yeah wtf did they get out of it. downgrade pick 14 for what reason???
To get Bird off their list and out of their salary cap.
5 Likes
And maybe use the picks for points for academy players?
We did well in that trade scenario, well done to dodoro on that one. Might have to go amend my post in the props thread
Carlisle played predominantly forward under him because he wanted Hurley on defence. Hirdy played Hurley forward and Carlisle in defence (would swing them sometimes)
If only one of them thought Hooker, we would probably still have them 3
3 Likes
Which St Kilda insisted they would not do.
I don’t know what people are talking about.
Pick 23 was originally ours. We downgraded it to pick 24. That downgrade was what made it (theoretically but not actually once picks started moving around) a points-positive trade for the swans. So we were
out: Carlisle, 23, 44
in: 5, 24, Bird
Ah, of course. Still being a little slow.
Well, they got what Birch quoted below, but they also came out points positive. They were going to lose #14 anyway to get Mills (went #3), but it wasn’t enough on its own. The traded for #23 and #44, then traded #23 again for another points positive result.
1 Like
From their perspective they did not do. From their end they gave up #5 for Carlisle, but also got an upgrade of their second round pick to #14.
Given our options and what we got for Ryder, we should bless Sydney for this and everyone should walk away (relatively) happy from the deal. If Sydney hadn’t come to the party, I expect we would have got two second rounders at best.
1 Like
Nah, what I posted ain’t right…
Carlisle forward then this clubs ■■■■■■
1 Like
Are you putting Hurley’s two AA’s as a defender, on Bomber as well?
2 Likes
More on Hurley was also. Gun defender. Reckon Carlisle would have one if he wasn’t wasted forward. Remember when Cloke looked like having form again and Carlol relegated him to the shadow realm?
1 Like
Nope. You wrote “they said they would not do”. As far as they’re concerned, they didn’t.
So Carlisle forward is on Bomber, but Hurley back is on Hurley? Strange logic, considering the two things were directly linked.
Basically, Bomber made a call between the two… And he made the right call imo.
Obviously, if we had of thought about Hooker forward a bit earlier things might be different, but Hooker was an AA defender during Bomber’s year. Tough to move him at that stage.
1 Like
With a lot of hindsight, that is the one that hurts. If we’d moved Hooker forward, we might have one of the great 1-2 defensive units with Carlisle/Hurley, and Hooker would potentially have 2-3 years of forward experience and might be kicking 50+ a year. Maybe Carlisle would have Hooker’s AA.
Hindsight,stupid annoying hindsight.
3 Likes
I can absolutely see Connor leaving. I’m worried.
1 Like
It’s not like we don’t have the cash…
There’s a magnet on the Saints team board with his name on it already. Sitting right next to Lav on a HBF.
10 Likes
Make a deal with them and get Seb Ross as well.
1 Like