Judd was traded. Completely different to Ball. Judd told West Coast where he wanted to go, West Coast then knew that Carlton would basically do anything other than trade Pick 1 to get him. West Coast named their price, Carlton paid it. No problems there.

And now Luke has no employer - unlike Judd - should remove a stakeholder and remove a few potential problems.

He's agreed to the terms of the draft, it isn't tacit approval of us recruiting him - it is written and contractual approval.

He may not be the best option at 18, but, again, if he is I have no problems with the MFC having the faith in itself to say 'we are where you are going to be, and you'll be the better for it Luke.'

People are forgetting that we got pick 11 for McLean?! Ball is a million times better player than chook will ever be - so if we did happen to use pick 11 to get him, then we wouldn't have lost anything.

Yes but why not use pick 18 for Ball, Its like an upgrade.

I know it's another Luke Ball thread but there have been a few twists in the tale.

Apparently, Ball is going to give the club an audience soon (note he's nominated himself for the ND meaning he's made a written commitment to play for whoever drafts him). Then there's the following story:-

Anyone around here unfortunate enough to travel on Melbourne's suburban rail system?

The newspaper you get outside the station when you travel in and out of the city has this article:-

Eddie might well be playing poker but one interpretation of his comments is that he's conceding that it's open season for clubs with earlier selections to take the St. Kilda midfielder. Now, it's no longer a case of "don't touch him - he wants to play for Collingwood" but rather that it's open slather because Collingwood might not take him even if he falls to pick 30. In those circumstances Ball has to question where he stands in this draft. The Pies failed to negotiate a trade for him in October and now it's virtually conceding him in November. Now, he could finish anywhere.

Am I reading you right in that Luke Ball has actually deigned to give MFC an audienced?

I don't see us picking up Ball with 11, but if Sydney or PA hasn't pulled the trigger I believe that the FD will have a decision to make at Pick 18.

On balance I agree with you ...

a/ just depends very heavily on whats available at 11

b/ what we do at 11

Plus and I never thought I would say this ... how we think Thorp is traveling

If McLean was worth pick 11 this year, and Johnson was worth 14 two years ago, then Ball must be worth a bit.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him being picked early. Personally, I hope Port Adelaide or Essendon picks him, as he'd suit the age of both of those lists, and it fill free up another kid for us to pick.

I'd be stoked if Port picked him and let Butcher go and Essendon picked a midfielder, but I think Port is more likely to grab him with pick 16.

McPhee not leaving Essendon means nothing atm. If he leaves, he will go PSD to ensure he gets to Fremantle. Today's list lodgement was for the list prior to the ND. McPhee (and those like him) have until December 2 to nominate for the PSD. Which means, if he still wants to, he can leave Essendon sometime over the next 3 weeks and go to Fremantle.

It means plenty.

It gives McPhee/Connors quite a carrot to dangle to Essendon if they are courting a contract of $500 K per season for a player they are lukewarm on. As far as I'm aware, Connors/Ball are quite strong in Collingwood being their own consideration, Connors will not cut his own throat to please McPhee / Fremantle.

On balance I agree with you ...

a/ just depends very heavily on whats available at 11

b/ what we do at 11

Plus and I never thought I would say this ... how we think Thorp is traveling

Are you alluding to take Thorp at pick 11 ?

We gave up Rhyce Shaw last year for Pick 46. In 09, Shaw finished 2nd in Sydney's B&F, was appointed in their onfield leadership group & was one of the best performed HBF's in the AFL. You can virtually rule out Essendon now given McPhee (who is managed by Connors) is still on their list & Richardson saying they will only entertain Ball if he does the same, given he is Hong Kong, & won't return calls from Essendon, he is on his way to Collingwood (according to Richardson).

Yes, Yes Geez you Crap on Xav as if the Filth are so Righteous. FFS.

Apart from Buckley How many Players have you not lured to your den because you are not prepared to trade a similiar player?

It's well known that no club likes dealing with either Hawthorn or Collingwood as they often get shafted.

The Filth are Prepared to Pay 500K's for Ball a year but forced St.kilda to let him go for nothing.

I know Footy is a tough Business but your efforts in trading over many years are pretty ordinary.

13 Days to go......

Apart from Buckley How many Players have you not lured to your den because you are not prepared to trade a similiar player?

We gave up Paul Williams, who was an AA Midfielder & our 2nd best player, for effectively James Clement, who became a dual AA at Collingwood.

We also gave up Chris Tarrant, who was our leading Goalkicker & a former AA player for Medhurst, who gained AA honours in his 2nd year at the club.

There are many more examples to dispell your "myth".

We gave up Paul Williams, who was an AA Midfielder & our 2nd best player, for effectively James Clement, who became a dual AA at Collingwood.

We also gave up Chris Tarrant, who was our leading Goalkicker & a former AA player for Medhurst, who gained AA honours in his 2nd year at the club.

There are many more examples to dispell your "myth".

Not a Bad answer i must say, But you owed Sydney BIG time after you completely Shafted them in Getting Baby Rocca to move South.

It aint my Myth-I have heard it from others, been around for ages as i am sure you know.

Ugh.

What are you doing WYL?

Not a bad answer I must say, But you owed Sydney BIG time after you completely Shafted them in Getting Baby Rocca to move South.

I think it's quite fanciful that the Rocca trade meant we were sympathetic towards Sydney.

We gave up a highly rated youngster (he was our 1st pick in the 95' draft & kicked 70 goals plus in his first year at Collingwood, which was in the VFL) to get Rocca.

We also gave up our 1st Pick in 1998 (Pick 3) for Paul Licuria.

Ugh.

What are you doing WYL?

I know, its friday night and i had to work until now. But now its Beer O'clock.

Time to shut down the Mac..

Nick Davis ring a bell WYL?

Ironic you claiming someone else is crapping on.

Are you alluding to take Thorp at pick 11 ?

No, no, no I will try explain myself ... sorry for being so unclear on my first attempt

What I'm trying to say is fundamentally maybe a fit and able Mitch Thorp taken pick 1 PSD may reduce the need to pick up a tall at pick 11.

I will do my best to try and explain my line of thinking.

Considering specifically our talls .... and our talls only

Tall KPB Backman .... assuming we are filling 3 spots

Definite - Warnock, Frawley, Rivers

Swing Back/Forward - Garland

Swing Back/Ruck - Martin

Further options Backman - Hughes & MacNamara ... outside chance Thorp

Total = 8 options to fill 3 spots

Tall Ruckman ... assuming we have 2 spots to fill

Definite - Jamar Johnson

Swing Ruck/ Backman - Martin

Further options Ruckman - Spencer & Meeson

Total = 5 options to fill 2 spots

Tall Forward ... assuming we have 3 spots to fill. However, suggest we could go in with 2 talls plus Green or Petterd playing out of the pocket. However, lets just assume we need 3

Tall KPF Forwards

Definite - Jurrah Bate

Swing Forward - Garland

Back up options - Watts, Miller, Thorp assuming he comes up via the PSD pick 1 all things going well.

Extreme Case Forwards - Dunn, Hughes or MacNamara ... or back-up resting ruckman

Total = 9 options to fill 3/2 spots

So essentially come draft day we have a few options when it comes to pick 11

Option 1 Pick 11 Butcher or player X ( who I'm not prepared to name) ... if they are still there ... we pick them.

assuming both are gone ... we then turn our focus to "complete our mid-field"

Option 2 Pick 11 ... Luke Ball comes into the equation & we take a tall at 18 and maybe 34.

Working on the theory that the advantage of completing our mid-field combined with a tall at 18 outweighs the need for the tall at 11.

Hope that explains my line of thinking.

Edited November 13, 200915 yr by hangon007

All emotion aside - be it Balls ability, or not, his pace, or not, his skills, or not, his longeivity, or not, his leadership, or not - he remains a quality AFL player and respect person whom has Captained his Club well - continued to get the best out of himself, despite many injuries and has had a strong run of recent. His last game happened to see him start on ball, in the Grand Final in the most hotly anticipated GF for some time - and he went well.

Yes, he rejected our offer of the PSD, dreamy of Lexus Centre. The fact is as he lies in bed tonight, stressing about his future he has nightmares of Alberton or Fremantle - a move away from his family and friends to Clubs with average prospects. We are a long way from his worst nightmare.....a year is a long time in footy, who knows his views this time in 2010 after 22 games with the Dees who finish 10th with 9 wins and he's touted as the next Captain.

I say DRAFT him - at pick 18 - and stuff the rest of them. I'd take a proven Luke Ball over an unproven Nathan Vardy or the like anyday. Punt on Tahlia/Butcher/Black at Pick 11, someone else like Patrick/Grimes at 34 and 50, and Thorpe or McDonald at PSD1.....nothing wrong with Trengove and Scully learning the ropes at a new Club of Ball doing the same.

Go Demons! and stuff the Maggies.

All emotion aside - be it Balls ability, or not, his pace, or not, his skills, or not, his longeivity, or not, his leadership, or not - he remains a quality AFL player and respect person whom has Captained his Club well - continued to get the best out of himself, despite many injuries and has had a strong run of recent. His last game happened to see him start on ball, in the Grand Final in the most hotly anticipated GF for some time - and he went well.

Yes, he rejected our offer of the PSD, dreamy of Lexus Centre. The fact is as he lies in bed tonight, stressing about his future he has nightmares of Alberton or Fremantle - a move away from his family and friends to Clubs with average prospects. We are a long way from his worst nightmare.....a year is a long time in footy, who knows his views this time in 2010 after 22 games with the Dees who finish 10th with 9 wins and he's touted as the next Captain.

I say DRAFT him - at pick 18 - and stuff the rest of them. I'd take a proven Luke Ball over an unproven Nathan Vardy or the like anyday. Punt on Tahlia/Butcher/Black at Pick 11, someone else like Patrick/Grimes at 34 and 50, and Thorpe or McDonald at PSD1.....nothing wrong with Trengove and Scully learning the ropes at a new Club of Ball doing the same.

Go Demons! and stuff the Maggies.

IMHO if you are prepared to take Ball at 18 ... you also must be prepared to strongly consider him at 11.

As I said earlier on balance you would prefer to take him at 18 ... However, the risk increases that he is gone.

Ultimately what I'm saying you need balance. You cant stack your list full of talls just cause you need them ... quality must be part of the equation.

Is it possible in this draft the talls can be grouped at follow

a/ 1-2 - superior

b/ next 5-6 relatively equal

Hence elevating a tall to 11 because you need one is negating your advantage of having the earlier pick.

I'm not sure you tell me?

Nick Davis ring a bell WYL?

Ironic you claiming someone else is crapping on.

Nick Davis was a very Different Scenario 45, infact a lot like Luke Ball. He wanted to leave. Family was in sydney, his old man worked at the swans. His performance in the 2002 GF proved it, He was a Dead Man Walking at collinwood that day. (i was there)

The Filth had to trade Davis & Sydney came to the plate (ultimately helped them win a flag)

But when the situation is reversed how hard did tte filth try to get ball in the trade week?? They put up rubbish for a player who had captained his side and been an AA representative.

Thus the ND is what it is. The Filth promised Ball the Earth but gave nothing.

When Nick Davis collected his Premiership Medallion i hope the Filth officials took notice of what they lost.

Lets hope the incredible and over hyped pressure hangs over all collingwood players for centuries to come, & we Thrash them comprehensively in september as we have always done.

The Filth only trade fair when it suits them.

Edited November 14, 200915 yr by why you little

Nick Davis was a very Different Scenario 45, infact a lot like Luke Ball. He wanted to leave. Family was in sydney, his old man worked at the swans. His performance in the 2001 GF proved it, He was a Dead Man Walking at collinwood that day. (i was there)

I was at the 2001 grand final and from memory I can't remember Nick Davis playing a part in that game. Which of the two teams was he playing for that day?

I was at the 2001 grand final and from memory I can't remember Nick Davis playing a part in that game. Which of the two teams was he playing for that day?

Exactly....Dead Man Walking. Even the Crowd new it.

Mick % Eddie must have been Furious!!

You don't remember him because Essendon played Brisbane that day. Nice re-writing of history by the way re: the Davis 'trade', I suggest you re-think how that situation panned out.

Edited November 13, 200915 yr by 45hotgod16

WYL, did you even read Deeman and 45hotgod's posts ?

You obviously couldn't shut down the Mac...

Edited November 13, 200915 yr by High Tower

Nick Davis was a very Different Scenario 45, infact a lot like Luke Ball. He wanted to leave. Family was in sydney, his old man worked at the swans. His performance in the 2001 GF proved it, He was a Dead Man Walking at collinwood that day. (i was there)

Oh boy...

The Filth had to trade Davis

Why did Collingwood have to trade Nick Davis & please tell me how it was different to Luke Ball..

I hope the Mac has been shut down....