Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
Needs a change of scenery or there could be salary cap issues.
Also keep in mind that to get someone away from their current club that you will have to pay above market value and to keep them, you can probably pay just below market value (assuming they don’t have an ASADA investigation hanging over their head, fuck you paddy Ryder you cunt)
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
You are seeing the value of a player as a stand-alone unit, rather than a piece to a puzzle, or a compliment to a team.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
I think it'd be hard to argue North didn't get value for Waite last year.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
David Hale
Matthew Spangher
Kyle Cheney
Sam Jacobs
Stefan Martin
Zac Dawson
Josh Gibson
Ben McEvoy
Brent Guerra
Jonathan Seglar
Matt White
Jay Schultz
Rhys Shaw
Darren Jolly
Jeremy Laidlar
Josh Kennedy
Ben McGlynn
Craig Bolton
Ted Richards
Josh Hill
Steven Armstrong
One thing I’ll say, Hawks and Swans have done very well on trades of mid-range players
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
David Hale
Matthew Spangher
Kyle Cheney
Sam Jacobs
Stefan Martin
Zac Dawson
Josh Gibson
Ben McEvoy
Brent Guerra
Jonathan Seglar
Matt White
Jay Schultz
Rhys Shaw
Darren Jolly
Jeremy Laidlar
Josh Kennedy
Ben McGlynn
Craig Bolton
Ted Richards
Josh Hill
Steven Armstrong
One thing I’ll say, Hawks and Swans have done very well on trades of mid-range players
It helps when you have a quality core side for them to slot into. Swans also got lucky with the Hawks Cap issues and Richards. The Hawks pounced at the right time with Hale and McEvoy.
No way that Melksham will ever have an "easier ride" than what he experienced at Essendon.
Jack Watts has played 115 of 154 games since drafting (112 of 132 since his 2nd year)…
I think he might have been in the best twice in that time.
Yes I remember those games fondly. my 11 year old nephew was playing the first game.
Jack started in the ruck and struggled against the sheer physicality of the opposition ruckman (it later turned out she was 13), he was then moved onto the wing to use his endurance and spread. Berated by the coach at 3/4 time for taking 2 oranges, he came out with a point to prove and duly did, dominating tiny tim the opposition fill in CHB.
The second game the opposition didn’t turn up and Jack was named best on as he was the first to arrive before the forfeit
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
Needs a change of scenery or there could be salary cap issues.
Also keep in mind that to get someone away from their current club that you will have to pay above market value and to keep them, you can probably pay just below market value (assuming they don’t have an ASADA investigation hanging over their head, fuck you paddy Ryder you cunt)
David Hale, Jack Gunston, Josh Gibson… real red flag.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Well gee, been forced out of the game for a year. Reckons he's pretty happy with the extra 2 years on the contract on more coin that Melbourne offered, particularly with the new kid.
From memory, someone posted at the time that he was in tears when he informed the club he was leaving. Didn’t want to leave but the contract terms being offered by Melbourne were simply way too better than what we were offering for it to make sense for him to stay.
Sounds about right. I had him as a list clogger but even for those who thought he was a good player, if you get offered a 4-year deal you have to take it and thank them for their service. Same deal with Gus, 4 year deal is too good to pass up so well done to them.
brings up a good side theory that clubs seeking to buy players should always be weary of the current club not willing to match their contract terms on offer.
All power to melk and gus and any other player who’s gotten a better deal by going elsewhere, but it really should have been a red flag to other clubs (and should be to us to when chasing other clubs players) that if a club that knows a player inside and out is only willing to offer 2 years at a certain price, they know something that they aren’t letting on.
Of the players who have left recently none have really gone on to improve beyond what they were producing at Essendon, they produce similar or below, yet they’ve gone out and had better deals thrown at them.
again more power to em in this changing trading/free agency market, just buyer definitely beware.
You mean like maybe that player doesn’t fit with their new game plan, or maybe they are rebalancing their age demographic, or some other reason apart from ‘this guy is ■■■■’, or ‘this guy has lost it’?
I imagine if Goodwin wasn’t at Melbourne, melbourne wouldn’t have chased him, very few other clubs would have, and he’d prolly still be at this club.
It’s not about this guy is ■■■■, or lost it.
It’s about the club saying we think this guy offers this this and this and we value it at 2 years at x amount of dollars.
like people said with the Saints and carlisle with the drug stuff, it’s definitely buyer beware.
it’s not limited to our club either, both buying and selling, it’s just easier to point out examples with this club cos we follow it more.
I mean will Chris Yarran be better at Richmond than the blues ? sure he’ll have his sublime games, as well as his mediocre ones, but will it equal out to the same as what he produced at carlton or better or worse ?
Jarryd waite is still Jarrdy waite.
outside of youngsters who swap clubs probably within 2-3 years of their original draft, and out and out superstars, the middle range of players who swap clubs very rarely improve on what the originally offered at their first club.
my original point was more to do with the intricacies of trading and that and getting it right, moreso than player x is ■■■■.
David Hale
Matthew Spangher
Kyle Cheney
Sam Jacobs
Stefan Martin
Zac Dawson
Josh Gibson
Ben McEvoy
Brent Guerra
Jonathan Seglar
Matt White
Jay Schultz
Rhys Shaw
Darren Jolly
Jeremy Laidlar
Josh Kennedy
Ben McGlynn
Craig Bolton
Ted Richards
Josh Hill
Steven Armstrong
One thing I’ll say, Hawks and Swans have done very well on trades of mid-range players
didn’t see this til now.
even on that list, richards and shultz are prolly the only two who improved beyond what they were at original club.
Hale and gibson played the same at north as they did at the hawks, just the hawks were a far superior side. plus they also got in help for gibson, whereas north just continued to expect him to be the no.1 defender.
Zac dawson, shudders.
josh hill has slightly improved, but it’s like oging from a c grade to a c+ (or however the grading system works).
most of the players however produced similar outputs from club to club. some where high, some medium some low (zac dawson haha). not to many actually imrpoved their game, they just improved their surroundings.
c grade players didn’t turn into b. b’s didn’t turn into a’s and so on and so on. the only two who improved again would be richards and shultz.
edit rys shaw is a hard one to judge, was he crap at collingwood or just struggled with the burden of his last name.
Josh § Kennedy didn’t improve? Played about 15 games at Hawthorn now he’s an All Australian and a regular Brownlow candidate.
Josh (WCE…) Kennedy? Went from an OK kid to a regular Coleman candidate - possibly the most reliable key forward in the game.
Jacobs? from being literally behind Kreuzer & Hampson to literally an All Australian?
Craig Bolton? An absolute nobody to one of the top 5-10 key backs in the game?
Nah, that’s not improving from C to C+… more like D to A. But keep inventing history, why not.
To be fair, a lot of that was natural improvement. Sometimes the original club (e.g. Carlton with Jacobs) got it wrong. But sometimes the original club knew what they had, but was still bent over a barrel. So Adelaide knew Hawthorn was getting a top player in Gunston, North the same with Gibson. So sometimes the players did improve, but the original clubs expected it.
Lots of those guys above (Kennedy, Mumford, Jenkins for us, Gunston, Gibson) their original teams would have nixed the deals and kept the players if that was an option.
To be fair, a lot of that was natural improvement. Sometimes the original club (e.g. Carlton with Jacobs) got it wrong. But sometimes the original club knew what they had, but was still bent over a barrel. So Adelaide knew Hawthorn was getting a top player in Gunston, North the same with Gibson. So sometimes the players did improve, but the original clubs expected it.
Lots of those guys above (Kennedy, Mumford, Jenkins for us, Gunston, Gibson) their original teams would have nixed the deals and kept the players if that was an option.
Just like us; we made an offer to Jake of 2 years & he declined & we were disappointed to lose him.
To be fair, a lot of that was natural improvement. Sometimes the original club (e.g. Carlton with Jacobs) got it wrong. But sometimes the original club knew what they had, but was still bent over a barrel. So Adelaide knew Hawthorn was getting a top player in Gunston, North the same with Gibson. So sometimes the players did improve, but the original clubs expected it.
Lots of those guys above (Kennedy, Mumford, Jenkins for us, Gunston, Gibson) their original teams would have nixed the deals and kept the players if that was an option.
Just like us; we made an offer to Jake of 2 years & he declined & we were disappointed to lose him.
Not sure if you're intending to be sarcastic. Are you implying that if not for players wanting out, all of the original clubs of J. Kennedy, Mumford, Jenkins, Gunston, Gibson wouldn't have wanted to keep them?