Reece Conca

[Big Tones]

gee Chocco bringing Dusty and Conca with him - what a package!

 

[Carbine Chaos]

gee Chocco bringing Dusty and Conca with him - what a package!

a) Don't want Chocco, doubt he'd even apply

b) Conca will 99% re-sign if Martin leaves, cap space open for them

 

[Ian Dargie]

At least stats are somewhat objective as opposed to 'someone's opinion'.

Sure, but when you pretend they prove something definitively, that's bullshit.

At the end of the day, your opinion that Conca is better than Gaff isn't worth a squirt of cat's piss.

I never said that. I said they have comparable trade value.

I never said he had. But there is no denying that the oppositions #1 midfield target in 2013 was Andrew Gaff. When he was top 10 in the AFL in meters gained in 2012 its not hard to see why.

You pointed out that Conca hasn't proven himself as a #1 midfielder. So what?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I'm not sure you can say that. He was evidently told he wouldn't feature in the midfield rotations as heavily, because of kicking deficiencies. That doesn't mean he wasn't best 22. It means he wasn't considered in the best 5-6 midfield rotations.

Wasn't he dropped for the last two finals that year?

He wasn't good enough to crack a spot in the midfield and that meant he couldn't cement a spot in the team. In other words, he wasn't deemed to be in our best side or best 22. Not sure how else you can slice that.

Like I said, he was basically a highly regarded fringe player.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I understand that, but my point is why have you dedicated the last few pages of the thread to debating this issue. I daresay that if we were obliged to pay 'fair value' for Conca (which I believe is a mid-late first rounder), then we'd not be chasing his signiture this transfer window. The issue of his worth, provided his circumstances if far more relevant, and should be the primary focus of the Eagles staff (although with their track record, I really shouldn't expect so much from them).

That's fair enough.

This isn't simply an issue of hindsight, to many here, it was clear that Ebert's stength was his inside ability, and for him to have developed in such a way that we've since witnessed at Port, it was essential that he be played in the position that Priddis and the like so stubbornly occupy. The reason that he wasn't best 22 at the end of his last season at WC was not so much a matter of his ability, but rather the improper management of him as a player (something that has become a forte of the Eagles over the past 5 years).

The fact remains that he was not best 22 at the end of his last season at WC. Even if the club was partly culpable for that.

Statistics don't always reveal the true nature of a situation. Context.

That's a bit lame. Isn't this just a wordy way of ignoring something?

I'd argue we gave up a first rounder last year for a player outside a best 22 (albeit a very strong best 22).

Wellingham wasn't best 22 at Collingwood?

 

[Masto]

Sure, but when you pretend they prove something definitively, that's bullshit.

I never said that. I said they have comparable trade value.

You pointed out that Conca hasn't proven himself as a #1 midfielder. So what?

Thanks for finally agreeing Gaff is the better player. You didn't need that whole spiel to admit that though.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Thanks for finally agreeing Gaff is the better player. You didn't need that whole spiel to admit that though.

Finally agreeing? That was never the issue. Are you drunk?

All I've said is that their trade value is comparable.

You continue to struggle.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Thanks for finally agreeing Gaff is the better player.

He didn't say that either.

 

[Masto]

He didn't say that either.

Do you think he is actually saying anything?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Do you think he is actually saying anything?

I'm saying that Gaff and Conca have comparable trade value.

It's not that complicated, champ. Which part are you having trouble with?

 

[The Passenger]

with martin leaving it's hard to imagine conca leaving. combination of more cap space plus richmonds desperation not to lose two really good youngsters should see him stay.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Do you think he is actually saying anything?

I thought he was saying their trade value is pretty similar.

Which I would probably agree with if they were both coming out of contract and looking to move back home.

 

[Masto]

I'm saying that Gaff and Conca have comparable trade value.

It's not that complicated, champ.

Trade value is meaningless and in the eye of the beholder. Which is the better player? Or do you think they are absolutely identical. Or is that are you are just unable to form a judgement?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I thought he was saying their trade value is pretty similar.

FiveStrings gets a prize for being able to read. Now we just wait for Masto to catch up so the whole class can go home.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Trade value is meaningless and in the eye of the beholder.

Trade value is meaningless? What absolute claptrap.

Trade value signifies what a club can command for a player in a trade. That's what it means. And it is determined by the market, albeit in a way that can be heavily compromised.

Which is the better player? Or do you think they are absolutely identical. Or is that are you are just unable to form a judgement?

I think Gaff probably has his nose in front at this stage, although I have some misgivings about his uncontested style.

 

[Masto]

I think Gaff probably has his nose in front at this stage...

Thanks for finally agreeing Gaff is the better player...

Thank you and come again.

 

[Danog]

I would be deleting that source from my phone book pretty quickly If I was you

Given that he changed his mind as late as this Friday, I think I won't. Gary March told people at Club 80 (paid supporters function) that he would be staying.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Thank you and come again.

You're welcome, even though you're not making any sense.

 

[Masto]

You're welcome, even though you're not making any sense.

Its not hard to understand. I'm thanking you for agreeing with me. At first you disagreed that you agreed with me - but then you conceded that you agree. I'm not sure why you did that - but then again you're Ian Dargie.

 

[Icanwalk]

The fact remains that he was not best 22 at the end of his last season at WC. Even if the club was partly culpable for that.

Ok, I concede. Simply speaking, he was indeed a fringe player when he left the Eagles. Although I'd have thought it wise to delve a little deeper into the reasons behind this, but whatever.

That's a bit lame. Isn't this just a wordy way of ignoring something?

Half truth. With those same statistics I could further argue my point since Ebert's numbers skyrocketed immediately once joining the Port, by virtue of being played in his proper position. The massive swing in numbers tells more about his mismanagement at the Eagles, than his management at Port.

Wellingham wasn't best 22 at Collingwood?

I admit that was a little rich on my part, but you could argue that Wellingham was being squeezed out of a very strong midfield unit. After all, Swan, Pendlebury and Ball typically occupied the center, with Thomas, Beams and Sidebottom rotating between the center and flanks. This already has Wellingham 7th in line of their established midfielders. And with their impressive young midfield talent on an upward trajectory (Blair, Fasolo, Seedsman, Thomas, Elliot, Sinclair and later Kennedy), his spot was becoming increasingly vulnerable considering his inconsistency. Although he might've been in their best 22, he was imo, on the way out.

Wellingham's downward trajectory in his final season at Collingwood resembles Ebert's at the Eagles. In his last 8 games at the Collingwood, the only reached 20 disposals once and kicked 2 goals, whilst playing midfield. Ebert on the other hand, was forced to play in a position which wasn't suited to his skill set.

But anyway, back to Conca. Since Martin has man-whored himself to the highest bidder, this debate is over. Shame, Conca would've made a great addition to our midfield.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Its not hard to understand. I'm thanking you for agreeing with me.

And I'm saying you're welcome.

I never had an issue with saying Gaff probably has his nose in front.

My only argument has been that he and Conca have comparable trade value.

At first you disagreed that you agreed with me

Where?

If you look at my first response to you in this thread, I accept that Gaff has outperformed Conca.

Have you had a concussion recently?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Half truth. With those same statistics I could further argue my point since Ebert's numbers skyrocketed immediately once joining the Port, by virtue of being played in his proper position.

And you'd be right.

The massive swing in numbers tells more about his mismanagement at the Eagles, than his management at Port.

Not sure about that. I think there are a number of factors in his improvement at Port.

I admit that was a little rich on my part, but you could argue that Wellingham was being squeezed out of a very strong midfield unit. After all, Swan, Pendlebury and Ball typically occupied the center, with Thomas, Beams and Sidebottom rotating between the center and flanks. This already has Wellingham 7th in line of their established midfielders. And with their impressive young midfield talent on an upward trajectory (Blair, Fasolo, Seedsman, Thomas, Elliot, Sinclair and later Kennedy), his spot was becoming increasingly vulnerable considering his inconsistency. Although he might've been in their best 22, he was imo, on the way out.

Turn it up.

 

[Icanwalk]

Not sure about that. I think there are a number of factors in his improvement at Port.

And right you are. I'm not for a moment suggesting there weren't other factors in his improvement. Although I believe his mismanagement at the Eagles is the primary one.

Turn it up.

????? That's certainly the shortest response I seen from you.

 

[Keys]

Given that he changed his mind as late as this Friday, I think I won't. Gary March told people at Club 80 (paid supporters function) that he would be staying.

My understanding was that West Coast were prepared to offer Conca more than Richmond could due to Martin's demands and that it was West Coast chasing Conca rather than any expressed desire by Conca to return to WA as he was happy at Richmond. Given that Martin looks to be leaving surely this frees up enough salary cap room for Richmond to tweak their offer to keep Conca.

I'd be surprised now if Conca didn't renew his contract with Richmond.

 

[dajesmac]

Richmond sure as shit won't be losing both Conca and Martin in one off-season.