Last years trading

[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?

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?

im not certain. i said reckon. and we still could have used 30 on a kid who would still at least be rocking up to pre-season in a few weeks with a vfl season under his belt.

i remain unconvinced other clubs were keen on lovett (except us) and the bombers were definitely trying to offload him.

[gringo]

I'm for a start not a fan of Luke Ball, but in the 09 GF it is supposed by some good judges that as Lenny was tagged out of the game by Bartell, Ball could have been used to grab first possession, but it is hypothetical just like if Scarlett had done his knee in the last quarter not allowing the toe poke. A lot of speculation nothing else. History is past, can't change it.

[Mr Magic]

[im not certain. i said reckon. and we still could have used 30 on a kid who would still at least be rocking up to pre-season in a few weeks with a vfl season under his belt.

i remain unconvinced other clubs were keen on lovett (except us) and the bombers were definitely trying to offload him.

You see, you are making a number of assumptions.

Firstly you assume we could have gotten Lovett for anything other than our first pick.
Then you assume we wanted to get rid of Luke Ball, raher than we were prepared to trade him if we got something we valued in return.

It all comes back to perspective,
If you're convinced that we 'pushed' Ball out of the CLub, then you'll look at anything from that perspective.
If on the other hand you believe we wanted to keep Luke Ball then you will view everything from that perspective.

Since I fall into the latter category I believe we felt he was worth more to us than pick 30, and therefore if we couldn't get Everitt then we should keep him.
I don't for one second thionk that we would offer a player 1 million dollars over 3 years if we didn't seriously want him. And before some jump in and make the outrageous statement that we only offered that money so we could control the trade, I'm talking about the offer we made him after the trade period had ended- we couldn't then trade him for another year, if that's what we wanted to do.

This is a circular argument that gets nowhere becasue posters' positions are hardened.

BUT as long as posters continue to post what I consider to be wrong information surrounding this, then I will continue to argue the opposite view.

I understand fully that nobody who is of the opposite view from mine will change their opinion on the matter because of what I post, but I also know that it would be wrong to allow this 'urban myth' to become 'truth' just because it's repeated often without being challenged .