Wherever Luke Ball ends up

[Squizz]

Reports are that the 3rd year of Ball's contract is only $75k.

Probably fair enough. Ball will probably only have a couple of years of top line footy left in him anyway. But he'll definitely add something to Collingwood in the short term.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Where the _uck have you been?

About time a Collingwood supporter can disagree on something without inventing facts, slagging off other posters, or over-rating their own players. If we had more of these posts, BigFooty would be a better place.

But I do disagree, in that Ball played 20 odd games including three finals. Can't see how this is not seeing him as a good player in a team which played well and had few injuries.

Goldsack is OK, but no point Collingwood coming back three days later with the same deal that was discussed on the Monday - we'd moved on and got other players. I understand that Collingwood needed to keep the powder dry for Jolly, but that's hardly St Kilda's fault.

Funny you should say that.

I'm HATED on the Collingwood board and constantly banned for being negative or apparently a 'troll'. I love how you can apparently troll your own team that you've supported and pumped money into all your life.

But on point. Fair enough.

Like I said I PERSONALLY would have offered more. What Collingwood SHOULD have done was offered up pick 30 and maybe 2 young players in areas St.Kilda felt they were lacking?

So say Goldsack (a backman) and maybe Reid or Dawes (again two young KPPs) who are young enough to be moulded by Saints coaching staff.

Again, that MAY not sound like an OMG awesome deal, but surely it's better than NOTHING.

Problem is while I think Collingwood has actually done better in this draft than they ever have in the last 10 years, our club, and most of our supporters have a horrible history of overrating our players, but on the flipside, opposition supporters UNDERRATE our GENUINELY good players, which only fuels the fire.

I think we personally could have landed Fevola as well, but the deals I proposed on the Collingwood board had me seen in a not so glowing light.

 

[Quicky]

In MOST respects I agree here.

But not in this one.

While what Collingwood was offering wasn't what St.Kilda wanted, at the same time, St.Kilda obviously didn't deem him good enough to even give him that many games this year despite him having a pre-season and being injury free, so I'm not too sure what more they realistically should have been asking for.

On top of that, surely SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, regardless of what that may be.

It's not like Goldsack is a total dud. He's not a bad young player. Where most Saints talk like we were trying to completely screw them over, which I don't feel we were. Me personally, I would have offered more if it were up to me, but at the same time, I don't think Goldsack and pick 25 or 30 was THAT bad a deal to accept NOTHING as a substitute.

Having said that, I assume St.Kilda thought they could talk him into staying.

I just think sometimes pride can be a horrible characteristic in people and generally result in outcomes that are a detriment to the entity involved.

It's not like this particular scenario arises often enough for the Saints to be need to be seen to be 'taking a stand'. Sounds like spin to me in this case.

But hey, as I mentioned on the Collingwood board yesterday, for all we know Ball could have NO impact on our club whatsoever, and St.Kilda could end up better off without him.

When did you say that Speshal??? I do recall you saying you would tear up your membership if we didn't get him. Where exactly do you stand on this one??? Yesterday it was OMG if we fail to land another big fish.... (rant). Today it's oh well he probably wont be any good anyway. Why are your posts perpetually pessimistic???

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

When did you say that Speshal??? I do recall you saying you would tear up your membership if we didn't get him. Where exactly do you stand on this one??? Yesterday it was OMG if we fail to land another big fish.... (rant). Today it's oh well he probably wont be any good anyway. Why are your posts perpetually pessimistic???

Go through my post history champ and THEN try and put words in my mouth.

Yes, I DID say if we didn't get Ball I wouldn't renew my membership. But we got him, so now I'll have something to look forward to next year with what seems to be a pretty decent midfield now.

But I DID say, for all we know he MAY have no impact on our club. When did I just say now he WON'T be any good?

No wonder opposition supporters hate us so much.

edit: Here you go smart ass, from yesterday

It's not about Luke Ball specifically. He may make NO difference at all to our club for all we know.

Look at Woewoedin. On paper, he should have been a great recruit. And I think he was serviceable in his time, but he didn't really have an impact on our club the way you'd think a 'Brownlow medallist' should.

The point is, that when you have the chance to pick up a quality player in the draft without having to give up ALL that much, you should do it.

In the end, when someone is stubborn, they're stubborn. You'd hope the powers that be would look back at past recruiting decisions with draftees and say "Hmmm, we've picked up a lot of kids in the last 10 years, and you know what? The majority haven't turned out to be much, maybe we should forgo this one yougn kid to get this KNOWN quality midfielder who is only 25".

I don't expect my point to resonate to be honest, but it would be great if it did.

 

[Squizz]

I'm HATED on the Collingwood board We'd consider that a Badge of Honour

Like I said I PERSONALLY would have offered more. What Collingwood SHOULD have done was offered up pick 30 and maybe 2 young players in areas St.Kilda felt they were lacking?

I get the feeling the pick 30 / Goldsack deal would have been done if Collingwood rang Goldsack and cleared it with him on the Monday (as is usual, like the unexpected Schneider trade to St Kilda - think he was lying on a beach in Thailand when he got the call). But the Jolly deal (clearly he was a more important player) obviously complicated things.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I get the feeling the pick 30 / Goldsack deal would have been done if Collingwood rang Goldsack and cleared it with him on the Monday (as is usual, like the unexpected Schneider trade to St Kilda - think he was lying on a beach in Thailand when he got the call). But the Jolly deal (clearly he was a more important player) obviously complicated things.

Badge of honour?

Yeah, well, the irony? In 'real life' I'm known as a 'biased' Collingwood supporter despite being as negative as I am.

I think it's because when I DO see something positive at Collingwood I hyperbole the shit out of it. Because I'm generally pretty damned negative about Collingwood.

eg. I talk up Scott Pendlebury like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I know I shouldn't because he's not quite there yet, but I just love the kid. So much class, a level of class I haven't seen at Collingwood since Buckley arrived all those years ago.

 

[Fehring]

In MOST respects I agree here.

But not in this one.

While what Collingwood was offering wasn't what St.Kilda wanted, at the same time, St.Kilda obviously didn't deem him good enough to even give him that many games this year despite him having a pre-season and being injury free, so I'm not too sure what more they realistically should have been asking for.

On top of that, surely SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, regardless of what that may be.

It's not like Goldsack is a total dud. He's not a bad young player. Where most Saints talk like we were trying to completely screw them over, which I don't feel we were. Me personally, I would have offered more if it were up to me, but at the same time, I don't think Goldsack and pick 25 or 30 was THAT bad a deal to accept NOTHING as a substitute.

Having said that, I assume St.Kilda thought they could talk him into staying.

I just think sometimes pride can be a horrible characteristic in people and generally result in outcomes that are a detriment to the entity involved.

It's not like this particular scenario arises often enough for the Saints to be need to be seen to be 'taking a stand'. Sounds like spin to me in this case.

But hey, as I mentioned on the Collingwood board yesterday, for all we know Ball could have NO impact on our club whatsoever, and St.Kilda could end up better off without him.

There is real value in doing what the Saints did. In the short term, the Pies offer wasn't going to help us so we turned it down. In the long term, we will be in another negotiation in the future and no one will **** with us.

Port let Stevens go for nothing at the end of 03. When Burgoyne was up for trade this year, they named their (inflated) demands and their demands were met. I reckon history will show the Hawks paid overs. I reckon the next time we're in a high-level negotiation a club desperate to get the deal done will give us everything we want.

So, no harm in the short term, good payoff in the long term.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

There is real value in doing what the Saints did. In the short term, the Pies offer wasn't going to help us so we turned it down. In the long term, we will be in another negotiation in the future and no one will **** with us.

Port let Stevens go for nothing at the end of 03. When Burgoyne was up for trade this year, they named their (inflated) demands and their demands were met. I reckon history will show the Hawks paid overs. I reckon the next time we're in a high-level negotiation a club desperate to get the deal done will give us everything we want.

So, no harm in the short term, good payoff in the long term.

Fair enough.

I've just always found it bizarre that teams including Collingwood) get rid of players for nothing.

Example. We delisted Bryan, Stanley, and probably forced Cox into retirement.

I would have trade ALL 3 for Tuck from Richmond, who Richmond didn't want anyway.

Just seems like such a waste to get rid of ANY player for NOTHING, let alone a quality player like Ball.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Under the circumstances the club had to make certain decisions.

Obviously they thought they had a chance of convincing Ball to stay at StKilda, and that would be more valuable to them then the alternatives offered by Collingwood.
It was a decision with a risk associated to it and in this case the risk was realised.
However if a club took the low risk option on every recruiting decision, they would probably end up with a team without much of an upside.

Overall StKilda's recent recruiting strategies have more positives than negatives.

 

[jefffff34]

No, but I can think of one thing that would really annoy you.

I sit where my ticket says I sit!

 

[lenny&carl]

Under the circumstances the club had to make certain decisions.

Obviously they thought they had a chance of convincing Ball to stay at StKilda, and that would be more valuable to them then the alternatives offered by Collingwood.
It was a decision with a risk associated to it and in this case the risk was realised.
However if a club took the low risk option on every recruiting decision, they would probably end up with a team without much of an upside.

Overall StKilda's recent recruiting strategies have more positives than negatives.

I agree that there was a half-decent rationale behind each of St.Kilda's moves re Ball, but in the end they certainly struck out, and Collingwood got very lucky out of it all.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They did strike out. Luckily Ross Lyon has done a pretty good job of trading with our club in General.

 

[WinOrLoseILoveEm]

Sure, you'll fit $500K in next season. But you're setting a benchmark, aren't you ? Won't players like Didak, Beams, Pendlebury or Swan ask for similar contracts (and even if contracted past 2010, won't you wish give them such contracts next year to avoid them doing a Ball ?). .......
As to Ball's health, let's see. I wish him all the best, but he did appear old and tired at times last year - and you will agree that Johnson plays a very different position with far less work / risks for his body in early years.

Good post Holden,
I have voiced similar concerns on the our forum about his longevity and his inflated pricetag for two years. And what happens after those two years especially if he is injured and his replacement out performs him.

The hyped Ball fits our needs rather than Ball, the physically suspect young man. I hope our medical and conditioning staff can keep him running long enough to pay back some rather large dividends on the playing arena, but I have grave doubts that will be the case for Luke Ball.

CFC players salaries are being rejigged to squeeze Ball into our salary cap - a major concern is how will the players feel when he doesnt fulfill the hype.

At the moment CFC and the club forums are in love with Luke Ball.
Sounds like young love to me.

 

[goodie23]

At the moment CFC and the club forums are in love with Luke Ball.
Sounds like young love to me.

Very true. And love is a treacherous beast at the best of times (and is frequently blind and stupid to boot)

 

[Didaics]

as jerry lee lewis would say "there's a whole lotta dwelling goin' on!"

 

[Alexander323bc]

So he got what he wanted.

Good luck to him. I hope he is worth the $500K C'wood will need to include in their salary cap the next two years.

I still support the club's position during trade week. He may have joined C'wood anyway, but the club stood tall, showing the character we hoped to see in Luke Ball last year.

So we may have lost pick #30 or #25 (Goldsack would have not played a single game for us) - big deal, Ball is the best example that even a #2 pick will not always mean that you get a great player.

I am proud to support this great footy club !

Just so I know for next time, after winning how many wooden spoons does a club become a great footy club?

 

[HoldenMCaulfield]

Just so I know for next time, after winning how many wooden spoons does a club become a great footy club?

Son, no one gives a shit about all the things you read on bigfooty. You didn't invent it, you just copied it. Anybody can do that.

(credit to bubblegoose's second favourite twitter group - slightly adjusted as I, too, can copy...)

 

[DaVe86]

Look, no matter which way you look at it, this is not a win for St.Kilda and Collingwood have every right to be pretty excited by it.


But I don't necessarily think it is Ross Lyon's fault. You have to know all the factors that surrounded the non-trade on Friday, and then the respective dealings thereon to get a full indication.


First of all, whether Saints fans want to admit it or not, the Saints did not want to see Luke Ball go to Collingwood cheaply. It was better receiving nothing and hoping Ball ended up at Melbourne, than getting little to see him go to a top 4 side.


Personally, I feel as if Goldsack + 30 would've been a good enough deal. The reason being that he would've been an upgrade on Raph Clarke...and losing Maguire now leaves a little less depth in that area. Not sure if Leigh Fisher is still on the list.


But we also have to take note of the fact that at 1:59, both parties were still locked in negotiation. They left it til really late. Both parties were highly active during trade week, and obviously did not time manage well enough to get the deal done. It seemed as if it was both parties 2nd or 3rd priority.

Neither party was realistically able to sign off on a deal with Goldsack. Firstly it gave the Saints no chance to talk to him or test him. Collingwood also had little time to talk to him about a prospective move.

If the deal on Monday was on the table like reported, then the Saints had time to do their due-diligence.

This is why the eventual offer was pick 25 because it is all that either side could put together at short notice.



So I don't think its fair to get stuck into Ross Lyon. I think he took a punt to let Ball walk, but it hasn't paid off because he ended up at Collingwood for nothing. I think if you could turn the clocks back Ross would sign off on a deal.


But, you can't help but been satisfied as a Magpie supporter. Ultimately, we get Ball and keep Goldsack and Wellingham. Plus we still scored Josh Thomas who was my pick to go at 30 if we did not get Ball.


But it will not effect the Saints on-field. Ultimately Armitage and Jack Steven get a chance now (please don't keep pursuiing guys like McQualter and Eddy. Get Armo and Steven in because they are guns!)

So the Saints continue to be a force. They are well coached and proved against hawthorn they don't need a full list to win anyway.


But the whole situation turns out to be a loss for the Saints in the end because ultimately they could've done better out of the Luke Ball trade.


I think it ultimately promotes the need for free-agency because teams just find loop holes anyway. Get rid of the uncertainty. This should've been over a month ago.



Look forward to Round 3. Hoping for a better competition this time around.

 

[goodie23]

I am sick of Collingwood fans coming on this board and saying what was offered was a fair deal. It wasn't. Repeating it ad nausem won't convince us.

In fact by now I'm pretty sure every possible opinion on this subject has been voiced, and now it's just being rehashed with slightly different wording.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Would've, Could've, Should've.

Didn't.

/thread?

/topic?

/Luke Ball posts?

 

[Magpie Ink]

Would've, Could've, Should've.

Didn't.

/thread?

/topic?

/Luke Ball posts?

The Mods on the main boards are doing a fine job of that.

You only have them to blame for pushing all the Pies supporters on to your boards.

 

[Squizz]

Personally, I feel as if Goldsack + 30 would've been a good enough deal. You'd have to forgive Saints fans for thinking that "good enough" from a Collingwood supporter is probably an ordinary deal.

The reason being that he would've been an upgrade on Raph Clarke...and losing Maguire now leaves a little less depth in that area. Not sure if Leigh Fisher is still on the list. We delisted Maguire and Leigh Fisher - why would we feel the need to replace them if they weren't required players? Wouldn't Lovett to the midfield and Goddard to Clarke's spot also be an upgrade?

Neither party was realistically able to sign off on a deal with Goldsack. Firstly it gave the Saints no chance to talk to him or test him. Collingwood also had little time to talk to him about a prospective move. If the deal on Monday was on the table like reported, then the Saints had time to do their due-diligence. But Collingwood couldn't find 40 cents to give Goldsack a call and clear it with him straight away??? Why can't Collingwood supporters accept that you were distracted with the Jolly deal?

Plus we still scored Josh Thomas who was my pick to go at 30 if we did not get Ball. And would you be still pumping the tyres of Thomas if he went pick 73 to Brisbane, instead of pick 75 to Collingwood? Of course not.

Whilst normally a considered poster, your colours have certainly shone through on the Ball issue. You've fallen for the same trap as your colleagues who can only see one side of the issue.

 

[CHBench]

Would've, Could've, Should've.

Didn't.

/thread?

/topic?

/Luke Ball posts?

Yeah actually can the mods just lock every Luke Ball related thread on our board? The debate has run it's course, 2 full months + an additional 4 days to swallow the final outcome. I think everyone that has wanted to has had their say on the issue. Needs to end.

 

[Persevering Saint]

What we're seeing here, if these threads are not closed, is the death of this board as a place most of us want to spend our time.

Collingwood has already committed theft this week. Now their supporters are committing murder.

Prison bars is right.