View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: Trade period summary | |
|
IN:
- Dayne Beams
- Jordan Roughead
- Pick 41
- Pick 44
- Pick 59
- Pick 60
OUT:
- Alex Fasolo (free agency)
- Pick 18
- Future 1st round pick
- Pick 51
- Pick 56
- Pick 75
How do you rate the trade period? _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Last edited by Jezza on Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
So, translated strictly to points (make up something for what the future pick will be), what was the net loss for Beams? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
In isolation, it's not bad.
But, add to that we just picked up 2 cat b Irish KPP and kept enough points to get IQ and Kelly, I'd give it a big tick.
Like I said in another thread, it's a nice mix.
Trade for now bringing in a top if ageing mid and a premiership tall as KPP depth who can also ruck. Both positives.
Draft for the future. we bring in 2 cat B KPP and IQ and Kelly.
So we load up for now while we're right in the window and also bring in quality kids so we won't slide in 2 years time. Add that to the depth we already have, A+ _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
At a glance, 2 first round picks is overs for Beams.
But if you look at 2 x pick 18 then Id say its about fair especially with where our list is at.
We are approaching the premiership window. Either we make a serious play for it (think Burgoyne to hawks) or we continue to hover around it without ever seriously threatening.
A bold move by the club. Yes it can go pear shaped.....but it could also be a masterstroke. Only time will tell but theres no denying that we are (on paper) better than this year.
If we can get our players on the ground, we will be the team to beat. _________________ - Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
Kind of like when the handbaggers got Ottens was expensive but won a premiership so was great value _________________ Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
What did they pay for Ottens? |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | What did they pay for Ottens? |
Geelong traded picks 12 and 16 to Richmond for Ottens. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
In isolation poor. In cotnext of what Stui has pointed out pretty good. Would have preferred trade options that gave us sufficent points for both Quaynor and Kelly.
So gains are:
Roughhead
Beams
*Quaynor
*Kelly
(+ add the two Irish Lads)
Losses:
Two x first round picks
Fasolo
Not bad. _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Hawks gave up pick 9 and a very good small forward (Mark Williams) for some 28yo guy named Burgoyne....didnt turn out too bad them😉 _________________ - Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Who was that pick 9 used on? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Jezza wrote: | K wrote: | What did they pay for Ottens? |
Geelong traded picks 12 and 16 to Richmond for Ottens. |
I see... Hmm... |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | In isolation, it's not bad.
But, add to that we just picked up 2 cat b Irish KPP and kept enough points to get IQ and Kelly, I'd give it a big tick.
Like I said in another thread, it's a nice mix.
Trade for now bringing in a top if ageing mid and a premiership tall as KPP depth who can also ruck. Both positives.
Draft for the future. we bring in 2 cat B KPP and IQ and Kelly.
So we load up for now while we're right in the window and also bring in quality kids so we won't slide in 2 years time. Add that to the depth we already have, A+ |
Tend to agree Stui. There's no Tom Lynch or May in-traded, but I sure do like the ones we got/could get anyway!! Our mid-field and forward line could be an unpredictable nightmare to opposing teams next season....note I said "could be". Not making any assumptions about this cruel game that I sometimes wish I didn't love! |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
there is confusion as to pick 56 and why we included that in the Beams trade. Shouldnt we have included pick 57 as it doesnt come with points? Did we screw this up. _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
watt price tully wrote: | In isolation poor. In cotnext of what Stui has pointed out pretty good. Would have preferred trade options that gave us sufficent points for both Quaynor and Kelly.
So gains are:
Roughhead
Beams
*Quaynor
*Kelly
(+ add the two Irish Lads)
Losses:
Two x first round picks
Fasolo
Not bad. |
losses - 1 pick 18 (thats as close to round 2 as it gets yeah?)
and when we finish top next season thats another near enough round 2 pick.
fasolo, love the kid, but if hes not toasted through injury, hes still short, we just got 4 taller players! we are officially no longer a mosquito squad!
half full, not half empty! cheers _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
E wrote: | there is confusion as to pick 56 and why we included that in the Beams trade. Shouldnt we have included pick 57 as it doesnt come with points? Did we screw this up. |
I think the enemy insisted on getting the pick with points. (So, no, it was not an accident.) |
|
|
|
|
|