I missed all of the conversation on this trade until now. I also found it very lopsided and considered lodging a veto, but didn’t get around to it. The revision fixed it a little, but it still seems out of whack. Full transparency, I was also concerned that I’d contacted Tracey a cpl weeks ago to enquire about Sloane and was told he was a keeper and there was no further discussion. And then I saw this trade get done. I’m not suggesting Tracey and I could’ve worked out a deal in the end, but going from no discussion because he’s a keeper to giving him up for not much seems awry to me. @Tracey
I was one of the people Len sounded out about the trade, and I am absolutely fine with it. As @TheTassieHawk says, and as I said to Len at the time, it all comes down to how people perceive age and injury in players. For example Sloane’s perceived value for me might be lower than what @JC values him at. It is also dependant on where people are in their ‘window’. It is also not uncommon for people to change their idea of value as the trading / pre-season period develops. I have often made trade offers to players to have them knocked back for the player I was then after to be traded to someone else for what I perceive to be lesser value. @Len has made a crack at a premiership window trade... that will have maybe 1-3 seasons in it. @Tracey has taken a longer term view... and pick 15 in this draft is not a bad long term option in my opinion. @graeme take on board the comments about transparency, but given Len & Tracey actually ran the deal past a couple of us, I think they have been more transparent than they needed to. They could have just done the deal and waited for the likes of @anthak to crack the shits and deal with the fallout. They socialised it, got a and proceeded, and based on that, I’m happy with how they got to where they are.
@Bandit let me make something quite plain. I play this game to win. My #1 player (Tom Mitchell) is out for the year. I have a limited window in which I can win ORFFA. So I need a strong, premium, maybe elite player. I would love to own Sloane. He would be perfect cover this year, and maybe the next few years. Please look at the recod of a guy who is just about 29 years old. I am interested in Oliver - who is up for auction by Lenny - so far, PSD picks #'s 17 and 22 and Papley. The latter is established, in the leadership group, has had his first real pre-season and is a good SC scorer. Lenny says not good enough. I respect that. It is over to me whether I make another bid. I see Sloane traded secretly for a guy who is not even a certain starter for Carlton and some chump change. I think - WTF is going on here. He goes to a guy (Len) who is one of the competetion I think might beat me. That is the way I see it. We should have an understanding (I hate rules) that all premium players who can be traded should be subject to auction. PS - Disclaimer - I traded for Fyfe before he was a superstar. I gave (amongst other things) a ruck (Bellchambers) who is still #1 ruck for his club.
Define premium @graeme .... too subjective. If you guys are that up in arms about it you could veto.... haven’t seen one yet.
OK, I'll veto the trade. I thought the participants would be that embarrased they would cancel the trade! One long term deal we (ie., all ORFFANS) face is that the better players are being concentrated in very few hands. It limits the people who can win and makes the ORFFA less interesting. That's my view, I appreciate that some do not share it. Definition of premium too loose Bandit? Classic divert from the real principal. But ok, for M's previous year's SC score >100.
Year Games Average 2009 1 42.0 2010 14 75.2 2011 18 88.3 2012 21 106.1 2013 21 107.0 2014 22 114.8 2015 16 105.5 2016 21 108.6 2017 22 110.2 2018 12 96.6 So technically you are correct JC. However, I was just citing a for instance that might be applied. Please look at the guy's performances and make a judgement. We are all invested in this "trade" so let's be philosophical rather than nit-picking. edited for accuracy
I’ll place a veto too. It seems too lopsided to me. And I find it a little strange that just 10 days prior to the trade being accepted, I was effectively told that Sloane was non-negotiable before we could even get into a discussion about him. If thinking had changed on Sloane’s keeper status, considering I’d enquired about him just 10 days prior, I’m surprised I wasn’t contacted to see if I could make a better offer than Len’s.
We are all invested, @graeme . It's the basis of your investment that I'm unsure about. Because you've had a bit each way so far, from what I can see. Is it the self-interest and desire to win so eloquently expressed about a half a dozen posts up? Or is it the greater good of the 'FA outlined in your veto post? You were very upfront about how you would've liked to have landed Sloane, but in terms of your concerns about the concentration of better players in few hands, you getting him instead of Len wouldn't change that at all as far as I can see?
Why an ad hominem attack JC? Let me lay it out for you. There are two separate issues: 1. The Sloane "trade"; and 2. My view of the future of ORFFA. They are not mutually exclusive. I can covet a player and express a view.
You can, absolutely. But it doesn't change my view that your veto is based on nothing other than self-interest. It may not be, but that's how I see it.
Can someone please start up a separate thread and move recent posts to it ? I understand that this is an important side discussion but I am actually wanting to check if there have been any completed trades flowing in a day prior to the trade deadline.
So, a month or so ago I recommended to Dave that he placed Alex Rance up for auction to improve his draft position as his 2nd and 3rd rounders had already been traded out before he took over. Last 4 years averaged in the 80s or 90s, missed 2 games out of a possible 88. Passed in without a bid – he is 29 Cale Hooker, missed 2 games in 5 years, averaged 77 to 90, passed in without a bid (pre injury) – he is 30 Eddie Betts, missed 6 games in 5 years, last year was a low 66point avg but may or may not be a sign of age, - he is 32 also passed in without a bid Seb Ross, missed 1 game is 3 years, avg 102 last year, sold for picks 6 and 24 with 56 going back, he is 25 Clayton Oliver, missed 0 games in the last 2 years, avg 111 & 114 in last two years; opening bid, Tim Kelly and 49, then Jenkins, Walker and 58, followed by McGovern, Fritsch and 64, followed by Martin, Cockatoo MSD1stR MCgovern, Frisch, Ceglar with Oliver, Langdon, Richards coming back 12, 32 &34 for Oliver and 61 Beams, 18 and Watts 17, 22, Papley Pick 4 Opening bid, Christensen and pick 69, followed by 11, 80 and MSD 1stR , followed by 15,66 and 77, followed by 13, 67 and MSD 1stR 10, 40 &66 11, MSD1 and Mathieson Tom McDonald & 27 – Winning bid Kade Simpson, missed 3 games in 6 years, over 90 all that time, 106 last year, the bids Pick 58, then Scharenberg & Shipley Passed in (he is 34) So you want to tell me age isn’t a factor?? Here’s how the trade discussion happened: Tracey had picks 2, 21, 57 and 75 I was holding 5, 14, 20, 38, 47 and 101 – Completely forgot I had bid 47 as part of a package to get 30. I said to her that if she’d auctioned Mundy and Sloane she might have got value for them but lately no one is bidding on the older players and it’s now very close to delist time. She asked me what I thought they were worth, I said Sloane would get you a first rounder, probably around 15, Mundy maybe an early third rounder. Then I looked at picks and my squad and I was clearly lacking a M4 and F3, and I had the picks, roughly that I had just given her. I then said I wasn’t comfortable with the trade just being posted I wanted to ask a couple of the guys, I did and both said it was leaning a bit too far to me, so I gave her 4 names and said pick one and I’ll add it in, and I’ll take back the 2 picks you wont need to use now. She was extremely excited to grab Matt, he has been a favourite of hers (and mine) since he started. So it went down like every other trade discussion I’ve had here in 7 years. I’ve been back and reviewed the trade several times, and I am comfortable that it is a good deal for both of us, which is the criteria I place on every trade. She has a much improved position in the draft, going from 2, 21, 57 and 75 to 2, 14, 21, 38 I have a couple of guys that will help me compete again this year, you guys may have forgotten I finished 8th in the home and away, but I haven’t, I Bradbury’d it last year. So essentially I am looking at the trade and thinking I don’t get it, and then I start to wonder if the issue is some kind of supposed collusion, well if that’s it state and I will leave the league immediately, to the best of my knowledge I’ve never once acted without integrity here and if that’s suddenly questionable, well I have other leagues to play in. As for Ant’s comment about making a play for Sloane, I said to her at the time, you need picks, he has none, I don’t know how she phrased the response but to suggest a trade was otherwise doable is laughable. Graeme, you’re having a laugh, what secret trade?????????????????? A trade was discussed and posted, just like every other bloody one that isn’t an auction The difference in this case, unlike most is I actually conferred with two other coaches before I posted it, secret my arse
Thanks for this explanation. One of the big parts making it lopsided in my view was the picks going back to you. I didn’t see them as necessary. But you have pointed out Tracey wouldn’t have been using them anyway, so that part makes sense now. You’re right that I didn’t have any picks to give, but I’ve got some other decent young assets worth discussing, but I was told Sloane was a keeper, so we left it. My concern about this isn’t really about whether Tracey & I could’ve got a deal done, cause who knows if we could’ve or not in the end. It’s just that I was brushed off and then less than 2 weeks later a seemingly lopsided deal got done. Sloane went from untouchable to all of a sudden valued cheaply. However, now that you’ve explained the situation re the picks going back to you, I get it more now and the actual deal isn’t as bad as I first thought.