Sauce bottle empty

[Silvagnis]

LOL.

 

[JustaBattler]

" To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant "

 

[HARKER]

" To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant "

Saad doesn't even come into any consideration.
Just because he played with the NB's doesn't bring him any closer to us.

So we should have put our foot down. Then what?

Tell me what you think could have been achieved with Jacobs other than we could have done better, which in fairness may have been possible if push came to shove.
Maybe it could have been and maybe it would not have been, so what should have we asked for in order to do the right thing by one of our players.

Remember though, treating players with disrespect can come back to bite you.
So what have been a fair deal?

 

[Jeremias]

Not blaming Ratten for anything. But let's not make shit up! Jacobs left due to his pecking order among the club's rucks; his destination, while obvious, was secondary. Now if I'm going to blame people, it would be those involved in the negotiations in equal share of their participation. It was a shambles. Carlton wanted more, made it known they wanted more and in the end folded like a deck of cards. From the outside it looked totally amateur. If it was a company I had my money in, I wouldn't be happy with such poorly negotiated deals, so why the hell should I change my view for the footy club?

Yes you are, albeit indirectly.

By saying that the whole Jacobs situation would not have eventuated had Mick already been at the club at the time, you are placing the blame on Ratten.

Spin it any way you like, it simply doesn't matter. Sorry, but I must have missed the memo where we have to blame Ratten for everything.

No we didn't get McInnes with the pick, we got Mitchell !!!

If you don't understand the rationale behind calling the Crows bluff then I am not going to explain it for you.

Jacobs just played in a final for us as first-ruck and the Crows were screaming out for a readymade first-ruck and should of paid more than they did to get one.

If you're going to argue a point, get your facts straight.

We traded Jacobs for draft selections 33 and 67 - a 2nd and 4th round selection which we used to select Patrick McCarthy and Andrew McInnes.

Mitchell was drafted with a pick upgrade we received as part of the Laidler trade.

I understand perfectly the notion of calling a bluff, but if you're kicking up this sort of fuss about receiving 2 talented youngsters in exchange for Jacobs, I shudder at the thought of your reaction had we 'called their bluff', sent Jacobs into the draft and received nothing in return for him.

Again, I reiterate - we wanted that first round pick, and rightly so. But the Crows were never going to give that up. You are off your rocker if you think the club would be better off making a stand and losing Jacobs for nothing, as opposed to receiving two players who could well turn out to be very good long term players for the football club.

 

[JustaBattler]

Saad doesn't even come into any consideration.
Just because he played with the NB's doesn't bring him any closer to us.

So we should have put our foot down. Then what?

Tell me what you think could have been achieved with Jacobs other than we could have done better, which in fairness may have been possible if push came to shove.
Maybe it could have been and maybe it would not have been, so what should have we asked for in order to do the right thing by one of our players.

Remember though, treating players with disrespect can come back to bite you.
So what have been a fair deal?

You know Harks - the way Jacobs was allowed to go where he wanted to go instead of staying where we wanted him to stay is what the debate is about. Since he didnt wish to stay - he was hardly a Carlton player. If we couldn't get a fair deal from Adelaide- then the only deal was a no deal. Which means "off to the draft Sam - we tried to organise what you wanted but Adelaide dont rate you very high, judging by what they are offering ... - since you wish to leave - then unfortunateluy it is off to the draft for you mate and all the best "

Why is the issue important? because it would have sent a clear signal to all cubs and all players about how Carlton trades fairly - or not.

As for Saad - he wanted to play for Carlton - apparently we just didn't have the room for his type of player on the list

 

[HARKER]

You know Harks - the way Jacobs was allowed to go where he wanted to go instead of staying where we wanted him to stay is what the debate is about. Since he didnt wish to stay - he was hardly a Carlton player. If we couldn't get a fair deal from Adelaide- then the only deal was a no deal. Which means "off to the draft Sam - we tried to organise what you wanted but Adelaide dont rate you very high, judging by what they are offering ... - since you wish to leave - then unfortunateluy it is off to the draft for you mate and all the best "

Why is the issue important? because it would have sent a clear signal to all cubs and all players about how Carlton trades fairly - or not.

As for Saad - he wanted to play for Carlton - apparently we just didn't have the room for his type of player on the list

Re. Saad: Why would we invest in Saad when we would have been confronted with the same problem we had with Jacobs, by having too much of the same type?
At the time Garlett and Betts had been shown to be more than durable and had just come off 50 goal seasons.

Again, I agree we got short changed on Jacobs, as a mid 20 something would have been around the mark.
We got #34 and if I recall no one was exactly thrilled for the number but no one really believed we'd get #14 either.
Would have we received that somewhere else and met all objectives? Again, may be we would have and may be we wouldn't have.
Has anyone anything tangible to show we would have?

Whichever way that is now history and neither Icke nor Ratten are with us any longer, nor is Hughes the head recruiter.
Sort of all a bit of crying over spilt milk, isn't it?

 

[JustaBattler]

Re. Saad: Why would we invest in Saad when we would have been confronted with the same problem we had with Jacobs, by having too much of the same type?
At the time Garlett and Betts had been shown to be more than durable and had just come off 50 goal seasons.

Again, I agree we got short changed on Jacobs, as a mid 20 something would have been around the mark.
We got #34 and if I recall no one was exactly thrilled for the number but no one really believed we'd get #14 either.
Would have we received that somewhere else and met all objectives? Again, may be we would have and may be we wouldn't have.
Has anyone anything tangible to show we would have?

Whichever way that is now history and neither Icke nor Ratten are with us any longer, nor is Hughes the head recruiter.
Sort of all a bit of crying over spilt milk, isn't it?

Who is crying? It is pretty clear that the Club learned it lesson regarding Jacobs type situations - Warnock is on a new contract after all ...as for Saad - he is class mate - Clubs always have room for class ...

 

[Silvagnis]

How did we fold?

You live in La La land if you're prepared to walk away with nothing after losing a player.

You know Harks - the way Jacobs was allowed to go where he wanted to go instead of staying where we wanted him to stay is what the debate is about. Since he didnt wish to stay - he was hardly a Carlton player. If we couldn't get a fair deal from Adelaide- then the only deal was a no deal. Which means "off to the draft Sam - we tried to organise what you wanted but Adelaide dont rate you very high, judging by what they are offering ... - since you wish to leave - then unfortunateluy it is off to the draft for you mate and all the best "

Why is the issue important? because it would have sent a clear signal to all cubs and all players about how Carlton trades fairly - or not.

As for Saad - he wanted to play for Carlton - apparently we just didn't have the room for his type of player on the list

In the unlikely event that Sauce wanted to come back to Carlton and we had just one ruckman like Adelaide with Maric, what would you trade for him?

I wouldn't part with a pick as high as 11. Or the likes of Watson or Lucas.

We traded fairly by sending Jacobs and Grigg to the clubs of their choice for the best possible result. You can't act like a brat by kicking and screaming that you wouldn't trade unless you get what you want. If we had have done that, then no one would trade with you down the track. Geelong were willing to deal on Laidler without cracking the sads like you lot would have done if you were in their shoes.

Saad would have cost us Bootsma.

 

[Monkey King]

Yes you are, albeit indirectly.

By saying that the whole Jacobs situation would not have eventuated had Mick already been at the club at the time, you are placing the blame on Ratten.

Spin it any way you like, it simply doesn't matter. Sorry, but I must have missed the memo where we have to blame Ratten for everything.

No mate. No I'm not at all. It's just the way your mind processes the information. Don't confuse that for how mine does or for some external representation of truth. I don't blame Ratten at all, but I do believe this wouldn't have occurred under Mick. Do you think it possible that one could blame Ratten and yet still believe this would happen under Mick? Of course it's possible, because these aren't dependent beliefs.

 

[JustaBattler]

How did we fold?

You live in La La land if you're prepared to walk away with nothing after losing a player.

In the unlikely event that Sauce wanted to come back to Carlton and we had just one ruckman like Adelaide with Maric, what would you trade for him?

I wouldn't part with a pick as high as 11. Or the likes of Watson or Lucas.

We traded fairly by sending Jacobs and Grigg to the clubs of their choice for the best possible result.


You can't act like a brat by kicking and screaming that you wouldn't trade unless you get what you want. If we had have done that, then no one would trade with you down the track. Geelong were willing to deal on Laidler without cracking the sads like you lot would have done if you were in their shoes.

Saad would have cost us Bootsma.

Lets agree to disagree on the basics and leave it at that.

 

[HARKER]

Who is crying? It is pretty clear that the Club learned it lesson regarding Jacobs type situations - Warnock is on a new contract after all ...as for Saad - he is class mate - Clubs always have room for class ...

You go to school with him?

Sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.
I'm not unhappy we missed out for him and don't see how he would have made us better either.

 

[LordLucifer]

I understand perfectly the notion of calling a bluff, but if you're kicking up this sort of fuss about receiving 2 talented youngsters in exchange for Jacobs, I shudder at the thought of your reaction had we 'called their bluff', sent Jacobs into the draft and received nothing in return for him.

You just don't get it do you ??

They wanted Jacobs but they wanted him for bugger all and we allowed that to happen.

We should of gone to Jacobs and told him that if he wants to get to Adelaide that he should speak with them and get them to offer up something that we would of considered acceptable to ensure he gets to the club of his choice. Failing that, we will put him in the PSD and he has to take his chances, he could of ended up at Gold Coast.

That way, the Crows then have the ball in their court to make a decent trade for the player they needed badly or they were going to miss out completely, a situation they sure as hell would of wanted to avoid.

If they didn't come to the party then PSD it is for him, they lose out just as much as us and Jacobs pays the penalty too.

Why the hell should we just meekly hand over a first-ruck to a club in dire need of one ??

It's time we made a stand at the trade table and did business on our terms, not the opposition clubs ones. We had the same scenario with Richmond & Grigg, did we push the issue to get a fair return ?? Of course not !!

And for the record, all we got from Adelaide for Jacobs was basically an upgrade in our picks via the Laidler deal !!

Lastly, don't trot out that palava about receiving 'two talented youngsters' in exchange for Jacobs, there are no guarentees that you will get a decent player in the draft, its all a goddam lottery.

I bet you wouldn't be so high & mighty if we had of drafted Viv Mitchie & Ben Mabon ........ ???

 

[LordLucifer]

You know Harks - the way Jacobs was allowed to go where he wanted to go instead of staying where we wanted him to stay is what the debate is about. Since he didnt wish to stay - he was hardly a Carlton player. If we couldn't get a fair deal from Adelaide- then the only deal was a no deal. Which means "off to the draft Sam - we tried to organise what you wanted but Adelaide dont rate you very high, judging by what they are offering ... - since you wish to leave - then unfortunateluy it is off to the draft for you mate and all the best "

Why is the issue important? because it would have sent a clear signal to all cubs and all players about how Carlton trades fairly - or not.

As for Saad - he wanted to play for Carlton - apparently we just didn't have the room for his type of player on the list

Good work Battler, that is exactly the way it should have gone !!

Nice to know that someone else can see the rationale & logic of playing tough.

If we happened to lose that player that time around, so be it, the message would of been sent to the rest of the clubs and we would be in a much better position in the future.

 

[LordLucifer]

We traded fairly by sending Jacobs and Grigg to the clubs of their choice for the best possible result.

There are so many holes in that sentence it laughable !!

 

[TNBT]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there really are some ****ing morons on this board. The same clowns are yelling the same thing over and over again - "We shouldn't have accepted what we got. We should have demanded more". However, none of these fools are willing to open their eyes to the reality that if we didn't take what we could get from the Crows, then WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN NOTHING.

Apparently they seem to believe that alienating a player, which hurts our reputation when it comes to other players wanting to come here in the future, plus letting that player walk and getting zero in return is a more desirable result than showing that we are considerate of our players and recieving two talented young prospects.

 

[Aphrodite]

We are done.

Sam is an Adelaide player and he has done very well for himself and should have been AA.

I am sure we all wish him well.