Whats more annoying is that

[Junction Oval]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

[PJ]

And btw, I think the CLub always hoped/thought that Armitage would be the 'in and under' assistance for Lenny, once Ball walked.
Maybe they felt 'covered' in that position?

I still think he can be and I still think he has more to offer than Ball currently for St.Kilda

1/Goal scoring
2/Kicking ability
3/Age - future

He's as agressive as Ball is in the packs and is learning to put it together regularly.

Ball currently is more experienced and finds his target coming out of the packs more regularly but Armo will develop this. It's not helping Armo with our ruck work either.

[Mr Magic]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

There were dasily articles about it during Trade Week.
I don't believe there was ever an assertion that Wellingham was offered to us.
I believe Goldsack was but we preferred to keep Ball or get a player like Everitt (whom we wanted). Hence Nathan Brown was asked for and rejected.

[gringo]

I had it on good authority that we asked for Goldsack or Wellingham and they stuffed around thinking until the trade period was over. Missed our window we also tried a trade for Everitt from the dogs for the pick -no cigar also, the dogs wanted better than 30. We ran out of time because the pies already had a verbal agreement with ball and placed an unmatchable front end deal on his contract along with Connors to scare off any one else.

We were stitched up and what ever you hear that we held out on the Pies was not true. I hope Ball gets to an age where he can see he played dirty and regrets the whole thing.

[plugger66]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

There were dasily articles about it during Trade Week.
I don't believe there was ever an assertion that Wellingham was offered to us.
I believe Goldsack was but we preferred to keep Ball or get a player like Everitt (whom we wanted). Hence Nathan Brown was asked for and rejected.

I would be pretty sure once we got Lovett there was no way of keeping Ball. We didnt have the money in the salary cap.

[Mr Magic]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

There were dasily articles about it during Trade Week.
I don't believe there was ever an assertion that Wellingham was offered to us.
I believe Goldsack was but we preferred to keep Ball or get a player like Everitt (whom we wanted). Hence Nathan Brown was asked for and rejected.

I would be pretty sure once we got Lovett there was no way of keeping Ball. We didnt have the money in the salary cap.

We still had enough money in the Salary cap to offer him 1 million over 3 years after the Trade Week saw no trade eventuate.

According to the Collingwood spoon-fed story in the HS that's all he's earning now.

[plugger66]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

There were dasily articles about it during Trade Week.
I don't believe there was ever an assertion that Wellingham was offered to us.
I believe Goldsack was but we preferred to keep Ball or get a player like Everitt (whom we wanted). Hence Nathan Brown was asked for and rejected.

I would be pretty sure once we got Lovett there was no way of keeping Ball. We didnt have the money in the salary cap.

We still had enough money in the Salary cap to offer him 1 million over 3 years after the Trade Week saw no trade eventuate.

According to the Collingwood spoon-fed story in the HS that's all he's earning now.

I dont think we offered much at all after trade week. We offered that mid season. There is no way we had 300K left on the salary cap. We even had to put some of Lovett's payout in this years cap because we didnt have room for all of it last year.

[BigMart]

Thats the sort of list management gold i am referring to.....

MM are you saying we were afeter another 6'3" defender to go along with fisher, blake, gilbert, dempster, gwilt, lynch, clarke, simpkin....

Perhaps we did need another in case 4 of them got injured???

We needed runners....brown, everitt....not going to help in that area....

[Mr Magic]

Would be interesting then to get the correct "inside mail" on this matter

There were dasily articles about it during Trade Week.
I don't believe there was ever an assertion that Wellingham was offered to us.
I believe Goldsack was but we preferred to keep Ball or get a player like Everitt (whom we wanted). Hence Nathan Brown was asked for and rejected.

I would be pretty sure once we got Lovett there was no way of keeping Ball. We didnt have the money in the salary cap.

We still had enough money in the Salary cap to offer him 1 million over 3 years after the Trade Week saw no trade eventuate.

According to the Collingwood spoon-fed story in the HS that's all he's earning now.

I dont think we offered much at all after trade week. We offered that mid season. There is no way we had 300K left on the salary cap. We even had to put some of Lovett's payout in this years cap because we didnt have room for all of it last year.

That was because we had to pay out some of his 2011 contract (part of the settlement).

Once Ball was gone we also used up the money earmarked for him on other players (recycleds I believe).
The point is now moot though - Ball decided to leave us for whatever reasons.
I have no issue with that.
I do however take issue with the way he allowed his management/family and new employer to characterize us over it.

[vacuous space]

I always laugh when they say you could have got this player had you kept your pick. How wouldanyone know who we would have picked next.

We were linked to Pittard before the Lovett deal went down. There was a rumour that Peake had told Pittard we'd take him if he was there at our first pick. It was also reported that our recruiters were visably annoyed when Geelong took Mitch Duncan at 28. Far from concrete, I know. I've always felt that those were the two guys we would have taken if we'd kept the Lovett pick and taken 25 for Ball. Even if they weren't the two, there was still plenty of talent around.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

the swings and roundabouts theory peeves me off. so does the oh who cares about pittard cos maybe we would have got a hack anyway.

clearly its not an exact science. but clearly drafting and recruiting matter and have a significant effect. if not al teams would be equal all the time. clearly they arent.

fact is 17 on lovett was a crap decision. there is no indication that he wouldnt have gone through to 32 or later anyway. we still could have got him later.

also. pick 30 for ball. who knows. maybe a hack maybe a gun. dunno. but surely the odds are improved by having a pick against getting nothing?

its all about doing ur research and getting the best chance of success.

how much research went into the fergus watts pick? not much!

why did we think essendon people were reliable sources of info for us anyway? their duty was to get the highest pick they could for the bombers. which they did. did they sucker us on pick 17? i think so yes.

we probably could have used 48 or whatever on him anyhow.

Do the Heroes of Hindsight receive medals for rhetoric and assumption?

The Saints didn't draft Lovett, we traded for him. In a way that's worse, when the chips were down, it would have been the Bombers making the hard choices, and we could have rolled over in the night with a sigh at the near miss. We almost certainly could not have had him for pick 32.

Maybe it's easier to be a critic because we never saw the guy in a Saints jumper. Lovett was a gun. I remain impressed that the club had the fortitude to show him the door. The Heroes should avoid thinking about how September might have ended if we happened to have another midfield gun. We could graduate from hyperbole to misogyny. The guy to hold responsible for the Lovett fiasco isn't Hird et al, it's Andrew Lovett.

We got hosed on Lovett and Ball. It happens. What's critical is making sure it doesn't happen again.

[sunsaint]

I don't believe Wellingham was ever offerd to us for Ball. He was offered to NM for their pick #21/22 which they would have given to us to trade to Western Bulldogs for Everitt.

We apparently asked for Nathna Brown from Collingwood but they said no.

So once again 'urban myth' becomes fact in the eyes of those looking to substantiate a pov.

We didn;t enter into the trade discussions looking to unload Ball for nothing to Collingwood.
We stood our ground and got shafted by him, his management adn Collingwood.

And btw, I think the CLub always hoped/thought that Armitage would be the 'in and under' assistance for Lenny, once Ball walked.
Maybe they felt 'covered' in that position?

but highlighting the Everitt trade is nothing more than you trying to rationalise your POV
The Everitt trade was a complicated four club trade, they never work and if you can give me evidence of any others I will be surprised.

there was never any collingwood players on the table, that was hardball talk to make a pick 30(+player) trade impossible, which would force LB into the draft & scare him into staying. It failed

But yeah it is important that you added that Lyon fully expected Armitage to be "more" the player he wanted. Good at the in and under, a good tank, contest the ball then spread wide.

[BigMart]

Hey BAM, dont be so certain these calls were all made in hindsight....

Some people were disgusted that we traded for Lovett at all let alone a FRDP ane we absolutely shot down for doubting the recruiters before he even played a game (perhaps you were one of them).....

And what acutually made him a gun???

The fact he had not finished top ten in a b&f in 8 years at a bottom team.....he played a few good games.....a lot of poor ones....
He was not a team player, heavily disliked, and had zero work ethic....does that make him a gun....

Or the fact he played so outside he made jason gram look like lenny hayes, and he though a tackle was something to insert in an unsuspecting female....

Yes he could run, take a few bounces and kick a the odd goal....... He was also unreliable, unaccountable, soft and undisciplined....

Far from a 'gun'

[Mr Magic]

I don't believe Wellingham was ever offerd to us for Ball. He was offered to NM for their pick #21/22 which they would have given to us to trade to Western Bulldogs for Everitt.

We apparently asked for Nathan Brown from Collingwood but they said no.

So once again 'urban myth' becomes fact in the eyes of those looking to substantiate a pov.

We didn't enter into the trade discussions looking to unload Ball for nothing to Collingwood.
We stood our ground and got shafted by him, his management and Collingwood.

And btw, I think the CLub always hoped/thought that Armitage would be the 'in and under' assistance for Lenny, once Ball walked.
Maybe they felt 'covered' in that position?

but highlighting the Everitt trade is nothing more than you trying to rationalise your POV
The Everitt trade was a complicated four club trade, they never work and if you can give me evidence of any others I will be surprised.

How is stating a fact akin to me trying to rationalise my pov.

Fact
We wanted Everitt

Fact
WB said they wanted a pick in the top 25.

Fact
Collingwood after trading their first pick to Sydney for Jolly had no picks under 25 left.
They had originally apparently earmarked their first pick for Ball, but Connors (Ball and Jolly's manager) stuffed that up for us.

Fact
Collingwood offered Wellingham for either of North Melbourne's picks below #25 so they could accomodate what WB wanted from us for Everitt.

Urban Myth
we knocked back Wellingham for Ball.

Urban Myth
We decided to get nothing for Luke Ball

Urban Myth
Luke Ball is playing for less at Collingwood.

[plugger66]

I always laugh when they say you could have got this player had you kept your pick. How wouldanyone know who we would have picked next.

We were linked to Pittard before the Lovett deal went down. There was a rumour that Peake had told Pittard we'd take him if he was there at our first pick. It was also reported that our recruiters were visably annoyed when Geelong took Mitch Duncan at 28. Far from concrete, I know. I've always felt that those were the two guys we would have taken if we'd kept the Lovett pick and taken 25 for Ball. Even if they weren't the two, there was still plenty of talent around.

So a month before the draft we heard we wanted Pittard. Seems strange that is the only year ever that has happened. I reckon people on here guess who we are going to draft and we never get one right but all of sudden the year we lost our pick we know we would have picked up Pittard and if we got 25 for Ball we would have got Duncan. Sounds like complete rubbish.

Actually I think people on here said we should get Pittard because his Dad played for us and he followed us. That seems like good reasons.

[vacuous space]

Sounds like complete rubbish.

What part? The rumours, maybe. We certainly could have drafted both Pittard and Duncan. I don't think it's a stretch to think Peake might have liked a quick left footer from the Falcons.

[plugger66]

Sounds like complete rubbish.

What part? The rumours, maybe. We certainly could have drafted both Pittard and Duncan. I don't think it's a stretch to think Peake might have liked a quick left footer from the Falcons.

How many did he draft from them over the 3 years at the club?

[vacuous space]

How many did he draft from them over the 3 years at the club?

Two.

Now you tell me how that impacts on whether we would have taken Pittard. I'm pretty sure he knows where Geelong is. Or does he have some grudge against quick players? I'm certainly not in the know, but it seems perfcectly reasonable to think that, had we kept the pick, we might have taken Pittard.

[plugger66]

How many did he draft from them over the 3 years at the club?

Two.

Now you tell me how that impacts on whether we would have taken Pittard. I'm pretty sure he knows where Geelong is. Or does he have some grudge against quick players? I'm certainly not in the know, but it seems perfcectly reasonable to think that, had we kept the pick, we might have taken Pittard.

He may have taken Pittard but he certainly may not. Anyway my point stands. Why do people think we have taken the same person as another did with the pick we traded?

[Spinner]

Hey BAM, dont be so certain these calls were all made in hindsight....

Some people were disgusted that we traded for Lovett at all let alone a FRDP ane we absolutely shot down for doubting the recruiters before he even played a game (perhaps you were one of them).....

And what acutually made him a gun???

The fact he had not finished top ten in a b&f in 8 years at a bottom team.....he played a few good games.....a lot of poor ones....
He was not a team player, heavily disliked, and had zero work ethic....does that make him a gun....

Or the fact he played so outside he made jason gram look like lenny hayes, and he though a tackle was something to insert in an unsuspecting female....

Yes he could run, take a few bounces and kick a the odd goal....... He was also unreliable, unaccountable, soft and undisciplined....

Far from a 'gun'

You say we needed running players... Then criticise the recruiting of Lovett.

Clearly you don't watch opposition teams.. Because Lovett was an A grader... And would have been a major addition to our team.

[BigMart]

Adrew Lovett

Recruited as a 21yo in the 2003 rookie draft #42

Played 88 games in six years
Averaged 11 kick, 6 handballs, 17 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 2.5 tackles

That aint A-Grade......thats not evenensky material...

Why is he so overrated, because of one good anzac day and two good games against us???

Biggest front runner since shane clayton....

[Spinner]

Adrew Lovett

Recruited as a 21yo in the 2003 rookie draft #42

Played 88 games in six years
Averaged 11 kick, 6 handballs, 17 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 2.5 tackles

That aint A-Grade......thats not evenensky material...

Why is he so overrated, because of one good anzac day and two good games against us???

Biggest front runner since shane clayton....

As I said obviously didn't watch him play that year. Seem only you watched him on ANZAC day and the games against us.

Got his stats for the last year at essendon? Or do you enjoy watering down statistics so they remotely help your arguement by including his development years.

[Richter]

As I said obviously didn't watch him play that year. Seem only you watched him on ANZAC day and the games against us.

Got his stats for the last year at essendon? Or do you enjoy watering down statistics so they remotely help your arguement by including his development years.

You mean the 2009 season when he played all 2 games for the BOmbers?

AVeraging 20.9 disposals, 2.6 tackles and 1 goal a game?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-e ... rew-lovett

Obviously, knowing now that he turned out to be a plonker means that recruiting was a bad call. But at the time we were, and we still are, crying out for a speedy mid who could kick a goal. AL would have fit the bill to a tee.

[BigMart]

Development years......he dubeted at 23yo......

Armitage isnt 23 yet, to put that in perspective......

When did he stop development, at 26?

Lovett averaged 20 disposals a game in 2009 at. 27yo......finished outside the top ten in the b&f....in his big year....

A graders average that output, and then they start the last quarter....

If you believe Lovett was an a-grader, it really does do a disservice to actual a-graders.......

Like montagna, hayes, goddard, judd, watson, ablett, bartel, mitchell, swan, hodge, mundy, swallow, murphy, chapman, burgoyne, black, j.mcveigh, thompson, pendlebury,griffen, boyd, cooney....

He wasnt even as good as many b-graders
Ball, cross, gram, bolton, douglas, reilly, vince, corey, richetelli, ling, sewell, lewis, cornes, foley, stanton, maloney

Or even up and comers...b/c grade
Rich, cotchin, gibbs, scully, martin, cunnington, boak, hartlett, armitage, masten, jack, fyfe


But, if you think he was a good player because of a few run and bounce highlights, good for you.....in my opinion, he was npthing special, npt even remotely....

I would never have drafted him on attitude....but if i did, i certainly would have not gave up anything to acquire him, so when the inevitable happened, it cost nothing....

We took a huge risk on a frdp, a big no no

These are award winning all australian guns who are in best player lists an votes week in week out....

They achieve lovetts career browlow votes (12) every season

[BAM! (shhhh)]

"Gun", "A grade", "elite". These are all phrases which mean different things to different people - I called Lovett a gun meaning talent (and the price of the 1st rounder, and possible impact on the side in 2010), and got (rightly) pulled up as Lovett has often been talked about as an elite player, but never consistently delivered on that level of footy.

Lovett was a better version of Gram. Faster, better user of the ball, and a similar rate of contested possession (both accumulate loose ball using their speed to get their first. Neither likely to be found at the drop of the ball. Both peak at ~2 tackles a game, and you wonder if they get those tackles by being unable to avoid the collision). He would occasionally rip a game apart, he would go missing when the going got tough.

I suspect that in the 2010 Saints, he would have looked good, and that right now, we'd be calling for him to be dropped for being too "soft". Barring a Farren Ray like increase in his willingness to contest, it's a stretch to say the Saints were short a gun/elite/A grader in Lovett for last year's GF.