Lyon doesn't regret Ball inaction

[BigMart]

FFS - we will see what he is really worth draft day.....

Yes - Pick #30.....

Collingwood got their man.........we didn't get a kid in the second round of the draft.....actually we mightn't have taken a kid anyway......and looked for another 23yo delisted player.....so no biggie....

Wouldn't want to coach us in 4 years....

[Spinner]

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.

Anyone that waited for today's result isn't using logic in their assessment.

The decision was the correct one - hindsight aside. The risks were there, and the cards didn't fall our way. Doesn't mean that we didn't play the hand right.

What? We don't get to discuss a no-name player picked at the end of the second round? I can live with that... I wouldn't be able to take trading Luke Ball for next to nothing, to a competitor.

Good luck to the next kid that wants to leave and furthermore, stipulates one club as his choice. Trading out of St Kilda has suddenly become a far riskier pathway.

And best of luck to the team that offers us peanuts. Precedent will outline that you will not call our bluff. We will hold strong. We dont give in and we are firm in our beliefs.

The draft fell Ball's way, clubs s*** themselves. I doubt this will become a trend - Clubs wont continuously look over quality players that sook their way to the club of their choice.


Its 'not logical' to assess the merit of a decision based on how certain cards fall. What is logical is that at the time, with the current information, the decision was the right one, the losses far outweighed the gains, and it is a decision I would make 100 times over.

[Batnoe]

FFS - we will see what he is really worth draft day.....

Yes - Pick #30.....

Collingwood got their man.........we didn't get a kid in the second round of the draft.....actually we mightn't have taken a kid anyway......and looked for another 23yo delisted player.....so no biggie....

Wouldn't want to coach us in 4 years....

Dead set?

so what Lyon has done to the saints since he;s been in charge is bad?

We got to the GF.. He gets the most out of his players. We won 22 games

He had better coach us for 30 years

[Con Gorozidis]

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.

Anyone that waited for today's result isn't using logic in their assessment.

The decision was the correct one - hindsight aside. The risks were there, and the cards didn't fall our way. Doesn't mean that we didn't play the hand right.

What? We don't get to discuss a no-name player picked at the end of the second round? I can live with that... I wouldn't be able to take trading Luke Ball for next to nothing, to a competitor.

Good luck to the next kid that wants to leave and furthermore, stipulates one club as his choice. Trading out of St Kilda has suddenly become a far riskier pathway.

And best of luck to the team that offers us peanuts. Precedent will outline that you will not call our bluff. We will hold strong. We dont give in and we are firm in our beliefs.

The draft fell Ball's way, clubs s*** themselves. I doubt this will become a trend - Clubs wont continuously look over quality players that sook their way to the club of their choice.


Its 'not logical' to assess the merit of a decision based on how certain cards fall. What is logical is that at the time, with the current information, the decision was the right one, the losses far outweighed the gains, and it is a decision I would make 100 times over.

i follow ur argument. and everyone on draft day is a champion. but i dont buy this precendent tough talk stuff. clarko tried it. choco tried it. it doesnt mean a thing. each case is different. and pies werent offering peanuts. they were offering a fair trade (by definition it was fair).

but id still have taken 30 today. its not about cards falling. 30 was offered . plain and simple. so not sure what u mean by "cards falling".

offer was 30. plain and clear. today we could have had 2 2nd round pics instead of 1.

emotion aside. we lost a bit. but not enough to care about. if armo steps up i wont give a toss.

[SydneySainter]

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.

How can a player be worth 500k per year to a club, but at the same time, only worth trading a second round pick for? Collingwood were taking the piss, obviously thinking the situation was entirely in their control. Yes, they eventually got their man, but I have no doubt that if Ball and Connors hadn't launched their scare campaign, he would have been taken early than pick 30. In the end, no club had the nuts to stir the pigeons.

I think Ball will be missed, as quality in-and-under players don't grow on trees, but he is certainly not worth the coin he was currently on, nor what he expects now and anyone who thinks that he is worth over one million for three years needs to have their head checked.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Apparently it was pick 25 we were going to get for Ball (after Coll were going to trade someone to Nth Melb) and according to Kevin Sheahan etc, on the Draft show tonight, Aaron Black, who went at pick 25, is a "gun", that they were very surprised didn't get picked up much earlier. On the Big Pond website Black was tipped to be picked up at either pick 11 or 12.
Reportedly he's talented enough to play College basketball in the US and the highlight of his season "was in round 14 against Subiaco. It was wet and windy but he still managed to amass 29 disposals, took 14 grabs, and kicked an amazing 6.4.":

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/10/a ... spect.html

So that's who we potentially missed out on, by not agreeing to the trade. Someone with that sort of talent/ability.
Are we really going that well that we'd rather have nothing, than someone like him? We must be good!

[Nick is god]

How can a player be worth 500k per year to a club, but at the same time, only worth trading a second round pick for? Collingwood were taking the piss, obviously thinking the situation was entirely in their control. Yes, they eventually got their man, but I have no doubt that if Ball and Connors hadn't launched their scare campaign, he would have been taken early than pick 30. In the end, no club had the nuts to stir the pigeons.

I think Ball will be missed, as quality in-and-under players don't grow on trees, but he is certainly not worth the coin he was currently on, nor what he expects now and anyone who thinks that he is worth over one million for three years needs to have their head checked.

So how can a player not worth even 300k a year, slow, cant kick, not going to be in a teams best 22 be worth more than a 2nd round pick? Its one thing to say Collingwood didnt offer enough, but you then all put him down and still want a first round draft pick and a top player for him

But I do agree with another comment that players wont be quick to leave in the future, they will know their coach was full of s*** when he said if you dont want to play for us, we dont want you here and will move you on, obviously must only mean those players 35-40 on the list who he was going to cut anyway

However I do agree that Ross Lyon wont be worried about not getting anything for Ball, he has far bigger concerns from trade week, like how he gave up a 1st round draft pick for Andrew Lovett

[rodgerfox]

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.

How can a player be worth 500k per year to a club, but at the same time, only worth trading a second round pick for? Collingwood were taking the piss, obviously thinking the situation was entirely in their control. Yes, they eventually got their man, but I have no doubt that if Ball and Connors hadn't launched their scare campaign, he would have been taken early than pick 30. In the end, no club had the nuts to stir the pigeons.

I think Ball will be missed, as quality in-and-under players don't grow on trees, but he is certainly not worth the coin he was currently on, nor what he expects now and anyone who thinks that he is worth over one million for three years needs to have their head checked.

Facts are....

A month ago, we had Luke Ball. (Saints + Luke Ball = Fact)

We were offered pick 30 and a player for Luke Ball. (Saints + Pick 30 + Player - Luke Ball = Fact)

We ended up with Nothing. (Saints - Luke Ball = Fact)


That's what I mean when I say we stuffed it. Simply put, we're behind factually on where we could have been at. It's simple.

Does it really matter though? Does Pick 30 + a Player = Luke Ball? I don't think so.

Does Nothing = Luke Ball? Clearly not.

So the real question is, does Nothing = Pick 30 and a Player? Not quite. So to work out exactly how much this matters, simply do the maths......

Pick 30 + Player - Nothing = ???



See, it's simple!

[joffaboy]

Apparently it was pick 25 we were going to get for Ball (after Coll were going to trade someone to Nth Melb) and according to Kevin Sheahan etc, on the Draft show tonight, Aaron Black, who went at pick 25, is a "gun", that they were very surprised didn't get picked up much earlier. On the Big Pond website Black was tipped to be picked up at either pick 11 or 12.
Reportedly he's talented enough to play College basketball in the US and the highlight of his season "was in round 14 against Subiaco. It was wet and windy but he still managed to amass 29 disposals, took 14 grabs, and kicked an amazing 6.4.":

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/10/a ... spect.html

So that's who we potentially missed out on, by not agreeing to the trade. Someone with that sort of talent/ability.
Are we really going that well that we'd rather have nothing, than someone like him? We must be good!

yeah great logic

We had pick #2 once and missed out on Chris Judd.

Compounded last night when the player we chose instead of Judd left the club.

Thomas really stuffed up by picking a lovechild from his kids school instead of going for one of the games greatest champions.

[joffaboy]

So the real question is, does Nothing = Pick 30 and a Player? Not quite. So to work out exactly how much this matters, simply do the maths......

Pick 30 + Player - Nothing = ???



See, it's simple!

Very simply yes.

But isn't what the pick #30 and the list clogger of a player brings to the club the real issue?

We used #17 on Watts
We used #6 and #14 on Brookes
We used #27 on Howard
We used #2 on Ball (harsh in comparision to the others but considering Judd was available, judge him on that).

We have had list cloggers who give minimal service in the seniors and dps in the #30 range and lower who have been useless.

A pick on a player who wont be ready for at least two years and a dud like Wellingham will not win us the flag.

We can also use hypotheticals on players we have picked up

Lovett - best season for Essendon last year.
Peake - may come good in a decent team
Smith - if injury free could be a great pickup
Tommy Walsh - reports are that he is easily as good as a R1 pick (wouldn't know just going on reports from people who do) and we got him for FREE.

So #30 and a list clogger is a what if, as are the list above.

All in the fullness of time.

[Saints43]

Apparently it was pick 25 we were going to get for Ball (after Coll were going to trade someone to Nth Melb) and according to Kevin Sheahan etc, on the Draft show tonight, Aaron Black, who went at pick 25, is a "gun", that they were very surprised didn't get picked up much earlier. On the Big Pond website Black was tipped to be picked up at either pick 11 or 12.
Reportedly he's talented enough to play College basketball in the US and the highlight of his season "was in round 14 against Subiaco. It was wet and windy but he still managed to amass 29 disposals, took 14 grabs, and kicked an amazing 6.4.":

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/10/a ... spect.html

So that's who we potentially missed out on, by not agreeing to the trade. Someone with that sort of talent/ability.
Are we really going that well that we'd rather have nothing, than someone like him? We must be good!

yeah great logic

We had pick #2 once and missed out on Chris Judd.

Compounded last night when the player we chose instead of Judd left the club.

Thomas really stuffed up by picking a lovechild from his kids school instead of going for one of the games greatest champions.

I reckon the logic of APS is undeniable. We have definitely missed out on someone...

And the 'great champion' isn't at the club that drafted him either. I reckon the Senior Assistant Environmental Consultant might have moved on for a bigger payday as well.

[markp]

RF + Saintsational = relentless baiting troll.

Mods + (Saintsational - RF) =

[SainterK]

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.

How can a player be worth 500k per year to a club, but at the same time, only worth trading a second round pick for? Collingwood were taking the piss, obviously thinking the situation was entirely in their control. Yes, they eventually got their man, but I have no doubt that if Ball and Connors hadn't launched their scare campaign, he would have been taken early than pick 30. In the end, no club had the nuts to stir the pigeons.

I think Ball will be missed, as quality in-and-under players don't grow on trees, but he is certainly not worth the coin he was currently on, nor what he expects now and anyone who thinks that he is worth over one million for three years needs to have their head checked.

Shhhh, don't bring up the $500K salary, they are trying to make a case here...

[joffaboy]

And the 'great champion' isn't at the club that drafted him either. I reckon the Senior Assistant Environmental Consultant might have moved on for a bigger payday as well.

Facts are that we could have chosen Judd ahead of Ball.

Reason why Judd left WCE was because of the drug culture and he wanted to come home to Victoria.

Do you honestly think we wouldn't be paying Judd what he is worth?

I dont see Riewoldt rushing off to the GC. he is well looked after.

Of course we then would have had the problem of

a) captaincy
b) losing other players (like Lenny or bj for example) trying to keep Judd and Riewoldt under the SC.

The point was that it is ludicrious to bemoan the fact that we "missed out" on Aaron Black.

We may have gone for somebody totally different, we may have gone for travis Coylor (#26) instead of Black and he may have been an absolute dud.

Fair dinkum, the moaning over a decision is churlish and pretty pathetic.

So #30 and Wellingham will win us a flag???

lol

[BringBackMadDog]

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

Who else in our team has been consistently good?

FFS We won 20 from 23 last season, isnt that the pure definition of consistency!!! You are an absolute joke you flog. BTW We will not miss Ball one little bit. Armo is every bit as tough, is much quicker, can actually kick the ball further than 30 metres and WANTS to play for us.

[SydneySainter]

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.

How can a player be worth 500k per year to a club, but at the same time, only worth trading a second round pick for? Collingwood were taking the piss, obviously thinking the situation was entirely in their control. Yes, they eventually got their man, but I have no doubt that if Ball and Connors hadn't launched their scare campaign, he would have been taken early than pick 30. In the end, no club had the nuts to stir the pigeons.

I think Ball will be missed, as quality in-and-under players don't grow on trees, but he is certainly not worth the coin he was currently on, nor what he expects now and anyone who thinks that he is worth over one million for three years needs to have their head checked.

Facts are....

A month ago, we had Luke Ball. (Saints + Luke Ball = Fact)

We were offered pick 30 and a player for Luke Ball. (Saints + Pick 30 + Player - Luke Ball = Fact)

We ended up with Nothing. (Saints - Luke Ball = Fact)


That's what I mean when I say we stuffed it. Simply put, we're behind factually on where we could have been at. It's simple.

Does it really matter though? Does Pick 30 + a Player = Luke Ball? I don't think so.

Does Nothing = Luke Ball? Clearly not.

So the real question is, does Nothing = Pick 30 and a Player? Not quite. So to work out exactly how much this matters, simply do the maths......

Pick 30 + Player - Nothing = ???



See, it's simple!

I see your point, but pick 30 + player would have still equated to just pick 30 really, as the club obviously saw Wellingham has nothing more than a list clogger and every player we inquired about was apparently a no go zone.

As for pick 30, the club knew the risk of saying no deal, but obviously saw pick 30 as not being a pick that they couldn't afford to lose.

[SainterK]

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

Who else in our team has been consistently good?

FFS We won 20 from 23 last season, isnt that the pure definition of consistency!!! You are an absolute joke you flog. BTW We will not miss Ball one little bit. Armo is every bit as tough, is much quicker, can actually kick the ball further than 30 metres and WANTS to play for us.

And as someone pointed out so intelligently on here recently, there is every chance Armitage would of left for lack of opportunity had Luke Ball been on the list next year...

[Saints43]

We may have gone for somebody totally different, we may have gone for travis Coylor (#26) instead of Black and he may have been an absolute dud.

Fair dinkum, the moaning over a decision is churlish and pretty pathetic.

So #30 and Wellingham will win us a flag???

lol

I understand your point. The Ball trade may have produced nothing in return. His leaving almost definitely will now.

I'll admit that when Port held out and took nothing for their sheepdog I thought 'good on them'. Now that we've done the same and ended with up with nothing but a bit of room in the cap I'm less keen.... at least Port got a moral victory...

[joffaboy]

We may have gone for somebody totally different, we may have gone for travis Coylor (#26) instead of Black and he may have been an absolute dud.

Fair dinkum, the moaning over a decision is churlish and pretty pathetic.

So #30 and Wellingham will win us a flag???

lol

I understand your point. The Ball trade may have produced nothing in return. His leaving almost definitely will now.

I'll admit that when Port held out and took nothing for their sheepdog I thought 'good on them'. Now that we've done the same and ended with up with nothing but a bit of room in the cap I'm less keen.... at least Port got a moral victory...

yeah - we didn't win in this, and the slight critisism heard of Lyon has been fair. Mostly the prevailing view of most commentators is that the Saints "took a stance".

As RF said - #30 + Wellingham is more than nothing (or words to that effect - please dont call me a .LIAR RF ), just stating that the more than nothing also guarantees nothing.

Lyon is not above critisism (except from you and mb ) and he makes mistakes.

So far his good choices have outnumbered his poor choices in my opinion.

[Saintersss]

So the real question is, does Nothing = Pick 30 and a Player? Not quite. So to work out exactly how much this matters, simply do the maths......

Pick 30 + Player - Nothing = ???



See, it's simple!

Very simply yes.

But isn't what the pick #30 and the list clogger of a player brings to the club the real issue?

We used #17 on Watts
We used #6 and #14 on Brookes
We used #27 on Howard
We used #2 on Ball (harsh in comparision to the others but considering Judd was available, judge him on that).

We have had list cloggers who give minimal service in the seniors and dps in the #30 range and lower who have been useless.

A pick on a player who wont be ready for at least two years and a dud like Wellingham will not win us the flag.

We can also use hypotheticals on players we have picked up

Lovett - best season for Essendon last year.
Peake - may come good in a decent team
Smith - if injury free could be a great pickup
Tommy Walsh - reports are that he is easily as good as a R1 pick (wouldn't know just going on reports from people who do) and we got him for FREE.

So #30 and a list clogger is a what if, as are the list above.

All in the fullness of time.

Yes, but instead we had to use Pick 77, isn't that a lot more likely to produce a 'list clogger' than 30.
The only way we have won in this non-trade is if in the future when something similar happens we get a better deal due to clubs knowing we won't take less than what we think the player in worth.

It's like the Nick Stevens deal, Port lost him for nothing, but now this year they got 2 first rounders for a player who didn't play the whole year due to a knee injury and is 27 years of age. The only reason they got that is because the Hawks knew that Port would only accept what 'they' thought was fair.

Please don't use the arguement that the player we picked could have been a dud though, that is a terrible arguement. He could have been the next Gary Ablett as well. All in all we have lost the trade, but in the next 5 years we may regain what was lost. or we may not, only time can tell.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Why does everyone keep mentioning that we would have gotten pick 30 and a "list clogger" for Ball? Wasn't it widely reported that the main offer on the table at the end was that we would receive PICK 25, after Collingwood traded someone (reportedly Wellingham) to Nth?
Or do all you talking about 30 not want to let the truth get in the way of your good story?
My point, Joffa's, if you can get over yourself for two seconds, was that with pick 25 we could/would have been in line to select someone with Aaron Black's ability (who Scott Clayton, in today's Herald Sun also said "slipped through"). That point was made to all those who thought there wouldn't be anyone decent available at 25.
There was someone very decent available at 25 and as I predicted weeks ago, Ball lasted till 30. I said I thought we f***ed up immediately after trade day ended and nothing that's happened since has changed my mind on that. It's been a debacle, made worse by the fact that we also lost Goose (who's running has now apparently been freed-up by his recent removal of plates, or whatever, from his leg) and X Clarke for a grand total of pick 60.

[barks4eva]

We had pick #2 once and missed out on Chris Judd.

Compounded last night when the player we chose instead of Judd left the club.

Thomas really stuffed up by picking a lovechild from his kids school instead of going for one of the games greatest champions.

Yes if only Thomas had listened to Butterss who wanted us to use the selection on Chris Judd instead of picking his lovechild!

btw has Ball been DNA tested yet?

Might clear up the 600K question?

Anyway another brick in the wall of Grant Thomas stuff ups that to date has cost us at least two quite possibly 3 premierships.

[saintnick12]

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.

Anyone that waited for today's result isn't using logic in their assessment.

The decision was the correct one - hindsight aside. The risks were there, and the cards didn't fall our way. Doesn't mean that we didn't play the hand right.

What? We don't get to discuss a no-name player picked at the end of the second round? I can live with that... I wouldn't be able to take trading Luke Ball for next to nothing, to a competitor.

Good luck to the next kid that wants to leave and furthermore, stipulates one club as his choice. Trading out of St Kilda has suddenly become a far riskier pathway.

And best of luck to the team that offers us peanuts. Precedent will outline that you will not call our bluff. We will hold strong. We dont give in and we are firm in our beliefs.

The draft fell Ball's way, clubs s*** themselves. I doubt this will become a trend - Clubs wont continuously look over quality players that sook their way to the club of their choice.


Its 'not logical' to assess the merit of a decision based on how certain cards fall. What is logical is that at the time, with the current information, the decision was the right one, the losses far outweighed the gains, and it is a decision I would make 100 times over.

My thoughts exactly.....

[joffaboy]

Why does everyone keep mentioning that we would have gotten pick 30 and a "list clogger" for Ball? Wasn't it widely reported that the main offer on the table at the end was that we would receive PICK 25, after Collingwood traded someone (reportedly Wellingham) to Nth?

We were offered #30 and Wellingham for Ball early on. Then Collingwood tried to Hawk that deal to Nth for #21 which the Saints would have used for Everitt. Nth said only 25, Saints said not enough, Ball and Connors tampers with draft by putting an absurd price on his head and not talking to other clubs.

Or do all you talking about 30 not want to let the truth get in the way of your good story?

If you had half followed trade week, you would know there was an offer of #30 and Wellingham. We never were offered pick #25.

It may be you who cant get their facts right.

My point, Joffa's, if you can get over yourself for two seconds

No need to get ansy because someone has a different opinion, or someone who can see further than the "oh woe is us" predictable line.

, was that with pick 25 we could/would have been in line to select someone with Aaron Black's ability (who Scott Clayton, in today's Herald Sun also said "slipped through"). That point was made to all those who thought there wouldn't be anyone decent available at 25.

We never had #25. Never offered. Collingwood never had it to offer. But lets take your scenario to its logical conclusion. We pick up #29 Jack Gunston (cant use Luke Ball as the example obviously). Are you guaranteeing me he will be a gun?

We have had many many picks around 30 that have given us no or little service, we have had picks like Sam Fisher and Leigh Montagna much higher than thirty that have turned out to be great picks.

The point is that everyone is just assuming that #30 will be a great player for us. It is an inexact science and all this is is crystal ball gazing.

There was someone very decent available at 25 and as I predicted weeks ago, Ball lasted till 30. I said I thought we f***ed up immediately after trade day ended and nothing that's happened since has changed my mind on that.

Well anyone can see that your mind wont be changed. Guarantee me that pick #29 (we DIDN'T ever get offered pick #25 FFS ) will be a gun.

You cant and Wellingham would have been a list clogger like Leigh Fisher or Brad Howard - worthless.

The facts are you just dont know. You are clueless to what will happen and you were willing for the club to be bent over by Collingwood. You may enjoy that, but I have gained respect for the club and the stance taken.

It's been a debacle, made worse by the fact that we also lost Goose (who's running has now apparently been freed-up by his recent removal of plates, or whatever, from his leg)

You a doctor? Goose couldn't get a game this season. He doesn't fit our scenario, but you would know better wouldn't you.

and X Clarke for a grand total of pick 60.

lol - now your true colours are being shown. What relevance Goose and X have when talking about Luke Ball is anybody's guess, except for your obvious agenda to critisise Lyon and recruitment.

X was offered a one year contract. he got the opportunity to go to Brisbane and the Saints accommodated him by taking #60.

We used #60 on a player that is now fit and has been talked about by recruiters asa first round draft pick. But that doesn't suit your agenda obviously

Yup drafting has been shocking hasn't it?

Lovett - slow and no good
Peake - slower than Ball
Walsh - worst irish recruit ever according to those in the know
Winmar - only chosen because his name is Winmar apparently
Smith - no good and cant play even when not injured
Patison - well I'll give you that one

Mate - look at the bigger picture and dont let your hero worship of three GOP's who are now gone cloud your judgement.

or do you want you judgement clouded???????

[SydneySainter]

I think a lot of you really need to decide what side of the fence you are on.

The club's tough stance on not trading Ball for "chicken feed" was applauded by the majority on this forum.

Now that he ended up a Pie anyway, the criticism floods in about how we got nothing for him, maybe pick 25 could have been an alright trade afterall and that Lyon stance was a failure.

Make up your mind!