Remove this Banner Ad

Trade Week Review.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

you jokers saying the pies failed in this trade week and are criticising the club need to get the mirror out and have a good long hard look

failed? we have gained a ruckman that is very arguably in the top 3 in the comp who is injury free having played 100+ consecutive games and is exactly the physical presence we have missed in the ruck for a long time. we are already top 4 and we have addressed our major deficiency by adding jolly. and we gave up sweet FA to get the deal done in real terms. massive massive win for the club and all credit to them for standing their ground in the dealings

sure ball would have been handy in the midfield. but he's not a matchwinner. he would have been the ideal replacement for obree as an in and under and clearance specialist
 
After the dust has settled..

We are left with trying to fit Cloke, Fraser, Anthony, Dawes and Rusling into our forward line..

Surely Rusling and Dawes would have been shopped around.. As one of those will miss out on a game fairly reguarlary..

Side for 2010 if we don't get Ball in the ND..

B: Shaw Presti O'Brien
HB: Goldsack N.Brown Maxwell
C: Thomas Pendlebury Didak
HF: Davis Cloke Fraser
F: Medhurst Dawes* Anthony

R: Jolly Swan Beams

INT: Wood Reid Sidebottom Lockyer

EMER FROM: L.Brown, O'Bree, Dick, Rusling, Macaffer, J.McCarthy, S.Cox, B.Johnson, Toovey, Wellingham, J.Blight

* now that we have retained Dawes, he must be played week in, week out..

Disappointing for guys like O'Bree and Johnson who will now struggle to get games if all are fit..

Thought Cox, Wellingham would have attracted a little bit of interest, will also struggle to get games..

But i must say our back 6 look solid, and hopefully now that goldy is staying, he will play all 22 games.. Terrific defender!

Still don't see us contending with the likes of St Kilda and Geelong next year.

But i think it looks promising for the future!

Side by Side 2010
 
We are seriously a joke of a club!! well maybe i shouldnt say WE...

yeah u shouldnt say we, cos softcoks like u have nothin to do with the club, and the club would be better off without weak fans like u
your post is a massive joke
 
mattys123 said:
We are now left with the following draft picks;

Pick 30 (Second round)
Pick 62 (Fourth round)
Pick 78 (Fifth Round)
Pick 94 (Sixth Round)

The draft doesnt seem that important anymore does it.

Maybe this will guarantee players like Cook, Corrie stay on the list, as we can't delist too many more.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that atleast 2 rookies get listed if not all. Remember blair, keefe, reed and francis are all rookies and I suspect because they have more development thank cook, corrie,stanly and bryan they may all take their place.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Something people forget is depth in your list goes a long way theses days.

To say we should've trade Dawes, Rusling (no value), Cox etc is really a misunderstanding of what Collingwood is trying to do, and that is build a strong enough list so that we are not heavily reliant on too many players.

As I see it now, Pendlebury and Didak are the only 2 players who if they were missing from our side, would make a large enough impact to severly hurt our chances of winning.

We now have depth in areas we have struggled in for years, rucks and forwards, and I see this as a good thing, but that might just be me, oh wait, it's not, the club is thinking the same way.:D
 
Can someone just clarify what this all means in respect of our future drafting this year?

As I see it we are only 1 senior palyer and 1 rookie less. We have 4 late draft picks in what is supposed to be a poor draft. Does that mean we elevate 1 rookie to complete our list and then draft 2 more rookies. Or a combo of delist some and elevate to cover ..??
 
I have to say I have some disappointment. If we are looking to win a flag in the near future, which by the acquisition of Jolly, is clear, then I don't see why we didn't go all the way and get Ball as well.

If we didn't get Jolly with the intention of winning a flag in the next 2 or 3 years, then keep the pick and draft another ruckman, or trade for one of the multitude of younger ruckman that were available like Mumford.

It just seems to me like we went half way in the 'win now' mindframe then were in two minds thinking about 'winning later'. With indecision like that it usually ends up you don't win now or later.

But you still have to say Jolly is a great pickup, and we should be better next season. However other teams have improved more.
 
IMO we had a good trade week. We landed a big fish and that was our main priority. Luke Ball wasn't a needs player, it would've been a bonus.

We have kept our list intact and that was a main priority.

I expect us to use 3 picks and a pick in the PSD. Therefore there should be 4 delistings off the main list along with Rocca and Clarke
 
Richmond traded for Nathan Brown and what did he bring to them. In fact, if you want to have a look at their lists in the last 3 decades, there has been a string of players from other clubs who were going to deliver premierships to them.... and all this hope did was to make a toothless tiger of the club when it came to drafting.

Tell me the last time that a traded player delivered a premiership? Barry Hall played well in the 2005 grand final. Byron Pickett and Wanganeen played well in Port's premiership. However, most of the time it is home-grown talent that dictates whether a team is successful

As for Mint who claims to be a Collingwood supporter....I can only say, how do you claim to support the club when all you're doing is bringing it down. If you can do better, throw your hat in the ring for the board. If not, then keep your inaccurate theories to yourself.

Mistakes are made by all clubs and maybe one was made when we didnt get Lockett. But that was long before Mick was in charge. I wouldnt be surprised if you were one of those baying at the moon to put up a trade to get Nick Stevens. I remember a lot of Collingwood people saying that Alan Didak would never amount to anything and should be used to get Nick. I've never seen anyone proudly say in this forum that they were screaming for the Magpies to make that swap.

I think that generally the recruiting and the player development has been outstanding in the last few years. I think Malthouse gets the best out of the majority of the players. I think that supporters of the club, should do just that - support it.
 
Richmond traded for Nathan Brown, Carlton traded for Chris Judd, Brisbane traded for Travis Johnstone, Fremantle traded for Chris Tarrant, Richmond used #19 for Jordan McMahon.

None of those teams have seen any success from their big name trade grabs. In complete contrast, Geelong built from the ground up and reaped the rewards of their hard work.

I reckon if we manage to draft another Dayne Beams at 30, and Wellingham comes on like he should, people will view this trade in a far different light. He would have been a good acquisition and I'm admittedly disappointed we didn't get him, but he isn't the difference.
 
Invigoration said:
Richmond traded for Nathan Brown, Carlton traded for Chris Judd, Brisbane traded for Travis Johnstone, Fremantle traded for Chris Tarrant, Richmond used #19 for Jordan McMahon.
Click to expand...

The difference is, none of those teams were on the brink of being a genuine flag challenger. Collingwood pretty much are....a top up is worth more to us than it was to sides like Richmond and Freo (bottom 8 sides).
 
And here's another thing to think about...

We had 3 high profile players who wanted to come to our club. Think about the situation with Port Adelaide where they can't attract a drunk to their end of year drink. High profile players want to go to clubs where they have a good chance of winning a premiership....think
 
Markfs said:
Mistakes are made by all clubs and maybe one was made when we didnt get Lockett. But that was long before Mick was in charge. I wouldnt be surprised if you were one of those baying at the moon to put up a trade to get Nick Stevens. I remember a lot of Collingwood people saying that Alan Didak would never amount to anything and should be used to get Nick. I've never seen anyone proudly say in this forum that they were screaming for the Magpies to make that swap.
Click to expand...

It's easy to see things in hindsight and seeing what has happened with Stevens, it was the right call.

That said, in true Collingwood fashion, we are wasting the talent of Alan Didak by playing him out of position. He was AA in 06 at 23yo playing regularly on the HF line. Now, because we are geniuses, we are trying to fashion him into an elite onballer.

Ain't working guys.

For sure, when he's on his own collecting touches, he's brilliant. However when he has a hard tag he struggles and he is not one to win the ball himself at all....so I fail to see why we play him in the middle when we have others who should be permanents in there.

How often do you see Geelong flog Stevie J all over the field?

This is where the aquisition of Luke Ball would have helped IMMENSLY. A hardnut inside ball winner who would have complemented Pendlebury and Swan perfectly and given Thomas, Beams and Sidebottom time to mould into quality midfielders. Now one of them will constantly be thrown into the deep end because we still lack that one hard bodied mid.

Furthermore, alluding to my first point, having Ball there would have meant Didak would have been sent back to the forward line. With Davis and O'bree able to rotate through midfield also, there would have been no need to have Didak there. Up forward he does his damage...it would have been good.

Collingwood dropped the Ball (no pun intended) with this trade. Given Ball is 25 and the quality of his work when the heat is on, its a big miss.

A few muppets here are missing the point. When you have midfielders that are still 22 or younger (Pendlebury, Thomas, Beams, Sidebottom) you need to recruit to fill the gap.

Or we just wait. But don't expect anything until Pendles and Thomas are 24/25. The side as it stands right now just isn't strong enough when it comes to winning the ball.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

mint said:
We are seriously a joke of a club!! well maybe i shouldnt say WE...

Our list managment and senior officials are arguably the worst performers of all time.. HOW MANY PLAYERS MUST FALL THROUGH OUR HANDS BEFORE WE REALIZE THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED THEM TO WIN A FLAG !!

WE HAVE 1 FLAG IN 50 YEARS!!! LOCKETT WOULD OF MADE A DIFFERENCE - SPIDER EVERITT WOULD OF MADE A DIFFERENCE .. LUKE BALL OR FEV WOULD OF MADE A MASSIVE DIFFERNCE !!

we are forever over rating our own stock and not willing to close a bloody deal year in year out and until we get rid of the EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY FOR COLLINGWOOD mentality we are not going anywhere...

I LOVE OUR CLUB. do not mistake that for a second.. but who would YOU rather in the goal square . FEV OR FRASER ? FEV OR DAWES ?

Who would you rather in the middle ? O BREE or BALL ? WELLINGHAM or BALL ?

Yes the players i mentioned are good footballers and we love them cause they wear our jumper BUT THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS.

Malthouse your a DUD. You would of coached for 11 years without a flag at the most powerful sporting club in the land.

bring on buckley and let him have the control that voss has and put his balls on the line and make a decision. maybe that way we as the collingwood faithful will actually TASTE some success!!
Click to expand...
What part of Carlton not wanting to trade with us unless they could rape us in the process don't you get? They weren't willing to trade with us unless we paid a hefty premium, for a bloke who'll just as likely be suspended by the AFL for a chunk of next year for Brownlow night, or who'll get on the grog again between now and the finals next year and create another massive problem for his new club.
 
Invigoration said:
Richmond traded for Nathan Brown, Carlton traded for Chris Judd, Brisbane traded for Travis Johnstone, Fremantle traded for Chris Tarrant, Richmond used #19 for Jordan McMahon.

None of those teams have seen any success from their big name trade grabs. In complete contrast, Geelong built from the ground up and reaped the rewards of their hard work.

I reckon if we manage to draft another Dayne Beams at 30, and Wellingham comes on like he should, people will view this trade in a far different light. He would have been a good acquisition and I'm admittedly disappointed we didn't get him, but he isn't the difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, Geelong built from the ground up. But, the Ottens trade put us over the top. I strongly suspect that if we hadn't made that trade, we would be sitting on a 46 year premiership drought right now.
 
To those suggesting we made a mistake on Ball, please advise what you would have been prepared to give up for him and why?

Keep in mind that the following were offered and rejected by Saints.

Pick 30 + Goldsack
Pick 30 + Wellingham
Dawes

Wellingham + Pick 30 to North for Pick 25 to go to Saints with Pick 62.

What else or who else would you have let go to get Luke Ball to the club?

I think we offfered exactly what he is worth, perhaps even more and they didn't accept. Not sure what we were supposed to do, give them Nathan Brown? - no chance!
 
I believe that robbing Peter to pay Paul never works out and I am glad that Collingwood did not fold under pressure. It would have been good if we could get him however I did not hear of any other club offering anything for Ball so market demand should prevail.
They did not want to sell, so be it.
Considering they offered him $300k per year, a 50% pay cut, they obviously did not value him as high either but then go ahead and claim that he deserves a better offer then pick 25 is hypocritical.

However with Jolly winning most of the hitouts there will be no need for an in and under player. ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Trade Week Review.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top