Last years trading

[Animal Enclosure]

I was happy with the Lovett trade and was glad we didn't roll over and accept pick 30 for Ball. Rumours that Goldsack and Wellingham were available have been shot down by Collingwood. Smith was a risk that could have gained us an automatic starting 18 player. Pattison was a strange selection and I think we probably could have rookied him.

We rolled the dice last year and were incredibly unlucky.

`

THIS.

The same sooks who are crying about not trading last week are the same that are whining that the club took a few risks last year & they didn't pay off.

Can you know it alls that knew what would happen with Lovett, Smith, Peake & Pattison please provide the link to your predictions from October 2009.

I'm all for being critical of bad decisions but I think that what Ross & co did last year was exactly what we needed at the time. We were a kick away from a flag & needed pace & kicking skills (not much has changed there). The only player that fitted the bill who was available was Lovett.

Port were also going hard for him & we trumped them with #16. At the time it was looked at as a win-win for St K & Ess. What transpired was Andrew Lovett's fault & no one else's.

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

[saintly]

I was happy with the Lovett trade and was glad we didn't roll over and accept pick 30 for Ball. Rumours that Goldsack and Wellingham were available have been shot down by Collingwood. Smith was a risk that could have gained us an automatic starting 18 player. Pattison was a strange selection and I think we probably could have rookied him.

We rolled the dice last year and were incredibly unlucky.

`

THIS.

The same sooks who are crying about not trading last week are the same that are whining that the club took a few risks last year & they didn't pay off.

Can you know it alls that knew what would happen with Lovett, Smith, Peake & Pattison please provide the link to your predictions from October 2009.

I'm all for being critical of bad decisions but I think that what Ross & co did last year was exactly what we needed at the time. We were a kick away from a flag & needed pace & kicking skills (not much has changed there). The only player that fitted the bill who was available was Lovett.

Port were also going hard for him & we trumped them with #16. At the time it was looked at as a win-win for St K & Ess. What transpired was Andrew Lovett's fault & no one else's.

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

all of what you have said was in fact true as far as what i had heard/read over the period of time.

[InkerSaint]

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

Incredible, sad, but true.

What cracks me up is these folks carry on as if pick 30 would have made a damn bit of difference to the Saints' fortunes this year; or that they had any control over Ball's departure.

All this debate is blind speculation over how we might make out in 3 years or so.

Predicting the bottom will drop out?

Pathetic.

And you call yourselves supporters.

[stinger]

pretty spot on a e

[Mr Magic]

pretty spot on a e

Have you changed your opinion on this stinger?

[stinger]

pretty spot on a e

Have you changed your opinion on this stinger?

no....i should have been more selective.....it's been a long day is my only excuse.....he was howeverspot on with these "facts''


FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

[Mr Magic]

pretty spot on a e

Have you changed your opinion on this stinger?

no....i should have been more selective.....it's been a long day is my only excuse.....he was howeverspot on with these "facts''


FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

OK, and as far as I can recall, I agree that Animal Enclosure is correct in those statements concerning the negotiations over teh Ball trade.

Unfortunately it seems many have chosen to believe the 'popular view' that's taken on urban myth status about this.

[To the top]

I do not understand why people think Ball is such a good and influential footballer.

After misssing his entire first season at St Kilda (and we shouild have recruited someone who wanted to play football not someone who gave preference to completing Year 12 and playing for a school side) he went on to tie a B&F (with Baker).

He did play a very good game v. Geelong at Geelong - but his performance chart was one decent game in every 2 or 3.

He could not produce consistent, week in and week out performances - and particularly commensurate with his Draft number.

He just could not back up.

IF (and how we wish) the ball had bounced to Milne and he ran into an open goal what would have been the summary of Ball's typically very average performance on that day?

I think he had 8 disposals.

Ball is seriously over rated - always was and continues to be.

That is why he was playing in the VFL from his abysmal performance v. Geelong in 2009.

And he was fortunate to be retained in our GF side in 2009 on his (recalled) PF form.

Only the weather forecast kept him in the side.

Otherwise he would have again been dropped after his abysmal performance v. WB in the Preliminary Final.

After that game he stated himself, in the face of speculation in the press, that he did not know if he would be dropped.

So why is he now so good?

He is an ordinary, hack footballer.

Can not run, can not kick, can not handle the ball cleanly and his handballing is particularly suspect.

He was reasonable overhead for his size (refer the night Milne kicked 11 and Ball kicked 4 from a forward pocket) - but these days he never gets to exploit this ability.

[Brisvegas saint]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

[Thinline]

All reasonable points TTT.

I've argued similarly for years.

His 'pick' seems to give him an ongoing currency that, weirdly, the likes of Kosi, Tambling, Polo etc etc just don't get. I'm not putting them in his class - they're different types of players - but Ball does get by as somewhat of an untouchable.

But whatever.

[Thinline]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

[SainterK]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Who's to say Ball would not have had a second half in 09 similar to GF1 this year....a whole lot of 'what if' about it now.

[Brisvegas saint]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

Could the result have been any worse than it was?

From all reports, LB thinks he was capable on the day.

Just another sorry what-if chapter in the last twenty years for the saints.

[Thinline]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

Could the result have been any worse than it was?

From all reports, LB thinks he was capable on the day.

Just another sorry what-if chapter in the last twenty years for the saints.

Given recent events, I don't really believe the Luke Ball angelic holier than thou schtick. I'd apply the same logic to anyone that lets that Connors bloke do their bidding when it comes to the crunch. Nor do I accept Ball's the kind of player who would have won the 09 Grannie. It's all hypothetical speculation and kind of pointless, but I would have thought straight kicking was the issue, not hard ball grunt work. We did, after all, create enough opportunities to win well regardless of how Ball performed.

[Brisvegas saint]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

Could the result have been any worse than it was?

From all reports, LB thinks he was capable on the day.

Just another sorry what-if chapter in the last twenty years for the saints.

Given recent events, I don't really believe the Luke Ball angelic holier than thou schtick. I'd apply the same logic to anyone that lets that Connors bloke do their bidding when it comes to the crunch. Nor do I accept Ball's the kind of player who would have won the 09 Grannie. It's all hypothetical speculation and kind of pointless, but I would have thought straight kicking was the issue, not hard ball grunt work. We did, after all, create enough opportunities to win well regardless of how Ball performed.

And you don't reckon Ball's first half performance was part of creating those opportunities?

[Mr Magic]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

Could the result have been any worse than it was?

From all reports, LB thinks he was capable on the day.

Just another sorry what-if chapter in the last twenty years for the saints.

Given recent events, I don't really believe the Luke Ball angelic holier than thou schtick. I'd apply the same logic to anyone that lets that Connors bloke do their bidding when it comes to the crunch. Nor do I accept Ball's the kind of player who would have won the 09 Grannie. It's all hypothetical speculation and kind of pointless, but I would have thought straight kicking was the issue, not hard ball grunt work. We did, after all, create enough opportunities to win well regardless of how Ball performed.

And you don't reckon Ball's first half performance was part of creating those opportunities?

Geelong obviously didn't.

They chose at qtr time to keep tagging Dal with Ling but then sacrificed Bartel's game to try and curb the influence of the Saint they thought was the most Samaging 'in and under' mid - Lenny.
They seemed more than happy to go head to head against Ball with Selwood.

Maybe they felt that Ball was getting the footy but was not 'hurting' them to much when he did?


I

[Brisvegas saint]

If Lyon had've used Ball properly in the 09 grand final, there's every chance we'd have not one, but two premierships now. To think that he couldn't have made a difference in the congestion of the last quarter is insane. The way he puts his body on the line time after time. And if we had've won, he wouldn't have left, depriving the pies of someone who worked out to be very important for them this year. Having Ball in the guts frees up Swan and Pendlebury to be so damaging for them.

Re 09 that assumes he was physically capable. It equally easy to assume that he was not.

Could the result have been any worse than it was?

From all reports, LB thinks he was capable on the day.

Just another sorry what-if chapter in the last twenty years for the saints.

Given recent events, I don't really believe the Luke Ball angelic holier than thou schtick. I'd apply the same logic to anyone that lets that Connors bloke do their bidding when it comes to the crunch. Nor do I accept Ball's the kind of player who would have won the 09 Grannie. It's all hypothetical speculation and kind of pointless, but I would have thought straight kicking was the issue, not hard ball grunt work. We did, after all, create enough opportunities to win well regardless of how Ball performed.

And you don't reckon Ball's first half performance was part of creating those opportunities?

Geelong obviously didn't.

They chose at qtr time to keep tagging Dal with Ling but then sacrificed Bartel's game to try and curb the influence of the Saint they thought was the most Samaging 'in and under' mid - Lenny.
They seemed more than happy to go head to head against Ball with Selwood.

Maybe they felt that Ball was getting the footy but was not 'hurting' them to much when he did?


I

Geelong don't fall into the trap of tagging everyone. They play attacking footy.

[InkerSaint]

Could the result have been any worse than it was

More hack speculation.

The short answer to your question is Yes.

Care to explore the flip side of your "what if"?

But of course not. No mileage in it, eh?

[Brisvegas saint]

Could the result have been any worse than it was

More hack speculation.

The short answer to your question is Yes.

Care to explore the flip side of your "what if"?

But of course not. No mileage in it, eh?

Mate I dunno about you, but where I come from a loss is a loss is a loss, when we're talking grand finals.

[InkerSaint]

And... maybe if Ball had played more game time, we might have been down 3 goals instead of two, Ball wouldn't have walked to Collingwood, and we'd still be a 1-flag club?

Are you prepared to concede that Ball's departure might be completely immaterial?

[Brisvegas saint]

And... maybe if Ball had played more game time, we might have been down 3 goals instead of two, Ball wouldn't have walked to Collingwood, and we'd still be a 1-flag club?

Are you prepared to concede that Ball's departure might be completely immaterial?

Well, one thing I know- the pies could not and would not have won without Ball this year. He and Jolly were both vital components of their flag tilt.

And we seemed to have everyone else's measure.

[Con Gorozidis]

I was happy with the Lovett trade and was glad we didn't roll over and accept pick 30 for Ball. Rumours that Goldsack and Wellingham were available have been shot down by Collingwood. Smith was a risk that could have gained us an automatic starting 18 player. Pattison was a strange selection and I think we probably could have rookied him.

We rolled the dice last year and were incredibly unlucky.

`

THIS.

The same sooks who are crying about not trading last week are the same that are whining that the club took a few risks last year & they didn't pay off.

Can you know it alls that knew what would happen with Lovett, Smith, Peake & Pattison please provide the link to your predictions from October 2009.

I'm all for being critical of bad decisions but I think that what Ross & co did last year was exactly what we needed at the time. We were a kick away from a flag & needed pace & kicking skills (not much has changed there). The only player that fitted the bill who was available was Lovett.

Port were also going hard for him & we trumped them with #16. At the time it was looked at as a win-win for St K & Ess. What transpired was Andrew Lovett's fault & no one else's.

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

All your facts are facts. Im not whingeing. I just reckon we could have taken 30 for Ball and used 30 on Lovett and used 17 on a kid.

There is no evidence to suggest Lovett was going to go between 17 and 30.

Are you 100% sure Goldsack wasnt offered also?

[Mr Magic]

I was happy with the Lovett trade and was glad we didn't roll over and accept pick 30 for Ball. Rumours that Goldsack and Wellingham were available have been shot down by Collingwood. Smith was a risk that could have gained us an automatic starting 18 player. Pattison was a strange selection and I think we probably could have rookied him.

We rolled the dice last year and were incredibly unlucky.

`

THIS.

The same sooks who are crying about not trading last week are the same that are whining that the club took a few risks last year & they didn't pay off.

Can you know it alls that knew what would happen with Lovett, Smith, Peake & Pattison please provide the link to your predictions from October 2009.

I'm all for being critical of bad decisions but I think that what Ross & co did last year was exactly what we needed at the time. We were a kick away from a flag & needed pace & kicking skills (not much has changed there). The only player that fitted the bill who was available was Lovett.

Port were also going hard for him & we trumped them with #16. At the time it was looked at as a win-win for St K & Ess. What transpired was Andrew Lovett's fault & no one else's.

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

All your facts are facts. Im not whingeing. I just reckon we could have taken 30 for Ball and used 30 on Lovett and used 17 on a kid.

There is no evidence to suggest Lovett was going to go between 17 and 30.

Are you 100% sure Goldsack wasnt offered also?

If he was then surely there would be no difficulty in pointing to the article?
Afterall Collingwood has not been reticent in trying to paint themselves as the 'good guys' in this fiasco and if they had offered up Goldsack, Wellingham or anybody else, tehy would have stated it somewhere.

AFAIK there has been no link posted.

And as for your notion of us being able to use pick 30 on Lovett, please show anything that might give credence to it - or is it just that becasue there is no 'evidence' to the contrary, then the opposite must be true?

IIRC there were a number of Clubs vying for his services - we weren't the only Club trying to get him. That means there was 'competition' and Essendon did the best deal for themselves.
And maybe , just like WB who refused anything but a top 22 pick for Everitt, Essendon would have refused any offer that wasn't a first round pick for Lovett?
Neither you nor I know for sure (if anything about it), but you continue posting that hypothesis of yours as if it's based on some fact?

Surely logic tells you we would have commenced negotiations with one of our later draft picks, rather than go in and offer our best pick?
I'm positive our pick 32 would have been offered and rejected by Essendon somewhere along the line.

But you're certain we could have used pick 30 to get Lovett?
Why are you so sure? What's the 'evidence' that Essendon would have taken pick #30?

[plugger66]

I was happy with the Lovett trade and was glad we didn't roll over and accept pick 30 for Ball. Rumours that Goldsack and Wellingham were available have been shot down by Collingwood. Smith was a risk that could have gained us an automatic starting 18 player. Pattison was a strange selection and I think we probably could have rookied him.

We rolled the dice last year and were incredibly unlucky.

`

THIS.

The same sooks who are crying about not trading last week are the same that are whining that the club took a few risks last year & they didn't pay off.

Can you know it alls that knew what would happen with Lovett, Smith, Peake & Pattison please provide the link to your predictions from October 2009.

I'm all for being critical of bad decisions but I think that what Ross & co did last year was exactly what we needed at the time. We were a kick away from a flag & needed pace & kicking skills (not much has changed there). The only player that fitted the bill who was available was Lovett.

Port were also going hard for him & we trumped them with #16. At the time it was looked at as a win-win for St K & Ess. What transpired was Andrew Lovett's fault & no one else's.

Ball rodgered us & rodgered us good. Too many people have taken the filth publicity machine as fact.

FACT- Goldsack & Wellingham were never offered to us.

FACT- Pick 30 was. When told that wasn't enough they threw in a 4th round pick (in a severely limited draft). St K responded that we wouldn't use that pick & wanted a comparable senior player (Nathan Brown was mentioned).

FACT- The Bulldogs wanted pick 21 for Everitt. The Roos would only give up pick 25 for Wellingham (who was nowhere near the player he now is). Dogs wouldn't budge, North wouldn't budge. Deal didn't get done.

FACT- The Filth have played the same game with Tarrant & Freo this year & Freo turned over.

FACT- Some of our supporters would rather believe the Filth's version of history than their own club.

All your facts are facts. Im not whingeing. I just reckon we could have taken 30 for Ball and used 30 on Lovett and used 17 on a kid.

There is no evidence to suggest Lovett was going to go between 17 and 30.

Are you 100% sure Goldsack wasnt offered also?

Wasnt Lovett under contract to Essendon so we had to trade for him?

[Thinline]

And you don't reckon Ball's first half performance was part of creating those opportunities?

[/quote]

Geelong don't fall into the trap of tagging everyone. They play attacking footy.[/quote]


I remember him tackling a lot. I don't remember a lot of genuine creating going on.

Ling IS a tagger. That's all he ever does. What are you on about?