Steak knives

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Agreed.

The logic applied doesn't really make sense in my opinion.

Follow the idea through. Brisbane trade us their first, If GWS had taken De Goey with pick 4 and we took Pickett with pick 5, by the logic applied Brisbane would have underpaid? Even though they gave the exact same pick?

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You can make the argument Crisp was given up too easily, but when you start saying they effectively traded De Goey and Greenwood aswell you loose me.

The higher the pick the better the chances of landing a quality player. Thats why pick 5 was very valuable in that deal, because it was a pretty shallow draft and the best chance of getting quality is to get as high a pick as possible. Chances are far higher that you will get a top 5 player with a top five pick than with a pick in the 20's. Youre certainly right that De Goey landing in our arms has made the Beams deal even better, but thats exactly why you do trades......to improve the odds of nailing the right selection at the draft.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

The higher the pick the better the chances of landing a quality player. Thats why pick 5 was very valuable in that deal, because it was a pretty shallow draft and the best chance of getting quality is to get as high a pick as possible. Chances are far higher that you will get a top 5 player with a top five pick than with a pick in the 20's. Youre certainly right that De Goey landing in our arms has made the Beams deal even better, but thats exactly why you do trades......to improve the odds of nailing the right selection at the draft.

Agreed.

I guess my point is that, yes, if we had our time over knowing what we know now i would expect we would do that deal, we probably are better positioned now than if we hadn't done the deal. Our picks have come good and we are looking to be the winners out of that deal.

I guess the differentiation I'm trying to make is that doesn't necessarily mean Brisbane overpaid for Beams. Being in their position its a deal you have to do, and you'd do every day of the week. They gave up a high pick, which there is always going to be that risk associated with, and "steak knives" for a guaranteed legit gun.

The analogy i'd like to use is, would you prefer to have 100% certainty of having Ben Cunnington on your list or have a lucky dip at Nat Fyfe or Ben Kennedy, 50/50. I think just because you end up with Nat Fyfe doesn't really mean the other team took an L on that deal.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Mate, i have a signed Beams jersey still in my cupboard, planned on getting it framed just before the rumours started. Can't take it out but getting rid of it seems wrong.

Also agree with your assessment of the two more recently. Wouldn't trade Treloar for Beams, no way.

I'd even go as far as to say Treloar at 23 < Beams at 23.

It seems only fair that you should trade the jumper for something of lesser value that ages well over time. Sell it and invest in wine instead. A 'crisp' red

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Getting pedantic with ages again, Beams was 22 in the season he was our best and fairest in a prelim final team, so he was absolutely better at that age

At 23 in my opinion is when Treloar passed Beams, age for age. It was the year after Beams won the Copeland and I don't think he had the year he had the previous year. He played 8 games in 2013 and got 1 Brownlow vote. 28.5 disposals a game compared to Treloars 30.6 in 2016 when he was 23. Treloar also polled 21 brownlow votes that year, higher than Beams had ever polled.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

It seems only fair that you should trade the jumper for something of lesser value that ages well over time. Sell it and invest in wine instead. A 'crisp' red

Hahahaha thats great.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Agreed.

I guess my point is that, yes, if we had our time over knowing what we know now i would expect we would do that deal, we probably are better positioned now than if we hadn't done the deal. Our picks have come good and we are looking to be the winners out of that deal.

I guess the differentiation I'm trying to make is that doesn't necessarily mean Brisbane overpaid for Beams. Being in their position its a deal you have to do, and you'd do every day of the week. They gave up a high pick, which there is always going to be that risk associated with, and "steak knives" for a guaranteed legit gun.

The analogy i'd like to use is, would you prefer to have 100% certainty of having Ben Cunnington on your list or have a lucky dip at Nat Fyfe or Ben Kennedy, 50/50. I think just because you end up with Nat Fyfe doesn't really mean the other team took an L on that deal.

Just my opinion anyway.

Youre still not doing it right. Happy to agree to disagree on your opinion but youre still getting the basic facts wrong.

They gave up a high pick, with associated risks but it was a very high pick with a high chance of success, and a very good pick in the 20's which youve conveniently overlooked that they could have used on , and a very good set of steaknives that they had under their nose for three years and failed to identify or develop. It was a shit deal for them. All for a player who had one good season and still has had only one good season.

And if you look a little closely, the "Greenwood" part of the deal was them giving up pick 25. They could have drafted Maynard with that pick!!!

 

[jathanas]

No club lost that trade - both teams ended up better.

At Collingwood, the addition of Crisp, Greenwood and DeGoey obviously more than compensated for the loss of Beams.

At Brisbane, they’re much better for having Beams’ onfield leadership which more than compensated for the loss of Crisp plus the cost of two picks equivalent to Greenwood and DeGoey.

Win-win for the win!

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Youre still not doing it right. Happy to agree to disagree on your opinion but youre still getting the basic facts wrong.

They gave up a high pick, with associated risks but it was a very high pick with a high chance of success, and a very good pick in the 20's which youve conveniently overlooked that they could have used on , and a very good set of steaknives that they had under their nose for three years and failed to identify or develop. It was a shit deal for them. All for a player who had one good season and still has had only one good season.

And if you look a little closely, the "Greenwood" part of the deal was them giving up pick 25. They could have drafted Maynard with that pick!!!

I don't want be blunt, but if you think giving up a 1st, a 2nd and late pick for Beams is a "shit deal", you've got no idea.

I dont understand why people have this false idea in their head that Brisbane gave up De Goey and Greenwood for Beams, and now you're twisting in that they potentially gave up Maynard? That's not the way trading or drafting works.Brisbane gave up uncertainty for certainty. Brisbane didn't give up De Goey, they gave up the rights to draft the 5th best player in the draft, which may have been De Goey, or Pickett, or McCartin. Just because we drafted De Goey, doesn't mean Brisbane gave up De Goey. Just because we traded a Pick Brisbane traded us for Greenwood, doesn't mean Brisbane gave away Greenwood. I don't understand why this concept is so confusing...

Again, I've asked it before and haven't got an answer from anybody who thinks Brisbane got bent over: Would you trade next years 1st rounder, 2nd rounder and Ben Crocker for Josh Kelly or Marcus Bontempelli?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't want be blunt, but if you think giving up a 1st, a 2nd and late pick for Beams is a "shit deal", you've got no idea.

I dont understand why people have this false idea in their head that Brisbane gave up De Goey and Greenwood for Beams, and now you're twisting in that they potentially gave up Maynard? That's not the way trading or drafting works.Brisbane gave up uncertainty for certainty. Brisbane didn't give up De Goey, they gave up the rights to draft the 5th best player in the draft, which may have been De Goey, or Pickett, or McCartin. Just because we drafted De Goey, doesn't mean Brisbane gave up De Goey. Just because we traded a Pick Brisbane traded us for Greenwood, doesn't mean Brisbane gave away Greenwood. I don't understand why this concept is so confusing...

Again, I've asked it before and haven't got an answer from anybody who thinks Brisbane got bent over: Would you trade next years 1st rounder, 2nd rounder and Ben Crocker for Josh Kelly or Marcus Bontempelli?

As I said I'm happy to agree to disagree. But at least you got your facts right this time.

Yeah the Maynard quip was a throwaway line. But it is a fact that we drafted Maynard at 30!!!

And I would argue that there was just as much uncertainty with Beams as there would have been going to the draft and taking best available at 5. Beams has proven to be injury prone as indeed he was at Collingwood.