Should we have let Gunston go in the PSD?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

When Gunston indicated he wanted to go home and Hawthorn was his club of choice should we have told him to get nicked?

Let him go in the PSD and told him to cross his fingers? GWS and Gold Coast both had picks in the PSD, and Hawthorn would have been a long way down the list.

I wonder now that if one of our players wants to go home whether they will be confident that we'll do the right thing by them and strike a deal to get them where they want to go.



PS - I openly acknowledge that at the time I wanted us to get maximum return in a trade and was not suggesting this course of action.

 

[FR0GGY]

Yep should have played hard ball with his mum and sent him to the psd.

 

[PykeDream]

Think Gunston is probably pondering whether Hawthorn was the right choice too

In hindsight it would have been a good idea perhaps, but at the time we thought it was crucial bargaining chip for Crouch/other pick upgrades. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person if we went down that route, but I just don't it could have been justified at the time. Would probably be best 22 every week at GWS, as they are missing Patton (Cameron too occasionally) and wouldn't have bothered with o'hAilpin.

 

[Paladin]

Yeah would of loved to watch him struggle with GWS.

 

[MelbourneCrow]

Yeah would of loved to watch him struggle with GWS.

Seconded. Still not happy with him. I think even the Crows fans in the Ponsford the other day got fed up with me yelling out and asking him if he was happy living with Mummy now .

 

[johnnypanther]

No- i dont believe that letting a player go in the PSD deters other players in the future from asking to be traded to a specific club.

In any case, its simply magnifying our losses if we just let them go into the PSD.

When Nick Stevens left Port, i didnt see any future deterrence to others that occurred. Josh Carr still departed.

 

[relapse]

No- i dont believe that letting a player go in the PSD deters other players in the future from asking to be traded to a specific club.

In any case, its simply magnifying our losses if we just let them go into the PSD.

When Nick Stevens left Port, i didnt see any future deterrence to others that occurred. Josh Carr still departed.

I dont agree

I have worried in the past that we've created on open door policy by continually trading guys especially ones that dont deserve it to the club's of their choice.

For me when we are giving guys like Hudson, Watts and Gunston who walked out on us a red carpet ride to their preferred club, often accepting unders in trade value, is a very slippery slope. All this does IMO is create a culture where players will look at the club a temporary destination and will come to us with the mentality that we'll eventually deliver them to their preferred club on a silver platter.

I would argue that by letting Stevens go into the PSD that Port put clubs on notice that they wont accept half assed trades (look what they got for Carr). THey also showed the footy world that the club has no obligation to trade players who want to leave the club to their club of choice.

 

[cmndstab]

I'm always conflicted on this issue, but just for flavour:

Our trade for Gunston effectively netted us Kerridge, Grigg and Jenkins. Ironically for all the Bigfooty posts decrying people who suggest the "one piece of gold for three pieces of bronze" type of trade suggestions, that's kind of what we ended up with I'm probably being harsh on Kerridge, he may turn out good.

 

[Huntercrow]

Yeah would of loved to watch him struggle with GWS.

But he's struggling with the Hawks. May get back in this week, not sure what his form is like in the VFL but think he may be on the outer, he did blow a chance 2 weeks ago to win the game but just wasn't up to it.

Jenkins is looking better by the week

 

[AFC979810]

But he's struggling with the Hawks. May get back in this week, not sure what his form is like in the VFL but think he may be on the outer, he did blow a chance 2 weeks ago to win the game but just wasn't up to it.

Jenkins is looking better by the week

The kids not even 21 yet... Lots of time left for him to develop. He isn't a mature age recruit who needs to make an immediate impact...

Also - would be extremely tough breaking into a fwd line that has Franklin/Roughy/Hale as the key targets...

 

[Sekaj]

Looks like he may be going down the Fergus Watts route.

Disclaimer: I'm not hoping he breaks his leg. Just that he fades into obscurity.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I am a massive Rendell fan but I do think we moved Gunston on too easily. I still think we should of traded him to North Melbourne for pick 18 and got a quality kid. Instead Hawthorn pulled one over us and forced our hand...

He wanted to go home to Victoria. He chose Hawthorn who obviously had more money left to spend than the other Victorian clubs

It does send a message to our players that we fold easily. Still admire Port for how they handled Nick Stevens..

 

[FAITH]

No we ended up getting a good deal for him.

 

[Hank93]

I'm always conflicted on this issue, but just for flavour:

Our trade for Gunston effectively netted us Kerridge, Grigg and Jenkins. Ironically for all the Bigfooty posts decrying people who suggest the "one piece of gold for three pieces of bronze" type of trade suggestions, that's kind of what we ended up with I'm probably being harsh on Kerridge, he may turn out good.

I would say this is a good deal. Kerridge looks a pretty good prospect, Grigg was highly touted by a lot of draft experts and Jenkins is a handy backup if Jacobs/McKernan go down.

I don't think we should consider Gunston "a piece of gold" either. He played 14 games at just over a goal a game. Nothing spectacular. I would have liked to keep him, but our return seems OK to me.

 

[srv23]

Would have loved to do it to him given what he did to us but in our position with our list as it was we needed to get the best possible return. Port were minor premiers and prelim finalists when they played hard ball on Stevens. Not sure we could afford to let a quality young player leave for nothing. Happy to get Kerridge Grigg and Jenkins in return.

Also amusing to see him playing in the two's. It's almost funnier than him getting a game week in week out getting smashed at GC/GWS.

 

[JP Sauce]

Him playing in the 2's is definitely funnier to me. If he was getting smashed playing for GC/GWS at least he'd be earning a shitload of money.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No we ended up getting a good deal for him.

We may well have, but what I'm wondering though is whether we have made ourselves more susceptible to players leaving in the future?

 

[srv23]

We may well have, but what I'm wondering though is whether we have made ourselves more susceptible to players leaving in the future?

It's hard to say Carl, we may well have. However if it was 05/06 and we were top 4 and a genuine contender it's a lot easier to let a talented 10 game kid walk out on the club to make a point but in the midst of rebuilding I'm not sure we have that luxury. If we lose a quality kid we need to make the best of it. Its not as though their final offer was insulting which it sounds like Collingwood's were (in the Stevens scenario). Also even though Gunna really shafted us he made it clear from the start that he wanted to go to Hawthorn which while it screws us in terms of what we can get, allowed us to negotiate with them in good faith. Stevens if i recall correctly stated he was happy to go to any Vic club and Port fielded offers from a range of vic clubs only to have Stevens tell them at the nth hour that he only wanted to go to Collingwood who then proceeded to offer them crap which is why they sent him to the PSD.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Him playing in the 2's is definitely funnier to me. If he was getting smashed playing for GC/GWS at least he'd be earning a shitload of money.

I am sure Hawthorn are paying him quite handsomely. They are the one's who got in his ear to not sign with Adelaide. The endless salary cap of the family club

 

[FAITH]

We may well have, but what I'm wondering though is whether we have made ourselves more susceptible to players leaving in the future?

Im of the opinion if a player is desperate to leave let him leave as long as we get a good deal for him.

This includes Tippet and Danger, if they are desperate to leave given we have done everything to keep them, then let them go and get the best deal possible.

I would be spewing now if we got nothing for Gunston id much rather have Kerridge and Jenkins

 

[FAITH]

I am sure Hawthorn are paying him quite handsomely. They are the one's who got in his ear to not sign with Adelaide. The endless salary cap of the family club

Ive been saying it for years but something STINKS down at that club, i only wish we could prove it

 

[johnnypanther]

I would argue that by letting Stevens go into the PSD that Port put clubs on notice that they wont accept half assed trades (look what they got for Carr). THey also showed the footy world that the club has no obligation to trade players who want to leave the club to their club of choice.

I would say that look what we got for Stenglein.

 

[afc1991]

No, its an archaic practice that acheives nothing. So port dug their heels in on stevens. He still got to his home state, they got nada.

Players get where they want to go these days. It doesnt just happen to our club, we got Jacobs for a song. Port got Ebert cheaply.

A player makes up his mind nominates a club, they get there. You make the best of it, and set your sights on getting someone for 'unders' from another club.

 

[swanfan]

No, its an archaic practice that acheives nothing. So port dug their heels in on stevens. He still got to his home state, they got nada.

Players get where they want to go these days. It doesnt just happen to our club, we got Jacobs for a song. Port got Ebert cheaply.

A player makes up his mind nominates a club, they get there. You make the best of it, and set your sights on getting someone for 'unders' from another club.

Game over..

 

[cmndstab]

I am a massive Rendell fan but I do think we moved Gunston on too easily. I still think we should of traded him to North Melbourne for pick 18 and got a quality kid. Instead Hawthorn pulled one over us and forced our hand...

I'm sure if we could have gotten pick 18 instead of pick 24 we would have. I assume Gunston told North Melbourne to back off because he wasn't interested.


In the end we traded pick 24 for several other picks only marginally lower than 24 anyway. I wonder, if we'd had 18, would we have traded that for similar picks?