Lyon doesn't regret Ball inaction

bigcarl · Post: # 861392Post **bigcarl** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:25pm

BigMart wrote:I would still have liked COMPENSATION for losing a quality player....is that hard to fathom......even if it was a second rounder

if we'd have caved in to collingwood on that i'd have been disappointed in the club. not keen on being bent over by them.

satchmo · Post: # 861393Post **satchmo** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:25pm

BigMart wrote:Th

If I can't get 300K for my house, I rather take zero

No, it's like your bogan neighbour offering you 50k for your house because it's not worth any more with a bogan for a neighbour.

markp · Post: # 861394Post **markp** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:25pm

BigMart wrote:if the club deems him to be not worth keeping at the price, and the other 'top 4 club' does....then it should not be an issue as it obviously means we are in better shape.......if we are worried about Luke improving another top 4 club, maybe he should be improving the one he was at....

I would still have liked COMPENSATION for losing a quality player....is that hard to fathom......even if it was a second rounder..

wasn't a rant, just an HONEST opinion of the outcome of the issue (which is the fact we got ZERO for L.Ball, when at least 5 clubs wanted him).....I believe there is a lot of convincing ourselves, and bullsh*tting going on..

Salt to the wounds would be if he wins a Norm Smith in a Premiership...

Obviously the club liked our chances of keeping him more than they liked pick 30... and the prospect of sending out the message that we can be easily bent over during trade week.

I say **** pick 30, **** Collingwood, **** Paul Connors, and **** Luke Ball.

Moods · Post: # 861397Post **Moods** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:30pm

You'll all have to excuse my ignorance on this - but did I read correctly this morning that the pies offered us Tyson Goldsack and pick 25 1/2 an hour before trade deadline?

If that offer was made, I would have taken that in a second. I wasn't aware that this offer was made.

bigcarl · Post: # 861398Post **bigcarl** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:34pm

Moods wrote:You'll all have to excuse my ignorance on this - but did I read correctly this morning that the pies offered us Tyson Goldsack and pick 25 1/2 an hour before trade deadline?

If that offer was made, I would have taken that in a second. I wasn't aware that this offer was made.

they didn't have pick 25 to trade, but reportedly were going to trade wellingham to the kangaroos for pick 25.

if they'd been serious about doing a fair deal with us, they'd not have left it that late.

saintnick12 · Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:44pm

Reading the article, it sounds like it was pick 30 plus the player, OR pick 25. At the time there was also talk of pick 62 also being offered which the Saints considered a waste of time.

I was surprised that the club stood firm, but not disappointed. They are entitled to require a fair and resonable trade and it sounds like they also thought it a good chance they could talk him into staying, which didn't work out. I am certainly not disappointed in them for not handing Ball to Collingwood easily. Its unlikely we would have used the pick 30 player next season and Ball may well line up against our mid field in a final next year. I'm sure we would have the Collingwood midfield covered, but it still strengthens them in the short term more than the draft pick would.

I don't agree with Ross' assertion that the draft tonight tells us whether we made the right decision. I think the fact that so many clubs have talked about taking him with such low picks is proof enough that he was worth more. If the likes of Melb, Ess, Bris etc don't take him...it won't be because they don't think him worth the pick...they have clearly stated he is worth the pick. Its more to do with the way he has conducted himself and how this reflects and how its likely to go if they have to drag him there. My close friend at work is a full on Melbourne supporter and he doesn't want him - "if he doesn't want to be here, then we don't want him". So if he does get to Collingwood tonight, I don't think that means pick 30 was his true value all along. melbourne would have taken him with 11 or 18 in a heart beat if he showed any interest in them at all. Who knows ....they still might.

I hope he ends up at Melbourne. If he is lucky enough to get to Collingwood, I hope we play them in the GF next year and beat them. Then he will be crying again...

Armoooo · Post: # 861416Post **Armoooo** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 5:27pm

saint66au wrote:Annoys me when peple say "we'll get nothing for him"

What we DO get is some breathing space in our salary cap and TPP, which might come in handy down the track

Who knows Armitage might come on in leaps and bounds this year and we probably would have lost him if we kept Ball...

chook23 · Post: # 861423Post **chook23** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 5:48pm

yes a bit disappointed not to get what the saints list management wanted for Ball............

we did not then trade for pick 30

we may have retained ball (like Syd with O'Keefe)

we did not

But St. Mart we did not lose him for nothing........(not overall)

it allowed another player to come into the list...........(for nothing-no trade)

who knows how good that pick/player will be.....

sunsaint · Post: # 861429Post **sunsaint** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 6:01pm

As one of the forums "luminaries" I doubt that there will be too much crowing going on about Luke Ball tonight. Certainly not from me, anyway the cards fall it has been sad.

But some of the view points from the "anti-luminaries" just dont add up.

We can agree to a complicated 4 club deal that hinged around pick 25: BUT cant accept a straight pick 30 swap.

Never want to see him go to the filth a top 8 club: BUT cant see the irony of doing deals with Geelong, Swans, Dogs, in reverse

Anything less than a 1st rounder is not good enough for Ball. BUT he cant kick cant run, no tank, no speed, a pure hack destined for the twos.

It was always about the money: BUT deals were around the $300k mark the same offered by the club. So salary cap squeeze was not the issue. (UNLESS we really did pay over market value for Peake and Lovett - but we dont know the contents of contracts)

We didnt get shafted by collingwood. BUT well there is no upside to this, just a warm fuzzy feeling.

Just sad all round.

chook23 · Post: # 861435Post **chook23** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 6:13pm

sunsaint wrote:As one of the forums "luminaries" I doubt that there will be too much crowing going on about Luke Ball tonight. Certainly not from me, anyway the cards fall it has been sad.

But some of the view points from the "anti-luminaries" just dont add up.

We can agree to a complicated 4 club deal that hinged around pick 25: BUT cant accept a straight pick 30 swap.

Never want to see him go to the filth a top 8 club: BUT cant see the irony of doing deals with Geelong, Swans, Dogs, in reverse

Anything less than a 1st rounder is not good enough for Ball. BUT he cant kick cant run, no tank, no speed, a pure hack destined for the twos.

It was always about the money: BUT deals were around the $300k mark the same offered by the club. So salary cap squeeze was not the issue. (UNLESS we really did pay over market value for Peake and Lovett - but we dont know the contents of contracts)

We didnt get shafted by collingwood. BUT well there is no upside to this, just a warm fuzzy feeling.

Just sad all round.

not pick 25

Bulldogs wanted pick 21

Collingwood offered player believed to be Wellingham and pick 30 to north for their pick (25?) which did not satisfy Bulldogs who would not budge from 21

hence it fell over

saintsRrising · Thu 26 Nov 2009 6:22pm

BigMart wrote:

when at least 5 clubs wanted him...

Irrelevant.

The flaw in your bake, and it is a major one, is that you CANNOT trade a player against his will.

Ball and his manager REFUSED to accept any other club bar the Pies.

So you point is irrelevant.

Now that Ball has nomintaed for the draft the situation is completely different. Now ANY team can select him against his will.

Ball decision is then whether to stand out for 23 months and pass up 2 x $500K, or to play with whichever club picks him.

Ball will play..as he is not that stupid.

rodgerfox · Post: # 861938Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:17pm

We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.

A pick 30 in a rejects draft plus a Collingwood reject is hardly enough to give us the improvement we need.

joffaboy · Post: # 861952Post **joffaboy** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:21pm

rodgerfox wrote:We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.

In hindsight, probably, but does it really matter?

We will see if Lovett is standing outside of packs and our remaining in and under mids cant get it out to him.

All in the fullness of time.

rodgerfox · Post: # 861958Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:25pm

joffaboy wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.

In hindsight, probably, but does it really matter?

We will see if Lovett is standing outside of packs and our remaining in and under mids cant get it out to him.

All in the fullness of time.

Losing Ball will hurt badly, no doubt about that.

But whether we lose him for zilch or for pick 30 and a reject doesn't really matter.

SainterK · Post: # 861962Post **SainterK** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:26pm

rodgerfox wrote:
joffaboy wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.

In hindsight, probably, but does it really matter?

We will see if Lovett is standing outside of packs and our remaining in and under mids cant get it out to him.

All in the fullness of time.
Losing Ball will hurt badly, no doubt about that.

But whether we lose him for zilch or for pick 30 and a reject doesn't really matter.

Is your heart still hurting Roger?

plugger66 · Post: # 861963Post **plugger66** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:27pm

rodgerfox wrote:
joffaboy wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.

In hindsight, probably, but does it really matter?

We will see if Lovett is standing outside of packs and our remaining in and under mids cant get it out to him.

All in the fullness of time.
Losing Ball will hurt badly, no doubt about that.

But whether we lose him for zilch or for pick 30 and a reject doesn't really matter.

Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?

rodgerfox · Post: # 861965Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:28pm

SainterK wrote:
Is your heart still hurting Roger?

?

joffaboy · Post: # 861966Post **joffaboy** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:28pm

rodgerfox wrote: Losing Ball will hurt badly, no doubt about that.

But whether we lose him for zilch or for pick 30 and a reject doesn't really matter.

Dont know about that.

I have high hopes for Armo and also Jack Steven, Geary and Eddy.

All are fitter and quicker than Ball.

Ball was a wonderful hard ball get, but became a poorer and poorer disposer.

We need the young guys to step up - but considering Ball only played half a game, we will go into games with four on the bench for rotations instead of three for half a game.

rodgerfox · Post: # 861967Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:28pm

plugger66 wrote:
Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?

Who else in our team has been consistently good?

joffaboy · Post: # 861970Post **joffaboy** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:29pm

rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?
Who else in our team has been consistently good?

haha

lol

here we go.

SainterK · Post: # 861971Post **SainterK** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:30pm

rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Is your heart still hurting Roger?
?

Nevermind

plugger66 · Post: # 861984Post **plugger66** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:35pm

rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?
Who else in our team has been consistently good?

I'll Bite. How about Lenny, Rooy, Dal, Joey, CJ, Chips, Blake and BJ for starters.

SainterK · Post: # 861987Post **SainterK** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:37pm

plugger66 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?
Who else in our team has been consistently good?
I'll Bite. How about Lenny, Rooy, Dal, Joey, CJ, Chips, Blake and BJ for starters.

Don't, when you were so right in your assessment previous...

rodgerfox · Post: # 861993Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:42pm

plugger66 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Why will losing Bally badly hurt us. When has he been consistantly good recently?
Who else in our team has been consistently good?
I'll Bite. How about Lenny, Rooy, Dal, Joey, CJ, Chips, Blake and BJ for starters.

Sure, I'd rather lose Ball than any of those guys (bar Blake).

But that's only 8 of 22 players. If we're relying on our top 8 (which by the way, I think we are) than we'e in trouble.

Because Ball isn't in our top 8, doesn't mean losing a player of his niche and ability won't hurt badly.

I think it will.

Con Gorozidis · Fri 27 Nov 2009 12:36am

rodgerfox wrote:We stuffed it.

Anyone arguing against that is simply a foolish one-eyed footy fan.

Does it really matter though? Probably not.
arguiing
A pick 30 in a rejects draft plus a Collingwood reject is hardly enough to give us the improvement we need.

i agree with you RF. we stuffed it. pick 30 and 32 would have been nice today instead of just 32. pretty clear to me. anyone against that logic is not using logic!

anyway. wont lose any sleep over it. but its still a stuff up. hopefully its one we soon forget. but yeah a kid at 30 and 32 would have been nice. andrejs everitt would have been amazing. but pick 30 would have been better than sweet f_all.