Justin Reid

Remove this Banner Ad

kulak said:
Without wishing to reanimate the Lever discussion here as it’s not the right thread - that’s the approach I would have taken

Will be interested to see how we all feel one year on!
Click to expand...
Exactly the same I'll say it now regardless of what he does.
 
kulak said:
I see this differently to most because I would happily have paid the money to keep Lever.

I would have liked:
1) trade out JJ for pick 60+ to anyone with cap space in a salary dump. If Port can do it with Lobbe and Melbourne with Watts the we can do it with JJ
2) use the cap space to retain Lever
3) go ahead with Charles -> Gibbs trades for value in which they happened

Our defence would be better with Lever, and our forward line would be better without JJ.

We wouldn’t have a first round pick this year and we’d have a bit less currency next year. Who cares. Do we really want to harm our chances of winning with Sloane and Tex and co for the sake of maybe having a chance at 1 SA player next year and keeping JJ? Apparently we do.

However once the decision was made to let Lever go the outcome was as good as you could hope.
Click to expand...

We had the money for Lever just not the willingness to let him have it
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Vader said:
We got overs on Lever, and made out like bandits with Cameron. We even got something for Wigg, who we were going to delist anyway.

He undid all of that good (maybe even great) work with a single disastrous trade (Gibbs).

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Disastrous, gee Vader your posting is largely correct but the Gibbs trade was a minor loss, not a major one
 
Vader said:
We got overs on Lever, and made out like bandits with Cameron. We even got something for Wigg, who we were going to delist anyway.

He undid all of that good (maybe even great) work with a single disastrous trade (Gibbs).

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
5ve2Vo.gif
 
Vader said:
We paid the equivalent of pick #7, for a player worth pick #16 (including contract premium).

I object to paying close to double his value.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s based on 2 premises:

1. Equal value between 2017 & 2018 drafts

2. Your ability to correctly assess gibbs’ value

I can’t think any right minded individual could have much faith in either. particularly as you are renowned as a terrible, terrible, truly bad judge of a football player

And the league has now spoken in terms of what it thinks of relative draft quality
 
hey shorty said:
Disastrous, gee Vader your posting is largely correct but the Gibbs trade was a minor loss, not a major one
Click to expand...
Doesn't a major win negate a loss? ......look at the whole picture rather than portions ....however there's also the emotional element that people need to consider:

1. We just lost a GF as favorites
2. We just lost two very good players
3. How would the group be feeling ? ......i'd say a bit deflated ....and Sloane about to come into his Free Agency year

Trade Gibbs in & suddenly there's optimism for another shot at it ......Sloane says yeah, lets pony up again & where do i sign a new contract ......so how do you value the emotional impact of the Gibbs trade then???
 
Vader said:
We got overs on Lever, and made out like bandits with Cameron. We even got something for Wigg, who we were going to delist anyway.

He undid all of that good (maybe even great) work with a single disastrous trade (Gibbs).

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We both agree that we overpaid on Gibbs and it's a gamble but I for one am sick and tired of the AFC taking the "safe option" every time.
I'll say it again, let's see what happens next year before we call it a waste of quality picks.
 
Alwaysacrow said:
We both agree that we overpaid on Gibbs and it's a gamble but I for one am sick and tired of the AFC taking the "safe option" every time.
I'll say it again, let's see what happens next year before we call it a waste of quality picks.
Click to expand...
As I heard mentioned a few times, and sums up this situation perfectly, 'Win games, not trade deals'. Also very fitting for the mob across the road.
 
I reckon the Gibbs trade was out of Reid's hands.

Reckon the AFC promised Gibbs we'd get it done after what happened last year. His hands were tied and told to get get it across the line. No source, just speculation.

If you take that out, and yes I know it's a major piece, in think he's done really well on the rest.

My only real beef, is I wished he did the Cameron trade first and given up 12 instead.
 
Wayne's-World said:
Doesn't a major win negate a loss? ......look at the whole picture rather than portions ....however there's also the emotional element that people need to consider:

1. We just lost a GF as favorites
2. We just lost two very good players
3. How would the group be feeling ? ......i'd say a bit deflated ....and Sloane about to come into his Free Agency year

Trade Gibbs in & suddenly there's optimism for another shot at it ......Sloane says yeah, lets pony up again & where do i sign a new contract ......so how do you value the emotional impact of the Gibbs trade then???
Click to expand...
The magnitude of the loss wipes out all of the gains from the previous good trades.

I think you're massively overstating the morale benefit.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
 
Vader said:
The magnitude of the loss wipes out all of the gains from the previous good trades.

I think you're massively overstating the morale benefit.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Rubbish post again.

We have a first rounder this year and 2 next year, plus we brought in a quality mid and handy depth option.

It's win.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hey shorty said:
Rubbish post again.

We have a first rounder this year and 2 next year, plus we brought in a quality mid and handy depth option.

It's win.
Click to expand...

It's not often I agree with Vader, but I do here.

There seems to be a degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to comparing the Lever trade and the Gibbs trade.

Pick wise Melbourne paid the equivalent of pick 6 for Lever while we have potentially paid the equivalent of any anywhere from pick 5-7 for Gibbs.

Now most of us would accept that Lever's trade value is generally higher than Gibbs'. So with that being the case if we consider the Lever trade a win by getting a point spread that equates to pick 6 from Melbourne for him, then by following the same logic Gibbs has to be a loss.
 
relapse said:
It's not often I agree with Vader, but I do here.

There seems to be a degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to comparing the Lever trade and the Gibbs trade.

Pick wise Melbourne paid the equivalent of pick 6 for Lever while we have potentially paid the equivalent of any anywhere from pick 5-7 for Gibbs.

Now most of us would accept that Lever's trade value is generally higher than Gibbs'. So with that being the case if we consider the Lever trade a win by getting a point spread that equates to pick 6 from Melbourne for him, then by following the same logic Gibbs has to be a loss.
Click to expand...
Gibbs was contracted, Lever was not. If we didnt pay up for Gibbs we miss out. We needed him and we secured him without selling the farm job well done.
 
BunjiMac said:
I reckon the Gibbs trade was out of Reid's hands.

Reckon the AFC promised Gibbs we'd get it done after what happened last year. His hands were tied and told to get get it across the line. No source, just speculation.

If you take that out, and yes I know it's a major piece, in think he's done really well on the rest.

My only real beef, is I wished he did the Cameron trade first and given up 12 instead.
Click to expand...

Then SOS would have wanted 10 & 12 and we would be left with 16. Hopefully 12 gets our man. Go Haggis.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Vader said:
The magnitude of the loss wipes out all of the gains from the previous good trades.

I think you're massively overstating the morale benefit.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So did MELB overpay for Lever ? ......surely they did ! ....MELB supporters should therefore be irate that Lever cost them 2 quality 1st picks plus we know it also forced Watts out, either for TPP reasons, the fact Lever plays that 3rd tall as Watts was doing ....or a combination of both
 
Wayne's-World said:
So did MELB overpay for Lever ? ......surely they did ! ....MELB supporters should therefore be irate that Lever cost them 2 quality 1st picks plus we know it also forced Watts out, either for TPP reasons, the fact Lever plays that 3rd tall as Watts was doing ....or a combination of both
Click to expand...

Watts was gone regardless, Goodwin did not want him at the club
 
relapse said:
It's not often I agree with Vader, but I do here.

There seems to be a degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to comparing the Lever trade and the Gibbs trade.

Pick wise Melbourne paid the equivalent of pick 6 for Lever while we have potentially paid the equivalent of any anywhere from pick 5-7 for Gibbs.

Now most of us would accept that Lever's trade value is generally higher than Gibbs'. So with that being the case if we consider the Lever trade a win by getting a point spread that equates to pick 6 from Melbourne for him, then by following the same logic Gibbs has to be a loss.
Click to expand...
Points are not a true value of a trade value, it's an indicative valuation

Pick 12 is worth.................... 1,268 points
Picks 39, 40, 41 is worth .........1,287 points

So be facetious it would have been a better trade getting 3 x 3rd rnd trades for Cameron, than their pick 12 :rolleyes: .......see how stupid using points to evaluate a trade worth ? .......we absolutely know we'll get a good player at #12 & probably a 15% chance that 1:3 of the 3rd rnd players might be decent

And then there's the valuation of draft picks #12 in a weak draft versus #12 in a strong draft .......the point allocation makes no allowances for the relative draft strengths?
 
Wayne's-World said:
Probably correct ....but MELB were into Lever a long way out, which IMO still influenced & made the Watts call easier
Click to expand...

Goody wanted him out

Goody comes from the Neil Craig, Walshy and Pykey school of thought in terms of training to elite standards and it has been well reported that Watts professionalism towards his training waivers on a consistent basis

Soon as Watts was banished to the VFL the writing was well and truely on the wall

The noise is that Watts was keen to stay in Melbourne however Geelong went cold after interviewing him and no other Melb based clubs showed any interest, in Meb he is damaged goods and it comes back to his attitude towards his footy
 
The Sloane Ranger said:
The noise is that Watts was keen to stay in Melbourne however Geelong went cold after interviewing him and no other Melb based clubs showed any interest, in Meb he is damaged goods and it comes back to his attitude towards his footy
Click to expand...
I gather from various comments he's not hungry enough & footy whilst he loves it, doesn't dominate his thoughts (not a footy head) ......obviously affects his training intensity & finishing 22nd in the B&F is not good for a #1 draft pick
 
Wayne's-World said:
I gather from various comments he's not hungry enough & footy whilst he loves it, doesn't dominate his thoughts (not a footy head) ......obviously affects his training intensity & finishing 22nd in the B&F is not good for a #1 draft pick
Click to expand...

He doesn't come across as a footy head, what ever the problem is he has massively underachieved for a player that was everyone's selection as #1 draft pick from
A long way out

In 9 years of footy he averages 16 possessions a game, contested ball is poor and has only ever polled 13 Brownlow votes in 9 years, Atkins has more in 2 seasons of footy

IMO there has been a massive over reaction on Port's trading
 
The Sloane Ranger said:
In 9 years of footy he averages 16 possessions a game, contested ball is poor and has only ever polled 13 Brownlow votes in 9 years, Atkins has more in 2 seasons of footy

IMO there has been a massive over reaction on Port's trading
Click to expand...
All 3 incoming players had their bags packed eagerly by their respective clubs .......at least Carlton showed they did not want to lose Gibbs

I've spoken with Many Geelong supporters who didn't blink when Motlop was traded ......Rocky has had two injury ridden years now & his shoulders are suspect, given how he plays his footy

I have this thought that Ports Midfield is looking short of quick spread .......they'll rely too heavily on Motlop
 
relapse said:
It's not often I agree with Vader, but I do here.

There seems to be a degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to comparing the Lever trade and the Gibbs trade.

Pick wise Melbourne paid the equivalent of pick 6 for Lever while we have potentially paid the equivalent of any anywhere from pick 5-7 for Gibbs.

Now most of us would accept that Lever's trade value is generally higher than Gibbs'. So with that being the case if we consider the Lever trade a win by getting a point spread that equates to pick 6 from Melbourne for him, then by following the same logic Gibbs has to be a loss.
Click to expand...
One has a 2 year deal, one was uncontracted. One is a prime mid, one is a (Very good) 3rd tall defender.

We paid overs for Bryce, there's not many disputing that. Melbourne paid overs for Lever INCLUDING salary. Neither were diabolical trades like yourself and Vader are suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top