On 19/10/2015 at 10:25, bing181 said:

No point sweating the small stuff.

Decide who you want, do the deal, move on.

The difference a few places in the draft make (outside of the first 10) is neither here nor there, and what happens on draft night is something of a lottery. No-one could have foreseen that we'd get ANB and then Oscar Mac at the picks we did, or that a lowly pick like Vandenberg would end up being a decent enough player to pick up Brownlow votes.

Melksham for 25, Toumpas for Kennedy etc. - these aren't in themselves deals that are going to make or break the club. On the other hand, bringing in three young hard-at-the-ball players, regardless of their deficiencies, does start to shift the culture of the club and set a precedent, especially for players that will be competing for the same or similar roles.

Pretty much everything you've posted this evening has been gold, bing181. Some refreshing insight.

Bloody hell, Mahoney is the mouth piece of the MFC during trade period. It could be Taylor, or Viney...

The only reason some of you Henson characters are lining him up is because of this fact, not because you think he's incompetent.

  On 19/10/2015 at 10:36, Mach5 said:

Melksham for 25 or 29 - does it matter if we still trade the remaining pick out and achieve what we set out to?

Same as receiving picks 29 & 50 along with Kennedy for Howe & Toumpas.

I'd suggest many would be calling it a win if we acquired picks 21 & 32 along with Kennedy, but what does it matter if we still would have trade those picks out & achieved that same net result?

Wait until the period is over and then judge.

Which club is going to accept picks 29 and 50 if they could've got 21 and 32?

The whole 'everything must be seen as an overall package' doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are planning on screwing someone with a late trade.

I don't mind the Howe trade as there were 3 players involved for us and multiple picks. It's the kind of deal you sing off on to get it done. But the Melksham deal was an isolated one for one deal where we had the player lined up for us. We were in the position of power there.

  On 19/10/2015 at 10:43, McQueen said:

Bloody hell, Mahoney is the mouth piece of the MFC during trade period. It could be Taylor, or Viney...

The only reason some of you Henson characters are lining him up is because of this fact, not because you think he's incompetent.

Didn't hear anyone else saying that Howe and Kennedy would be separate deals only to make them the same deal 3 days later.

Didnt hear anyone else saying pick 6-3 upgrade was a bench mark of trade only to then trade Kennedy for Howe and pick 63

  On 19/10/2015 at 11:24, olisik said:

Didn't hear anyone else saying that Howe and Kennedy would be separate deals only to make them the same deal 3 days later.

Didnt hear anyone else saying pick 6-3 upgrade was a bench mark of trade only to then trade Kennedy for Howe and pick 63

so what did you hear taylor or viney say? or for that matter roos, the ceo or the president?

as mcqueen said, mahoney was the club mouthpiece. beyond that is speculation

  On 19/10/2015 at 12:04, daisycutter said:

so what did you hear taylor or viney say? or for that matter roos, the ceo or the president?

as mcqueen said, mahoney was the club mouthpiece. beyond that is speculation

That's my point. He shouldn't be making such bold statements only to have us cave a few days later. Negotiating 101

  On 19/10/2015 at 12:10, olisik said:

That's my point. He shouldn't be making such bold statements only to have us cave a few days later. Negotiating 101

i don't think the club should say anything publicly about their intentions (or privately to reporters) during the whole trade period, except obviously for completed deals

  On 19/10/2015 at 11:24, olisik said:

Didn't hear anyone else saying that Howe and Kennedy would be separate deals only to make them the same deal 3 days later.

Didnt hear anyone else saying pick 6-3 upgrade was a bench mark of trade only to then trade Kennedy for Howe and pick 63

We didn't trade Howe and 63 for Kennedy. What we did do though was trade Howe and Toumpas for Kennedy, pick 29 and pick 50.

  On 19/10/2015 at 12:10, olisik said:

That's my point. He shouldn't be making such bold statements only to have us cave a few days later. Negotiating 101

What do you mean "negotiating 101"? Making 'bold statements' is a negotiating tactic. Did you not hear Brisbane stating that Aish would not be traded at all two weeks ago? And yet now he will likely end up at Collingwood. Or GWS' claim that Boyd would not be traded last year, yet i'm pretty sure he's at the doggies now. Clubs 'cave' all the time - it's called meeting in the middle.

  On 19/10/2015 at 12:18, daisycutter said:

i don't think the club should say anything publicly about their intentions (or privately to reporters) during the whole trade period, except obviously for completed deals

I think you've nailed the reason why there is so much disappointment!.

Speaking publicly about intentions creates expectations and when they don't happen we go negative, as is our want.

At eos Roos said:

-we would go after an A grade midfielder (we may still get one)

- he also said we would trade aggressively

On 1st trade day Mahoney said we had two goals:

- 1 improve our list

- 2 improve our trade order

Last week Mahoney said Kennedy and Howe would not be in the same trade.

We may achieve these by Thursday who knows but atmo I can't see that we can give any of those 5 statements a tick.

When I hear other club's trade speakers they give very little away when interviewed.

MFC can learn much from them.

If nothing else learn to manage supporter expectations!

  On 19/10/2015 at 12:10, olisik said:

That's my point. He shouldn't be making such bold statements only to have us cave a few days later. Negotiating 101

Perhaps bold statements were part of negotiating. You usually start from a 'bold' position and accept a compromise (101).

Frankly I am surprised how many on here know exactly what should have been done and when. We are so far from knowing what's what in all this, that I can't see how any of us can justify any position - particularly the strongly stated some hand-wring. Sure it's a forum so feel free to vent/praise, but I'm happy to admit I haven't a clue and I suspect no one else does either.

I expect that to date the MFC internally would be slightly underwhelmed with this trade period.

Howe clearly should've unlocked more trade value than we managed to get for him.

Toumpas - well, we kind of gave him away, but I expect the deal we got for him was commensurate with his market value. Unfortunately.

This trade period is an utter disappointment. If you had told any Melbourne supporter in the last couple of years that Toumpas and Howe would leave for a no-name Collingwood player and a pick around 30 they would be devastated. Josh Mahoney's trade career has been as in and out as his football career. Had enough of him.

  On 19/10/2015 at 21:32, The DeviI Inside said:

This trade period is an utter disappointment. If you had told any Melbourne supporter in the last couple of years that Toumpas and Howe would leave for a no-name Collingwood player and a pick around 30 they would be devastated. Josh Mahoney's trade career has been as in and out as his football career. Had enough of him.

While I am also disappointed so far, to be fair, Toumpas and Howe have devalued themselves over the last couple of years. We may still do some deals. Bugg for 50 improves the deal a bit.

  On 19/10/2015 at 21:31, Ron Burgundy said:

I expect that to date the MFC internally would be slightly underwhelmed with this trade period.

Howe clearly should've unlocked more trade value than we managed to get for him.

Toumpas - well, we kind of gave him away, but I expect the deal we got for him was commensurate with his market value. Unfortunately.

Essentially this however I think the notion of what we managed to get for Howe needs context. We had goal post over >>>>>>>>> then he moved them over <<<<<<<<<<<<< sts.

Only one person is culpable in this imho and thats Jeremy himself. I dont blame Collingwood they played it beautifully but then they knew what was REALLY going on long before we did. Would it have been for want of us not asking ?? I doubt it. Howe and his BS manager just played crafty.

An element that didnt go to plan as it were was that we lowballed him once we knew he was on way out. Maybe the club telegraphed this to obviously. I think it f'd up the Melksam deal also.

ALL in all though unless I was privy to what the FD actually hoped to achieve then its still a tad early to call this a boom , bust or boring just yet.

  On 19/10/2015 at 21:32, The DeviI Inside said:

This trade period is an utter disappointment. If you had told any Melbourne supporter in the last couple of years that Toumpas and Howe would leave for a no-name Collingwood player and a pick around 30 they would be devastated. Josh Mahoney's trade career has been as in and out as his football career. Had enough of him.

Is that because of the values YOU placed on them though ?

No one was prepared to pay this log head much. That should say something. The Tooump stalled at the starting gate. In accounting parlance ' he would be written down ( big time ) "

GC are the lucky ones for mine. Dodged a bullet , yo know, the one where you shoot yourself in the .Oh Howe that might have hurt !!

  On 19/10/2015 at 21:42, beelzebub said:

Essentially this however I think the notion of what we managed to get for Howe needs context. We had goal post over >>>>>>>>> then he moved them over <<<<<<<<<<<<< sts.

Only one person is culpable in this imho and thats Jeremy himself. I dont blame Collingwood they played it beautifully but then they knew what was REALLY going on long before we did. Would it have been for want of us not asking ?? I doubt it. Howe and his BS manager just played crafty.

An element that didnt go to plan as it were was that we lowballed him once we knew he was on way out. Maybe the club telegraphed this to obviously. I think it f'd up the Melksam deal also.

ALL in all though unless I was privy to what the FD actually hoped to achieve then its still a tad early to call this a boom , bust or boring just yet.

This is 100% correct.

I always admire a player wanting to go to the club they supported growing up but this turd knew for a long time where he was going and chose to keep us in the dark. If he had have given us a bit of notice of his intentions I'd respect the move. He didn't so he can GAGF.

He admits on his first interview that he and that slimeball Buckley had been organising this for a fair while and the meeting in Bali was just a 'catch up'. See it here http://m.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2015-10-19/trade-daily-done-deal

  On 19/10/2015 at 21:31, Ron Burgundy said:

I expect that to date the MFC internally would be slightly underwhelmed with this trade period.

Howe clearly should've unlocked more trade value than we managed to get for him.

Toumpas - well, we kind of gave him away, but I expect the deal we got for him was commensurate with his market value. Unfortunately.

Really good point. It's not so much that we've been totally screwed on the trades, it's just that the trades haven't returned anything definitive, like a certain top 5-10 player on our list. Everything that's come in has the word "potential" as a caveat.

We have picked up a bunch of crumbs and lost Howe who is now being paid peanuts. Well done Mahoney, looking forward to 2016

  On 20/10/2015 at 01:09, olisik said:

We have picked up a bunch of crumbs and lost Howe who is now being paid peanuts. Well done Mahoney, looking forward to 2016

Crumbs for peanuts, sounds about fair.

I ain't even angry, this is all so small stakes- were talking about an exchange of C graders- who cares?

amen Jesse

  On 20/10/2015 at 01:15, Jesse Christ said:

I ain't even angry, this is all so small stakes- were talking about an exchange of C graders- who cares?

Exactly, high end talent will come from top picks in the draft.

Pretty much just comes down to Howe vs Melksham, and Toumpas vs Kennedy really. Neither average/poor melbourne player was doing anything of note, so why not make change, we currently suck. The more change the better.

  On 19/10/2015 at 10:50, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Which club is going to accept picks 29 and 50 if they could've got 21 and 32?

The whole 'everything must be seen as an overall package' doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are planning on screwing someone with a late trade.

I don't mind the Howe trade as there were 3 players involved for us and multiple picks. It's the kind of deal you sing off on to get it done. But the Melksham deal was an isolated one for one deal where we had the player lined up for us. We were in the position of power there.

But they would never be in a position to choose between the 2 options.

And if we were to have not yet traded for Melksham and ended up with pick 25 & 29, to then acquire him, you'd still have to give up one of those picks, and then probably the other one to get someone you want like Bugg.

Clubs are brutally aware of what assets you have to work with.

Paging all the Mahoney haters who were sticking the boot into him halfway through trade period when no one really had a clue what was happening behind the scenes

We now own picks 3 and 7

Well done Sir Mahoney

  On 21/10/2015 at 05:53, Petraccattack said:

Paging all the Mahoney haters who were sticking the boot into him halfway through trade period when no one really had a clue what was happening behind the scenes

We now own picks 3 and 7

Well done Sir Mahoney

Might be eating pie for dinner.....and possibly for desert if we can now trade that for pick 4&5