Port - THE BIG LOSERS

[Adz]

Lost there best midfielder for nothing. Its like loosing a Buckley, Voss and Cousins for nothing. They'll find it tought next year Port against the quality teams, real tough.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Magpie
Lost there best midfielder for nothing. Its like loosing a Buckley, Voss and Cousins for nothing. They'll find it tought next year Port against the quality teams, real tough.

How could you compare Stevens to Voss or Cousins, get real.

 

[Portia]

Would've been tough for us to be any less screwed next year with what Collingwood offered.

Also if you're equating Stevens with Voss or Cousins, that goes to show just how pathetic Collingwood's offer was. Your little game didn't work, and now you're unhappy. Boo hoo.

 

[Adz]

Im not comparing them. Im just saying from a team point of view Voss and Cousins and there best midfielders. Stevens was Port best midfielder.
But, Stevens doesn't come close to Buckley, of course.

 

[topdon]

Port supporters are trying to save face, but you would think that deep down they'd be very ****ed off with the club. Williams let emotion get the better of him. They priced Stevens out of the market and are paying for it.

I'd certainly be calling for 'someones' scalp.

 

[JUBJUB]

Re: Re: Port - THE BIG LOSERS

Originally posted by skipper kelly
How could you compare Stevens to Voss or Cousins, get real.

Perhaps it Brett Voss.

 

[Portia]

We didn't price Stevens out of the market. We had other offers substantially better than what Collingwood offered.

It was Nick saying he wouldn't accept them that screwed us over.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Magpie
But, Stevens doesn't come close to Buckley, of course.

So, you have change your mind in the space of what, 1 minute?

 

[topdon]

Apologies. I didn't know 'all' the details.

Not forgetting the Stevens is also a big loser from this. You have made a valid point ... Stevens ****ed himself over by nominating his only preferred club so early in to trade week. Clubs would be loath to speak to him. Why give up so much for a player that doesn't want to be at your club?

In the end .. Stevens chose the wrong club. Port don't want to see a close rival gain some kind of advantage. And i do understand that.

 

[drexel]

Port is doing more favours for the rest of the teams by keeping Choco as coach. Their list was better than Collingwood's the last two years anyway and will be this year.
Unfortunately for them, all other teams used the draft to improve their situation... Port did not.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by topdon
They priced Stevens out of the market and are paying for it.

I'd certainly be calling for 'someones' scalp.

You gotta be farkin kidding me right??

How is asking for two first round picks for an established 24 disposal a game gun midfielder thats never had an injury unfair?

How is asking for a first round pick and a player that would be in our first 22 (clue Collingwood....this doesnt mean Neon Leon) for a gun midfielder unfair?

Headland got two first round picks and a player last year, and Stevens is a better footballer than Headland is.

We asked for one of Licuria/Didak/Presti/Lonie and pick 17. Now Licuria and Presti rightly wouldnt be accepted. Didak may. Lonie and pick 17 youd think they would do. But no. They offer us Scotland, McGough or Neon Leon.

Gee....fancy asking for a player that might actually make our side next year for an established gun!

In the end we lose Stevens, we regain Francou. Francou is a better footballer than Stevens is. We have young players that can fill the recievers wing role that Stevens left and they deserve their chance.

Everyone is having a go at us for not accepting something even tho that something was worthless to us. Yet the funny thing is....had we accepted Leon Davis and pick 17 for Stevens, id put my house on that every moron on here would still be having a go at us for being bent over the trade table and given a good rogering.

You stand tall and dont let a lying little princess and his pathetic lying manager tell you what to do and you end up being laughed at. We accept crap for him and we'd still be laughed at.

Cant ****in win.

 

[feher]

Originally posted by Macca19
Didak may. Lonie and pick 17 youd think they would do. But no. They offer us Scotland, McGough or Neon Leon.
According to Balme, didak didn't want to leave the pies, therefore another 'dead' trade.

 

[flying_monk3y]

Re: Re: Re: Port - THE BIG LOSERS

Originally posted by JUBJUB
Perhaps it Brett Voss.

and his cousins

 

[Kapow!!!]

Originally posted by Macca19
Headland got two first round picks and a player last year, and Stevens is a better footballer than Headland is.

Tell me about it, I'm still fuming with Dessy's performance this year and we lost two first round draft picks. F*** IT.

 

[scooter600x]

Port absolutely did the right thing.

Port didn't lose Stevens for nothing in the trade week - they lost him weeks ago when he said he wanted out, that makes Stevens a sunk cost to Port.

Port lost pick 17 and Neon Leon to let everyone else know they won't be walked over in future - and that's a fair trade.

They did trade Morgan to us for pick 34, so they are still prepared to do somebody else over, though.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Macca19
How is asking for two first round picks for an established 24 disposal a game gun midfielder thats never had an injury unfair?

It's more than he's worth, that's how.

How is asking for a first round pick and a player that would be in our first 22 (clue Collingwood....this doesnt mean Neon Leon) for a gun midfielder unfair?

It's more than he's worth. Why not simply an equivelant player?

Headland got two first round picks and a player last year,

No, he didn't. He got a first round (3) and a second round (19) pick only.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Magpie
Lost there best midfielder for nothing. Its like loosing a Buckley, Voss and Cousins for nothing. They'll find it tought next year Port against the quality teams, real tough.

He was NOT our best midfielder.
It is a lot of Collingwood supporters that have changed their mind on this. Stevens went from being a softy to a champion as soon as he said he wanted to go there. Then back to being very average when their bluff didn't work.
As a matter of fact, a lot of Port supporters wanted him traded long ago. Go on the Port board, do a search over the last year and a half and see for yourself.
Wanting to trade him means trading him for his market value. It does not mean delisting him or giving him away for next to nothing.

Originally posted by topdon
They priced Stevens out of the market and are paying for it.

No we didn't.
We got offers for him that were more than acceptable.
We didn't accept Collingwood's offer. Big difference.

Port lost out of this.
We lost one of picks 2 or 5 plus player.
Had we given him away for 17 plus dud after the other offers were in, we would have lost a lot more than that in the long run.

Collingwood tried to be smartarses and now they are crying foul and trying to put all sorts of spins into just what happened.
Balme says that Didak never wanted to go there? Could be true, but Balme has been saying a lot of things.

 

[taff wa]

If he is not your midfielder, why did Williams say they wanted 2 first round draft picks for him.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by taff wa
If he is not your midfielder, why did Williams say they wanted 2 first round draft picks for him.

Market value.
Also he did not say that they both had to be low first round picks.
First round pick plus player was also what he said.
Low first round plus not so good player, or high first round plus better than dud player sound fair enough for his value when comparing to recent trades.
Pick 17 is as low a first round pick as you can get. There are only 16 teams.

 

[taff wa]

ROFLMAO.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by taff wa
ROFLMAO.

Why?

 

[taff wa]

I didnt say low first round draft picks, I said 2 first round draft picks, and if he just an average player (not Port's best midfielder as you have said) .


Also I found it on a WA website about football.


Quote:

Port Adelaide coach Mark Williams his club is looking for two first round draft picks in exchange for midfielder Nick Stevens.

 

[sp-mac]

Everybody is talking about Collingwood's "unfair" offers but nobody looks at what Port were asking. Neil Balme said that all of Port Adelaide's requests included Alan Didak. If that's true it is asking WAY WAY WAY WAY to much.

We weren't being stooges, but were offering only what we genuinley thought we could afford to lose. That did not include the likes of Didak, Presti and Cole so Stevens ends up elsewhere.

If Scotland is in our best 22 for a Grand Final with virtually no injuries in the list, he's in Port's best 22 easily.

If it had been any club other than collingwood the deal would've been through by Tuesday. Port's justification is that as long as Collingwood don't have him, we're happy to get nothing.

Like a three year old child with a toy really.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by taff wa
I didnt say low first round draft picks,...

What I meant is that every time it comes up it sounds as if we asked for two top 5 picks.
Never was the case. We'd be the first to laugh at that.
A low first round and a fringe player, or a high first round plus an established (not top 10 type) or up and comer are fair, when looking back on other trades.

Anyway it's all academic now.
Port lost a player they should have been able to trade for a fair price.
Collingwood lost a player they wanted because they tried to get him for below market value.
Carlton got a player for nothing even though they were prepared to pay for him.

 

[taff wa]

Collingwood have lost 1 player - Scotland (not up to Stevens' standard).


Port have lost Stevens (plus a couple of others traded).


Port have faired worse than Collingwood in this matter. Yes if Collingwood had got Stevens it would have been a bonus but no loss no gain.