Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[jenny61_99]

I still can't understand where the confusion is coming from.

Yes, Crouch is a new recruit in 2013.

No, it doesn't make up in any way for having lost our picks, since had we kept them we'd have him as well anyway.

It seems pretty simple to me...

And I don't think anyone is saying it is. Just that the blow is softened somewhat with his addition to the squad next year. Next year, unless we are active at trading for upgraded picks or bring a free agent in, is a different story.

 

[Wright Away]

And I don't think anyone is saying it is. Just that the blow is softened somewhat with his addition to the squad next year. Next year, unless we are active at trading for upgraded picks or bring a free agent in, is a different story.

It isn't softened at all because prior to the penalties we were getting Crouch anyway....We traded away 2011 picks to get Crouch, in no conceivable way is it softened.

 

[Sanders]

It isn't softened at all because prior to the penalties we were getting Crouch anyway....We traded away 2011 picks to get Crouch, in no conceivable way is it softened.

Yup. Got it in one

 

[cmndstab]

And I don't think anyone is saying it is. Just that the blow is softened somewhat with his addition to the squad next year. Next year, unless we are active at trading for upgraded picks or bring a free agent in, is a different story.

No, this is exactly my point. The blow is not "softened" by Crouch being added to the squad. He was already being added! To claim the blow is softened implies that something is being done to offset the punishment, but nothing is being done. Crouch was already being added. We'd already given up picks for him.

Now, if we'd agreed last year to give up our two top picks this year for Crouch, then you could say the blow was softened. It would mean that the punishment didn't affect us as much as it would have without the Crouch deal. But as it stands? The punishment is just as strong as it would be if we'd never taken Crouch.

Again, the Crows could come out and say "we have a strong list so top draft picks are not the imperative they were for Carlton" and it would be a fair statement. They could even tie Crouch into the statement, saying that they have young elite players like Crouch already on the list. But this isn't what they've stated. Instead they've tried to pass off last year's trade as some clever trick to circumvent losing their picks this year. It's extremely disingenuous and, frankly, kind of embarrassing.

I've been struggling to think of a good analogy and I just can't come up with one. Someone help me out here.

 

[cmndstab]

Imagine you go to a restaurant and order a soup. Then you figure you only need an entree sized meal since you're having a soup.

Then when you get the soup you spill it all over the floor. You wouldn't then say "the fact that my entree meal is coming softens the blow". You were going to get it anyway, and the entree meal doesn't grow to cover the gap left by the soup. If you hadn't spilled the soup you'd have a full meal. Instead, you now have the sum of a full meal minus the soup. The fact that you have another portion of your meal coming out doesn't change the fact that you are now precisely one soup short of a full meal.


Yes I know it's a shitty analogy but it's 1AM and it's the best I'm going to come up with before I collapse into bed.


Edit: I guess the best way to think of it is, in order to measure a loss, you need to be able to compare it against a base case. What would you have had if you didn't suffer the loss? Then, what do you have after suffering the loss. The difference is what you have lost, in real terms. The ratio is a measure of severity, or impact.

In this case we lost some good draft picks and gained some crappy ones. Crouch doesn't even come into the equation - we had the right to place him on our list "for free" initially, and we still had that right after the punishment was handed out. His entry onto our list is a nonfactor in measuring the punishment.

 

[FR0GGY]

My money is on 30,000 posts!

Quote worthy

 

[FR0GGY]

My money is on 30,000 posts!

Quote worthy

 

[FR0GGY]

My money is on 30,000 posts!

Quote worthy

 

[CrowAboutIt]

Quick question??? Why the **** is this thread still going?? Guys i guarantee we will be a better team without him.. Johnson/Jenkins and even Mckernan have such a bigger upside to that soft mofo that was possibly stopping us from retaining our future stars (Crouch, Smith, Whoeva) Trust me can we move on or do we have to wait until the end of the year to see that he has kicked 15 goals in 14 games and 5 of them were against schoenmakers???

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Quick question??? Why the **** is this thread still going?? Guys i guarantee we will be a better team without him.. Johnson/Jenkins and even Mckernan have such a bigger upside to that soft mofo that was possibly stopping us from retaining our future stars (Crouch, Smith, Whoeva) Trust me can we move on or do we have to wait until the end of the year to see that he has kicked 15 goals in 14 games and 5 of them were against schoenmakers???

its the offseason, there isnt that much else going on.

 

[Geoffa32]

Calling it now Josh Jenkins will be better than Tippett as a forward.

Will have a better goal per game average in 2012 and more total goals in 2013

 

[Godallblighty]

Quick question??? Why the **** is this thread still going?? Guys i guarantee we will be a better team without him.. Johnson/Jenkins and even Mckernan MAY have such a bigger upside to that soft mofo that was possibly stopping us from retaining our future stars (Crouch, Smith, Whoeva) Trust me can we move on or do we have to wait until the end of the year to see that he has kicked 15 goals in 14 games and 5 of them were against schoenmakers???

EFA. Just because Tippett has revealed himself to be a knob, does not mean he is not still a very good player...and he was never soft. We MAY be better off without him, given that he didn't want to be in Adelaide, but he is a big man entering the portion of his career where they usually hit their prime. He will be very good at Sydney. Johnson, JJ and Smack have shown nothing to match Tippett so far. Hopefully, at least one of them will but your guarantee that they will is meaningless.

Oh...and the thread is still going because people like you (and me) keep adding posts to it.

 

[SydCrow]

This thread will outlast the end of the world

 

[Glenno23]

Calling it now Josh Jenkins will be better than Tippett as a forward.

Will have a better goal per game average in 2012 and more total goals in 2013

It will, Tex won't (hopefully) get suspended this year!

 

[Stripple]

So you keep saying




Well if the crows said that he must have been a first round pick, we'd never spin.

Got anything to suggest its true?
Something from shifter, quayle, phantom's, afl articles pre draft etc?

Because i don't believe it



Only if we accept your premise on Brown, and I don't. I think he was largely an unknown, not a top 20 pick as we spun

Well either way we got a bargain compared to the other mini draft buys. I don't think crouchs asking price was too much.

 

[Tex200]

EFA. Just because Tippett has revealed himself to be a knob, does not mean he is not still a very good player...and he was never soft. We MAY be better off without him, given that he didn't want to be in Adelaide, but he is a big man entering the portion of his career where they usually hit their prime. He will be very good at Sydney. Johnson, JJ and Smack have shown nothing to match Tippett so far. Hopefully, at least one of them will but your guarantee that they will is meaningless.

Oh...and the thread is still going because people like you (and me) keep adding posts to it.

Very good player? I'm sure we could stretch out another few pages debating that .

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Very good player? I'm sure we could stretch out another few pages debating that .

No we couldn't.

Unless you are suggesting Sydney have a bunch of idiots running the club. Is that your theory?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

No we couldn't.

Unless you are suggesting Sydney have a bunch of idiots running the club. Is that your theory?

I bet youre real fun to have at dinner parties

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I bet youre real fun to have at dinner parties

Oh dear. This one of yours too is it? Another winner.

Has the sheer idiocy of your theory come crashing home?

 

[Elite Crow]

I bet youre real fun to have at dinner parties

Actually I reckon Carl would be good value, unless you wanted the party to agree on the same topic all night, then he would suck

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Actually I reckon Carl would be good value, unless you wanted the party to agree on the same topic all night, then he would suck

I picture him sitting in the corner whinging about why the veggies were cooked wrong and how shit everything is.

EDIT:

Very good player? I'm sure we could stretch out another few pages debating that .

No we couldn't.

Unless you are suggesting Sydney have a bunch of idiots running the club. Is that your theory?

Someone made a light hearted comment. CS disagreed and shot him down. thats not fun dinner discussion, thats someone aggressively shutting down discussion.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Oh dear. This one of yours too is it? Another winner.

Has the sheer idiocy of your theory come crashing home?

I dont really understand the first part. The second part is another of your assumptions. I think you'll find if you go back through my posts (though accuracy hasnt been your thing so i dont see you fact checking) i didnt actually commit to a theory because i knew it was all based on assumptions.

I figured youd get better at arguing over all this time, but youre just a bitter mean little man. #winning

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Oh dear. This one of yours too is it? Another winner.

Has the sheer idiocy of your theory come crashing home?

actually carl I owe you an apology, i did commit to thinking Trigg would stay... idiocy?

 

[Tex200]

s

No we couldn't.

Unless you are suggesting Sydney have a bunch of idiots running the club. Is that your theory?

I'm not suggesting anything in relation to the Swans admin. I will however suggest Tippett is not a very good player. Hes not. And the record proves he's not a very good player.

I welcome any reference to his record which proves otherwise.

You could start by telling me of his AA selections....hell lets call just settle for squad nominations. Club champion awards? Maybe even a top 5 finish.? How about number of games he kicked more than 4 goals...hes a power fwd after all? How many times was he even in our best players? Anything will do.

As a comparison imo its fair to describe Lance Franklin as a very good player. Jonathan Brown is a very good player. You think Tippett belongs in that company?

 

[Woodie99]

Tippett's Gone, was the OP, think it's time to move on people. It's obvious we will have agree to disagree on this matter, only time will tell on this whole saga. The future for both clubs looks bright & we should be focusing on that. I for one am sick of all the negiativity shown from supporters of both clubs, whats done is done.

I think Tippett was the missing link in our forward line, he's big, can take a contested mark & most importantly takes the pressure of Reid, it will be interesting to see if we tweek our game plan with the addition of Tippett. I can't see much change asu'll need to find he really suit the way we played in 2012.

It will also be interesting to see how you club goes without him, all things aside, he is an imposing figure in any forward line & you'll need to someone to take his place. Jenkins is the obvious replacement as he is simialiar in stature. I also see that a lot are hoping Johnston can take the next step, I for one hope he does, he's a good kid who just needs to be given a go no matter what, I think its just a confidance thing.

Anyway, hope everyone has a good Xmas & we can all focus on 2013 & what awaits for us all.