Sugar Kane - good bloke

[Portmanteau]

You must be counting your lucky stars he's not a prick like a couple of chaps we've seen this trading period...

 

[Mong]

He is a good bloke.

But he did nothing different to Nick Stevens who is also a good bloke. They both named the club they wanted to go to. The difference was Adelaide and Richmond wanted to make a deal, Port and Collingwood were too stubborn.


****

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by ****
Port and Collingwood were too stubborn.


****

No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

Exactly. Had Richmond offered crap would have you taken it?
Nothing unusual or totally wrong with players wanting to go home after a long spell.
It happens.
Plenty wrong with both player and another Club trying to screw the **** out of you because of so called home sickness.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

"Victorian w@nkers" is a bit unfair.

It was only Collingwood who were being stingy.

Carlton were prepared to offer a good deal but Stevens wouldn't accept.

We were lucky that Johnson never openly declared that he only wanted to go to Richmond. But I wonder... if we couldn't work out a suitable deal with the club Kane supported as a kid, would he have agreed to go somewhere else? By all reports at the time he would have, but we don't really know.

Meanwhile I'm very impressed that Hawthorn have lost Rawlings to the pre-season draft and still got something in return for him.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

they way I see it

Port lost out

Nick Stevens lost out

Carlton - party of the century!!!

k
xx

 

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

I take my hat off to Collingwood for standing up to Port. Stevens is an overrated, pansy midfielder who was only barely worth pick 17, let alone pick 17 and a good player. Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens.

Stevens is the type of player who will only survive in a good team where he gets fed lots of easy ball, he is a lazy pansy who does not like to work hard and go and get the ball for himself. Good luck at Carlton, pansy.

Port were being unbelievably greedy asking for two first round draft picks. And they got their just desserts for it.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by spindoctor
I take my hat off to Collingwood for standing up to Port. Stevens is an overrated, pansy midfielder who was only barely worth pick 17, let alone pick 17 and a good player. Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens.

Stevens is the type of player who will only survive in a good team where he gets fed lots of easy ball, he is a lazy pansy who does not like to work hard and go and get the ball for himself. Good luck at Carlton, pansy.

Port were being unbelievably greedy asking for two first round draft picks. And they got their just desserts for it.

ditto

k
xx

 

[lozstar]

Originally posted by DaveW
Meanwhile I'm very impressed that Hawthorn have lost Rawlings to the pre-season draft and still got something in return for him.

Is that what the AFL is going to investigate them about?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
I take my hat off to Collingwood for standing up to Port. Stevens is an overrated, pansy midfielder who was only barely worth pick 17, let alone pick 17 and a good player. Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens.

Stevens is the type of player who will only survive in a good team where he gets fed lots of easy ball, he is a lazy pansy who does not like to work hard and go and get the ball for himself. Good luck at Carlton, pansy.

Port were being unbelievably greedy asking for two first round draft picks. And they got their just desserts for it.

What a load of rubbish. He is a very good footballer who would have EASILY made our best 22.

Stevens was worth any of those player (except Licuria) and Pick 17. I actually take my hat of to Port for standing up. Stevens thought he could force Port's hand to trade him to Collingwood and Magpies thought they would rape Port. Well think again, by making this stand no player or club will try to pull off another dirty trick like that.

While I think Stevens is worth nowhere near $500K a season he was definetly worth 2 mid 1st round picks in THIS year's draft. Pick 2 alone was more than enough for him. Personally, i think his true worth was Pick 5.

 

[lozstar]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
. Personally, i think his true worth was Pick 5.

Apparently they were offered that from Melbourne.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by lozstar
Apparently they were offered that from Melbourne.

They were but Stevens didn't want to go to Melbourne. They offered a player as well.

Best deal was Pick 2 and Beamount from Carlton but Stevens did a backflip.

What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens.

 

[spindoctor]

Pull it again, Stiffy. If you've ever bothered to watch bloody Stevens, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Soft, soft, soft, soft. A receiver, a lazy pansy who only goes well when he is being fed easy ball in good teams - ie not Carlton. Like how Heffernan and Blumfield could look good in a rampant Essendon side, and ordinary at crapper clubs.

He is not a hard player, I know penty of PORT supporters who agree completely and are happy to see the back of him. No passengers in our team, thanks.

 

[Stiffy_18]

No u pull it

He is a deadset winger in my books and thats his ****ing role. I am sick of these people bagging Nick Stevens. For ****s sake he was Port's best player against Collingwood in the finals. He is a VERY skillful midfielder and would make our side EASILY.

Originally posted by spindoctor
F Rutten Stevens Johncock
HF Welsh Carey Ladhams
C Burton Ricciuto Stenglein
HB Edwards McGregor Massie
B Bassett Parker Hart

R Biglands McLeod Goodwin

I Schuback, Shirley, Clarke, Burns

E Perrie Begley Bode

...and those blokes I highlited are not soft receivers??????

 

[spindoctor]

Burton is also an excellent mark and forward line player. And Ladhams is a great goalsneak as well. Burns is not a midfielder, he is solely a forward line player.

Those three are either different to Stevens or have other abilities which are better than his.

Stevens is a soft-ass pansy. His performance against Collingwood was crap - he may have racked up 26-odd disposals, but his actual influence was minimal. Like Matty Connell, you can get plenty of the ball without being a good player.

He doesn't deserve to make our side, he can bugger off to Carlton where he will get shown up as the soft receiver he is.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens.

If Nick Stevens is a soft seagull, what on earth does that make Ryan Lonie?

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens.

First I've heard of that!

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by DaveW
First I've heard of that!

Williams compared the Port squad to Brisbane. Said something like how Brisbane is the yardstick and that the Lions showed how AFL players could play in finals with colds, injuries and without being contracted.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Jerome
Williams compared the Port squad to Brisbane. Said something like how Brisbane is the yardstick and that the Lions showed how AFL players could play in finals with colds, injuries and without being contracted.

You could direct that at more than just Stevens, and it's a fair enough point too.
He just forgot to add that Matthews is also able to come up with plans B, C and D as required.

As much as we on the Port board think Williams has a few flaws with his coaching, we also see he has a lot of good points, some of which command a lot of respect.
Being a straightshooter is one of them.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
They were but Stevens didn't want to go to Melbourne. They offered a player as well.

Best deal was Pick 2 and Beamount from Carlton but Stevens did a backflip.

What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens.

Apparently Beaumont refused to leave Melbourne so that deal was up s##t creek,

Maybe what Stevens done was below the belt but he was just following his dream of playing for the same club as his dad,

What would have made it more acceptable was if he had said from day 1 that Collingwood was the only club he was willing to go to & not take the paps & others for a bloody ride,

Well done to Port Adelaide for standing by their principles but how come they didn't follow the Hawthorn/Bulldogs lead & make a dummy trade agreement with Carlton ??

 

[Nige_Bix]

Originally posted by noddy
Well done to Port Adelaide for standing by their principles but how come they didn't follow the Hawthorn/Bulldogs lead & make a dummy trade agreement with Carlton ??

I must have missed this - what did they do?

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by jfb313
I must have missed this - what did they do?

Here

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

I don't think anyone can be critical of Collingwood for this.

They can't be blamed for not wanting to depart with their players. Obviously they didn't want Stevens enough to offer more. And that's their choice. They're not obliged to part with their players for the sake of appeasing Port. It's definately not their fault that Stevens didn't want to play for anyone else and the reality is it isn't Collingwood's problem.

The cost for them is not getting Stevens and they are obviously happy to live with that. They were prepared to take him but not for what Port wanted. I don't get why people think Collingwood should be obliged to make a fair deal. They aren't. Everyone goes out there to win trades. Sometimes you take players if they are a bargain, but otherwise aren't that interested. Collingwood clearly had that stand with Stevens and I for one don't blame them. Their team is already quality and are on the way up. They are doing things right, they don't need to tamper with their team majorly to take the next step.

And Nick Stevens wanted to play for Collingwood. He was obviously taking the stand he thought that would give him the best chance to get there. And that was to refuse to be traded anywhere else. The AFL system allows this to happen because they allow players to have a say in trades. If there is a fault here it is the system. Stevens tried to use the system to his advantage. And I still think that was his only option to get to Collingwood, he did what he had to do. I would so the same to get to the Crows if I was any good and there'd probably be a few others on this board that would too. The simple fact is Port weren't going to trade him to Collingwood because Collingwood weren't keen enough to offer more. But from Nick's point of view Port weren't going to do him any favours so why should he do something to appease that club.

Every party in this situation was only thinking what was best for themselves. Port, Collingwood and Stevens. That's fair enough. None of them were trying to do good deeds for anyone else, Port included, otherwise he'd be at Collingwood now. That's the game we play. If Stevens was crap he'd be delisted straight away there'd be no loyalty or compensation to the player.

Nick Stevens didn't initially want to go to Port before he was drafted. That's the game and the risk that Port took. Players don't get a say. The game has reversed and for once a club gets shafted and I am happy that it happened the other way for once. No-one cares when a player is traded when he doesn't want to leave like Scott Cummings public declaration to Mark Williams a few years ago.

Stevens doesn't owe Port anything. He fullfilled his contracts and he played damn good football during that time.

And at least Port got 6 good years of football as return for drafting him. We got a big fat 0 for drafting Angwin with a much higher pick.

It's the system we play under and for once a player has dictated the terms and as far as I'm concerned it's about time someone got their own back on the system.

Stevens didn't get to go to the club he wanted to but he wasn't going to get there anyway. At least he made the club pay for it.

Clubs treat players like commodities. We all know they only do what's best for themselves. Why feel sorry for them? Especially when it's not our club.

[/end rant]


****

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by noddy
Well done to Port Adelaide for standing by their principles but how come they didn't follow the Hawthorn/Bulldogs lead & make a dummy trade agreement with Carlton ??

If Hawthorn didn't do that deal, then they probably would have traded Rawlings to North Melbourne to get what they could.

Port Adelaide made it quite clear they were never going to take what Collingwood was offering.

Carlton would be mad to give up their #2 pick on a guarantee that Port would send Stevens to the pre-season draft. Because (a) it was going to happen anyway; and (b) Carlton don't have first choice in the PSD (the Rawlings deal was only done at the last minute, so they wouldn't've known that the Bulldogs would be taking Rawlings first up in the PSD).

 

[DaveW]

****:

It's fair enough that Collingwood didn't want to sell the farm to give up Stevens. But why all the negative comments from the likes of Balme? Why all the whinging from the Collingwoood supporters on BF? They are very bitter about not getting Stevens, when it was them who decided not to take him.

That's why there's criticism of Collingwood.