I certainly don't think you are an idiot..... <img alt='' width='243' height='243' src='/Portals/0/User%20Images/smiley%20small.jpg[/img] ......for bringing in 2 older players.
Can't run a team full of 22 and 23 year olds. You always need a couple of older players to provide depth, or to provide coverage as the younger guys improve. If those older guys continue to do the job and score well - and I look to Brent Harvey as an example of that for the Blimps - then it is a win-win. Plus it gives you another year to look at the kids in your team and make a more informed decision on who is going to be stepping up and who might not.
A couple of comments: 1. The Waikiks have frequently floated our belief that next year could well be our year as the premiership window looked open, especially if we could attract a top forward. To that end we dangled a 22 year old AA mid as trade bait.. In response to your enquiry whether Buddy was elite, young (the characteristics we sought) our response was an invitation to be creative. That did not elicit a response until my reminder to you after the trade had been consummated. Subsequently, before consummating a trade for N Roo without checking for any interest from me seems odd - given my well advertised desire for a premium forward. 2. That is the background to my response that I thought the trade was unbalanced. Despite you describing my analogy as 'absurd', that remains my opinion and your not agreeing does not change my opinion. 3. Notwithstanding the above I did not exercise my prerogative to post a veto of the trade.
Trade (subject to 48 hour review) The Nuffers and the Battlers looking to shuffle the deckchairs a little. Battlers get: Picks 5 & 41 Nuffers get: Jarryn Geary + picks 14 & 68
JC wrote: Trade (subject to 48 hour review) The Nuffers and the Battlers looking to shuffle the deckchairs a little. Battlers get: Picks 5 & 41 Nuffers get: Jarryn Geary + picks 14 & 68 /Portals/0/User%20Images/insider_trading.jpg
Iron Knob and Marble Bar trade. Iron Knob trades; Sam Day and pick #36 in the 2013 PSD to Marble Bar for; Jarrad Waite and pick #56 in the 2013 PSD I accept. I hope Waite can retain his place in the Carlton forward line or worst case get cut or moved to another team who needs him. I also hope he can play his average of 10 - 12 games minimum he has been averaging the last 5 years (more would be better!) Its a pretty risky trade for me, but Day is a fringe youngster on my team and I am just not sure he will ever crack the starting line up. Waite on the other hand is an instant start the games he is actually active.
To those coaches with whom I discussed Tom Ledger - thank god no trades were done - they would've been put in reverse quick smart given he has just been delisted by StKilda.
Interesting - wonder if Ledger will be picked up by another club. Not bereft of talent. Think GWS, sorry, the Misfits, and Iron Knob have a win/win.
TerryinBangkok wrote: Interesting - wonder if Ledger will be picked up by another club. Not bereft of talent. Think GWS, sorry, the Misfits, and Iron Knob have a win/win. Talks are likely to commence in the offseason between the GWS Misfits and Foul Bay to ensure Mumford is at home
chris88 wrote: To those coaches with whom I discussed Tom Ledger - thank god no trades were done - they would've been put in reverse quick smart given he has just been delisted by StKilda. A point of clarification if someone would be so kind. A reverse of such a trade? Surely all trades are caveat emptor style and the unfortunate accepts 'the rub of the green' as it were. I would hope we would frown on any reversed trades or have I missed something?
We are becoming a litigious society chels I agree 100% that all sanctioned trades should be irreversible, however I can see that in order to get a trade across the line certain conditions may need to be met, and therefore I would not be upset about a trade where the parties expressly state as part of the posted trade proposal, that it will be reversed under a stated set of criteria, providing that criteria does not extend into any part of the playing calendar, ie once the ball is bounced all bets are off. That said, I would never do a trade that involved such a clause, but then I would never do many of the trades done in the last month...
Lenh191 wrote: We are becoming a litigious society chels I agree 100% that all sanctioned trades should be irreversible, however I can see that in order to get a trade across the line certain conditions may need to be met, and therefore I would not be upset about a trade where the parties expressly state as part of the posted trade proposal, that it will be reversed under a stated set of criteria, providing that criteria does not extend into any part of the playing calendar, ie once the ball is bounced all bets are off. That said, I would never do a trade that involved such a clause, but then I would never do many of the trades done in the last month... I guess I would have looked to reverse the trade simply because I would have been trading 'Tom Ledger - St Kilda footballer' to someone, who instead would end up receiving 'Tom Ledger - delisted footballer' instead. It is definitely caveat emptor this time of year ... maybe the lesson is not to trade someone in danger of being delisted (that said, I wouldn't have thought Ledger would be delisted).
Ledger asked to be delisted. To increase his chances of finding a new home. Because he is an unrestricted free agent now. His only other option was to ask StK to trade him, but chance of that happening is less than finding a new home as an unrestricted free agent. He'll find a new home and will prob be worth more than he was at Saints.
Taking this opportunity while our Trade Commissioner is on his end of season holidays, chels is correct in his assumption. You cannot reverse a trade once the 48 hour deadline is passed. I hope that is now clear. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is nothing to prevent you from trading the player back (effectively reversing) at the next trade period and there is nothing to prevent the two trading parties from having a private agreement to do this at the time the initial trade is made.
Thanks for the clarification TiB. Hypothetically, in the unlikely event that your mob is wallowing and mine is going strong next season, can I trade (say) J Pod plus a draft pick for Birchall and we agree to reverse at the next occasion? If so the second part of the deal does not need to be disclosed? Interesting, we would have a win / win. I have a better shot at a premiership and you would probably get a better draft pick. Mmmmmmm ....
Do not disagree with your comments ant or Len - in fact I applaud them. One reason for my hypothetical was to get discussion on whether conditions attached to a trade should be disclosed; or whether trades with condition(s) attached should be allowed. My example was deliberately unbalanced, I could pose a trade that might be okay on the 'valuations are subjective' approach we seem to have adopted but that might well have obscured what I see as the real issue - disclosure (or not).
chels wrote: Thanks for the clarification TiB. Hypothetically, in the unlikely event that your mob is wallowing and mine is going strong next season, can I trade (say) J Pod plus a draft pick for Birchall and we agree to reverse at the next occasion? If so the second part of the deal does not need to be disclosed? Interesting, we would have a win / win. I have a better shot at a premiership and you would probably get a better draft pick. Mmmmmmm .... 'at the next trade period'
My opinion is anything posted should be irreversible. Sorry but you should think things through before you post a deal. There is plenty of time during negotiations and cooling off period to have a good think about all the potential pit falls. This whole 'trade back thing' sounds dodgy as hell too and I am not in favour at all!