Why did we trade Luke Ball :s
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
At the end of the days unwanted players aren't offered 3 year contracts.rodgerfox wrote:He can no longer justify that he wasn't wanted? Or we can no longer justify that he wasn't wanted?SainterK wrote:On form, Luke would be in our best 22 right now.
But he walked, and he more than anyone, would know that he can no longer justify his decision in his own mind that he wasn't needed.
We just didn't want to use him the way he wanted to be used.
Good on him, he is being played the way he wanted to be played and playing well.
If he was at St Kilda, he would be playing well too, just not as much or as often.
At the end of the day we played a dangerous game of chicken over the trade table with Collingwood and lost. It happens.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
-
InkerSaint
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm
What a strange thread, question got answered with the first reply and it’s still going 4 pages later.
It’s too bad for the Saints that Collingwood was right, and Ball wasn’t worth any more than pick 30 at his asking price. Melbourne had 4 picks before then, could have been Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Ball. I remember they were making a fair bit of noise the week leading up to draft day about how they would love to have him.
What would the Saints have done with pick 30 anyway? Maybe picked up a 50 gamer. Might have picked up a Sam Gilbert or a Michael Rix.
Ball walked. There’s no point talking about what he might have done for us in our current situation. Ditto with the trade or no trade. Would make absolutely no difference.
4 pages? Seriously?
It’s too bad for the Saints that Collingwood was right, and Ball wasn’t worth any more than pick 30 at his asking price. Melbourne had 4 picks before then, could have been Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Ball. I remember they were making a fair bit of noise the week leading up to draft day about how they would love to have him.
What would the Saints have done with pick 30 anyway? Maybe picked up a 50 gamer. Might have picked up a Sam Gilbert or a Michael Rix.
Ball walked. There’s no point talking about what he might have done for us in our current situation. Ditto with the trade or no trade. Would make absolutely no difference.
4 pages? Seriously?
"... You want to pose a threat to the opposition in as many ways as you can, both defensively and offensively. We've got a responsibility to explore all those possibilities - and we will."
It will get to 10 pages pretty quickly if those who aren't interested in the topic continue to post.InkerSaint wrote:What a strange thread, question got answered with the first reply and it’s still going 4 pages later.
It’s too bad for the Saints that Collingwood was right, and Ball wasn’t worth any more than pick 30 at his asking price. Melbourne had 4 picks before then, could have been Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Ball. I remember they were making a fair bit of noise the week leading up to draft day about how they would love to have him.
What would the Saints have done with pick 30 anyway? Maybe picked up a 50 gamer. Might have picked up a Sam Gilbert or a Michael Rix.
Ball walked. There’s no point talking about what he might have done for us in our current situation. Ditto with the trade or no trade. Would make absolutely no difference.
4 pages? Seriously?
I didn't read the memo that stated that as soon as a question was answered the thread from there on must not continue.
Link?
From what I can see there's still a discussion over the reasons why he left and whether he would be good enough to get into our side.
It's still of interest to people obviously and the thread title isn't cryptic so if people aren't interested or do not wish to go over old ground why on earth enter the thread in the first place and then why reply?
I don't read every thread on Saintsational, I'm not sure why people feel the need they should.
-
Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Let's not forgot that Ball played the biggest game of chicken going into the draft. It's unheard of in modern Footy. Players of that I'll go into the draft knowing exactly where they are going because they are off to struggling teams with high preseason draft picks.
And he went at 30 @ 500k ... Fair price would have seen him going earlier.
And he went at 30 @ 500k ... Fair price would have seen him going earlier.
-
InkerSaint
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm
You say the thread title isn't cryptic.Beej wrote:It will get to 10 pages pretty quickly if those who aren't interested in the topic continue to post.
I didn't read the memo that stated that as soon as a question was answered the thread from there on must not continue.
Link?
From what I can see there's still a discussion over the reasons why he left and whether he would be good enough to get into our side.
It's still of interest to people obviously and the thread title isn't cryptic so if people aren't interested or do not wish to go over old ground why on earth enter the thread in the first place and then why reply?
I don't read every thread on Saintsational, I'm not sure why people feel the need they should.
"Why did we trade Luke Ball" when anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention knows we didn't trade him.
I don't see why my enquiry has any less relevance than yours.
Or is there some forum rule that says I'm not entitled to be curious.
Link?
"... You want to pose a threat to the opposition in as many ways as you can, both defensively and offensively. We've got a responsibility to explore all those possibilities - and we will."
You may be new to this phenomenon that is a message board but you'll soon get the hang of it.InkerSaint wrote:You say the thread title isn't cryptic.Beej wrote:It will get to 10 pages pretty quickly if those who aren't interested in the topic continue to post.
I didn't read the memo that stated that as soon as a question was answered the thread from there on must not continue.
Link?
From what I can see there's still a discussion over the reasons why he left and whether he would be good enough to get into our side.
It's still of interest to people obviously and the thread title isn't cryptic so if people aren't interested or do not wish to go over old ground why on earth enter the thread in the first place and then why reply?
I don't read every thread on Saintsational, I'm not sure why people feel the need they should.
"Why did we trade Luke Ball" when anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention knows we didn't trade him.
I don't see why my enquiry has any less relevance than yours.
Or is there some forum rule that says I'm not entitled to be curious.
Link?
From my experience, a topic/thread may be raised, but often, the discussion can go further than what is outlined in the thread title.
For example: a thread may be created entitled "Nick Riewoldt superstar". Somebody may decide to compare Nick Riewoldt to another number one draft pick. From there, the discussion may then lead towards who is the best number one draft pick of all time. Suddenly, Luke Hodge is the topic of discussion.
Look through a few threads and you'll find there are numerous examples of this type of occurrence.
It's not the first to go off tangent and it won't be the last.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum
Because replies to a topic are often worded aimed at someone's point of view, discussion will usually go slightly off into several directions as people question each others' validity, sources and so on. Circular discussion and ambiguity in replies can extend for several tens of posts of a thread eventually ending when everyone gives up or attention spans waver and a more interesting subject takes over. It is not uncommon for debate to end in ad hominem attacks.
-
InkerSaint
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm
Oh, an Internet forum? Really?
And I see you've contributed with a demonstration of ad hominem attacks.
Hey, I think I can see page 5 just around the corner.
And I see you've contributed with a demonstration of ad hominem attacks.
Hey, I think I can see page 5 just around the corner.
"... You want to pose a threat to the opposition in as many ways as you can, both defensively and offensively. We've got a responsibility to explore all those possibilities - and we will."
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
So good I stole it.
Although how would one go about making it a little more, well, wee...
Although how would one go about making it a little more, well, wee...
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30098
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
-
ralphsmith
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Sat 25 Jul 2009 10:36pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
I reckon I performed an exact copy of every aspect of his movement on around 40 occasions during the Essendon game. It was not a safe place, my living room. My daughters were nowhere to be seen. My wife was scowling. The dog was tip toeing.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
mbogo
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
I am not sure why Ross is being made to look like an idiot out of context?
But shouldn't the OP be "why did we let LB go?"
It has crossed my mind since the '09 GF a few times that we may rue the decision not to actually keep him as he was apparently "a required player" - when did this bit actually change?
And - another thread could be "who will replace LB?" - I have never seen Armo show any signs of this and he is out anyway - so maybe someone else has some ideas because we seem a bit short on the in and under brigade.
But shouldn't the OP be "why did we let LB go?"
It has crossed my mind since the '09 GF a few times that we may rue the decision not to actually keep him as he was apparently "a required player" - when did this bit actually change?
And - another thread could be "who will replace LB?" - I have never seen Armo show any signs of this and he is out anyway - so maybe someone else has some ideas because we seem a bit short on the in and under brigade.
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
How do you keep someone that doesn't want to stay though mbogo, they did try by all accounts, but he still decided to walk.mbogo wrote:I am not sure why Ross is being made to look like an idiot out of context?
But shouldn't the OP be "why did we let LB go?"
It has crossed my mind since the '09 GF a few times that we may rue the decision not to actually keep him as he was apparently "a required player" - when did this bit actually change?
And - another thread could be "who will replace LB?" - I have never seen Armo show any signs of this and he is out anyway - so maybe someone else has some ideas because we seem a bit short on the in and under brigade.
-
mbogo
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
Well - firstly - I have not seen all accounts.
Secondly we had money to spare on Lovett, Peake etc.. - so not sure what we offered or should have done. If he was getting 15 possies I would not care - but 28 last week? Obviously if we got rid of him to get Lovett - bad move!
Secondly we had money to spare on Lovett, Peake etc.. - so not sure what we offered or should have done. If he was getting 15 possies I would not care - but 28 last week? Obviously if we got rid of him to get Lovett - bad move!
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
He had a contract, long before Lovett and Peake were even in the picture. I also seem to recall Matthew Drain flying to the US after we failed to trade with Collingwood, to meet with him, to talk him into staying?mbogo wrote:Well - firstly - I have not seen all accounts.
Secondly we had money to spare on Lovett, Peake etc.. - so not sure what we offered or should have done. If he was getting 15 possies I would not care - but 28 last week? Obviously if we got rid of him to get Lovett - bad move!
Dunno, it's all awhile a go now....think he was still a required player, just no guarantee's of a spot in the best 22?