat most of the time.

 

[King Elvis]

We shopped Mackay around for a couple of years... nada. Like I said, if WE don't want him, what makes you think a) someone else will and b) what he would be worth. It's hilarious... we don't want him, but hey he's worth at least a first round pick.

We gave him a 4 year contract on good money when another club wanted him... and then shopped him??

Classic.

 

[relapse]

I'm trying to get my head around a position that discounts people and personality

They clearly had 2 different outcomes

1. Bring him back into the fold. To do that they need to be able to demonstrate they tried and they cared about him. Dismissing his wishes out of hand, puts him offside.

They are running now with the narrative that Carlton values him more than Adelaide

Andrew Mackay & Trigg have both given interviews saying Adelaide didn't value him as highly as Carlton

Ross Gibbs told the age that they were disappointed and that Adelaide promised them that they would find a way

Carlton have played a blinder

2. They let him go for an advantageous price

They idea that somehow Carlton lost is baffling in its naivety

I never actually said that Carlton had lost, I just don't agree with your assumption that Carlton had somehow "won" either.

Carlton held all the cards and were in a position where they couldn't actually lose, even if they traded Gibbs at a fair price it wouldn't have been a loss for them.

My point is that Silvagni went to the trade table with the expectation that he would be able to exploit Gibbs' circumstances to leverage overs from Adelaide and it failed. I am just not sure how walking away in the same position they were prior to the trade week can be classified as a "win", unless your trying to be disingenuous.

If their ultimate goal was to bring Gibbs back to the fold, there are far better and more productive ways to do it than sitting at the trade table petulantly demanding overs.

 

[relapse]

Blah blah blah

Carlton ARE running with that narrative and it's working

Whether your bias wants to see something else is irrelevant

Bais works both ways. Maybe you're own critical bias against the club's administration has put you on the side of the Carlton supporters who are trying project the blame on to Adelaide for the deal not taking place because they refuse to acknowledge any fault with Silvagni.

The narrative from both clubs only works for those who want to believe it.

As in most instances, blame often falls with both sides.

 

[relapse]

anyone who thinks this is anything other than a complete embarrassment for us has rocks in their head

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/0fe4cd0b94e65ec5f39b189acdfc5e76

"Ross is publicly refusing to play the blame game — “I’m not going to bag the Crows or Carlton,’’ he said — but it is understood Adelaide had virtually guaranteed the family that they would find a way of securing Bryce in a bid to bolster an understrength midfield to take the step from semi-finalist to flag contender."

of course we did, we promised them if they nominated us we'd get it done. the reasons we didn't seem to range from an inexperience list manager dropped in the proverbial at the last minute, to misreading the opposition, to not trying hard enough to bridge the gap.

does anyone really believe a contracted player will come out in favour of us anytime soon?

no ******* wonder we're a team that has made top 4 once in a decade, and that was a fluke.

I see you keep trying to play this card that we didn't try hard enough to bridge the gap, yet there has never any mention at all that Carlton were willing to budge from their offer. Everything that has been in the media suggested that Carlton continued to hold their demands and refused to trade unless their demands were met.

The Crows, by all accounts, appear to have been given a Hobson's choice scenario. Either 13 + B/M Crouch, McGovern or Cameron or two first round picks or leave it. It seems like even though Adelaide wanted to find the middle ground and come to a fair and equitable trade Carlton refused to budge for which I can only guess was on the expectation that we would cave at the last minue.

Clearly your continued stance that the club ballsed it up suggests that you believe that the club should have caved and given Carlton what they wanted, but that also would have had long term implications for the club as well.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

For everyone slamming Reid over not paying overs for Gibbs.

His mantra was very clear from when he took on the job back in 2014

NEW Crows list manager Justin Reid has warned that he will not compromise the club’s future for the sake of one player.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...d/news-story/4b6d81f3cff7c53299b16c72f163f403

The same lindy posters would be screaming if we had traded away the pick needed to secure Jackson Edwards next year . I'm glad the club held firm.

 

[relapse]

The same lindy posters would be screaming if we had traded away the pick needed to secure Jackson Edwards next year . I'm glad the club held firm.

It's also fairly obvious that those who are hell bent on criticising the club for not trading in Gibbs would have been just as vocal if we traded away 2 first round picks to get him. They would been running with the stance that the club was stupid for selling the farm for a non-elite player and how the club continues to gain a reputation for being weak at the trade table.

I understand why people are critical of our Admin, but for some people they will always take a critical stance against the club where possible irrespective of the outcome.