BenKen

[The Chazz 4,077]

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

This makes no sense at all.

Collingwood get a best 22 player, we delist the player we received 2 season later, but we didn't lose out?

Righto then...

 

We clearly rate Howe at different levels.  Howe's best position is half back.  He would've been depth for us in 2016, and would be well down the pecking order in 2017.

Saying he is best 22 for Collingwood says more about them than us.

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, billy2803 said:

We clearly rate Howe at different levels.  Howe's best position is half back.  He would've been depth for us in 2016, and would be well down the pecking order in 2017.

Saying he is best 22 for Collingwood says more about them than us.

I don't think you understand how trades work.

Your opinion on Howe is irrelevant. Collingwood clearly win the trade if they get a best 22 player and we delist the player we received.

It's nothing to do with what he may or may not have been for us, it's to do with what value we received in return. That's how a trade works.

Also, Collingwood finished 1 spot lower than us with 1 less win, I wouldn't be beating my chest about them if I was you.

 

[The Chazz 4,077]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

I don't think you understand how trades work.

Your opinion on Howe is irrelevant. Collingwood clearly win the trade if they get a best 22 player and we delist the player we received.

It's nothing to do with what he may or may not have been for us, it's to do with what value we received in return. That's how a trade works.

Also, Collingwood finished 1 spot lower than us with 1 less win, I wouldn't be beating my chest about them if I was you.

 

If it were likely that we would delist the initial player within 1-3 seasons, then it won't matter what happens with Kennedy.

Howe had become redundant in our team.  We should be fortunate to get "something" back for him.  Even if that "something" doesn't work out, we're no worse off.

[Ouch! 2,034]

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I don't think you understand how trades work.

Your opinion on Howe is irrelevant. Collingwood clearly win the trade if they get a best 22 player and we delist the player we received.

It's nothing to do with what he may or may not have been for us, it's to do with what value we received in return. That's how a trade works.

Also, Collingwood finished 1 spot lower than us with 1 less win, I wouldn't be beating my chest about them if I was you.

Not sure if that's quite right either.

There are many ways this trade could have assisted us, I have no doubt we would have received significant relief in salaries by letting Howe go, Kennedy would be on significantly less money. A player that offers our list depth without necessarily being seen as a best 22 player may have been the aim of the club when trading in Kennedy. MFC needs to have a group of players that can play their role when called on by the club when form or injury dictate it.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Ouch!

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, billy2803 said:

If it were likely that we would delist the initial player within 1-3 seasons, then it won't matter what happens with Kennedy.

Howe had become redundant in our team.  We should be fortunate to get "something" back for him.  Even if that "something" doesn't work out, we're no worse off.

Wow. Do you really think we would have delisted Howe? Is that a serious comment? Do you see him being delisted by Collingwood end of this season? You're still not quite grasping how trade value works. Howe's role in our team is irrelevant, his trade value is not. Surely you understand that? It doesn't matter what his role with us would have been , what matters is his value on the trade market, and clearly if we delist Kennedy then Howe's value is FAR greater in that way, which means we lost out.

"Fortunate to get something back for him"?! Do you think that was Mahoney's mentality at trade week? Of course we are worse off, because we could have traded him for a player that contributes more to our team. It's not that hard to understand is it?

 

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Not sure if that's quite right either.

There are many ways this trade could have assisted us, I have no doubt we would have received significant relief in salaries by letting Howe go, Kennedy would be on significantly less money. A player that offers our list depth without necessarily being seen as a best 22 player may have been the aim of the club when trading in Kennedy. MFC needs to have a group of players that can play their role when called on by the club when form or injury dictate it.

I'm not sure that Mahoney's plan with trading Howe was to get a player on less money for two seasons in return...

 

[Return to Glory 7,727]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Too short and not enough footy brains to be a mid.

Too slow to be an outside/wing type.

Not enough tricks to be a crumbing forward.

Vanilla footballer, won't be around in 2018.

 

Maybe a bit tough Stuie. The only thing I'll add is that I am very upbeat on our new 'serial pest' Dion Johnstone as a crumbling forward with a little bit of mongrel. He'll be the bloke that Ben Kennedy sees when looking over his shoulder imo. And that's not a bad thing.

[The Chazz 4,077]

23 minutes ago, stuie said:

Wow. Do you really think we would have delisted Howe? Is that a serious comment? Do you see him being delisted by Collingwood end of this season? You're still not quite grasping how trade value works. Howe's role in our team is irrelevant, his trade value is not. Surely you understand that? It doesn't matter what his role with us would have been , what matters is his value on the trade market, and clearly if we delist Kennedy then Howe's value is FAR greater in that way, which means we lost out.

"Fortunate to get something back for him"?! Do you think that was Mahoney's mentality at trade week? Of course we are worse off, because we could have traded him for a player that contributes more to our team. It's not that hard to understand is it?

 

BenKen is still a listed player and will hopefully have a full season to prove if he deserves a new contract or not.  If he doesn't, then I'll happily re-evaluate my opinion of the Howe trade.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Demonland
Baiting

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Return to Glory said:

Maybe a bit tough Stuie. The only thing I'll add is that I am very upbeat on our new 'serial pest' Dion Johnstone as a crumbling forward with a little bit of mongrel. He'll be the bloke that Ben Kennedy sees when looking over his shoulder imo. And that's not a bad thing.

Got high standards these days RTG! Spots on our list are getting more and more valuable.

 

[Ouch! 2,034]

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm not sure that Mahoney's plan with trading Howe was to get a player on less money for two seasons in return...

 

Our plan was to get the best outcome for a player that had already nominated that he wanted to leave the club. We traded out Howe and Toumpas for Kennedy, Mahoney was likely just making the most out of a poor situation. Toumpas and Kennedy were both players that had not lived up to their potential, Howe was a player that we couldn't find a position on the ground for... he wanted to be a forward even at Collingwood they put him into defence. We traded in depth for a player with a great excitement reel.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Just now, stuie said:

Got high standards these days RTG! Spots on our list are getting more and more valuable.

 

Yet you were questioning my view that Howe could've been delisted if he wasn't traded?

Your "high standards" have a few levels to go up yet, Stuart.

[stuie 7,374]

6 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

Yet you were questioning my view that Howe could've been delisted if he wasn't traded?

Your "high standards" have a few levels to go up yet, Stuart.

Trade values "billy".

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Demonland
Baiting

[Return to Glory 7,727]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Got high standards these days RTG! Spots on our list are getting more and more valuable.

 

True. What I do recall is that the ball got swept out of our forward line pretty easily last year and we need one or two of these smalls to apply manic pressure....consistently.

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

Our plan was to get the best outcome for a player that had already nominated that he wanted to leave the club. We traded out Howe and Toumpas for Kennedy, Mahoney was likely just making the most out of a poor situation. Toumpas and Kennedy were both players that had not lived up to their potential, Howe was a player that we couldn't find a position on the ground for... he wanted to be a forward even at Collingwood they put him into defence. We traded in depth for a player with a great excitement reel.

I'm not advocating for Howe, I was not a fan TBH, I'm more talking simply about trade values and clearly if we delist Kennedy and Collingwood get continued value out of Howe then we lost out in that trade. That was the point being discussed.

 

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Return to Glory said:

True. What I do recall is that the ball got swept out of our forward line pretty easily last year and we need one or two of these smalls to apply manic pressure....consistently.

Totally agree. Some of the talls need to lift their defensive pressure in the forward 50 too.

 

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

Height is not the issue for Kennedy - look at the way Caleb Daniel played in last year's finals series.  Surely he has put to bed the notion that there is even such a thing as 'too short to play AFL'.  Daniel has made every recruiter and list manager in the league look foolish.

Kennedy's limitations as a player are entirely about application, intensity, desire and the way he goes about it on match day.

[Demonland 64,807]

Just a reminder for posters to play the ball and not the man. You can disagree with each other without resorting to insulting each other. You want to insult each other you will be banned. You bait to get a rise out of a poster, you may be banned too.

[The Chazz 4,077]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm not advocating for Howe, I was not a fan TBH, I'm more talking simply about trade values and clearly if we delist Kennedy and Collingwood get continued value out of Howe then we lost out in that trade. That was the point being discussed.

 

It means Collingwood have won, but my view is that we haven't lost (it's possible for 2 teams to win in a trade - see Kelly vs Tyson/Salem for a "win/win" deal).

I didn't rate Howe, and still don't. His forward pressure was always a criticism of his (which you acknowledge was a area that was down for us in 2016), and as a HBF under our new style, he wasn't able to play his role.  Plus, we had other HBF in Hunt and Wagner that were far more reliable than Howe, and have also got Melksham, Hibberd and a fit Salem coming in too.

I always thought we would've got more back for him (Howe) than what he was worth.  At this stage, we probably got what he deserved, but what BenKen has got is another 12 months in our system to prove his worth.  

[stuie 7,374]

9 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Height is not the issue for Kennedy - look at the way Caleb Daniel played in last year's finals series.  Surely he has put to bed the notion that there is even such a thing as 'too short to play AFL'.  Daniel has made every recruiter and list manager in the league look foolish.

Kennedy's limitations as a player are entirely about application, intensity, desire and the way he goes about it on match day.

It's not a singular issue, but it's just my view he doesn't offer enough in other areas and that's why it becomes a factor.

 

[Ouch! 2,034]

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm not advocating for Howe, I was not a fan TBH, I'm more talking simply about trade values and clearly if we delist Kennedy and Collingwood get continued value out of Howe then we lost out in that trade. That was the point being discussed.

I can see what you are trying to say, but I still think still a simplistic perspective.

It's not as if one side has to win or lose, both sides can win OR lose, and I think even if we have Kennedy for depth for a couple of years, we got salary relief and a couple of years into better prospects than  Howe was ever going to be for us. I'd argue that regardless of whether they need Howe, we still did ok

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

It means Collingwood have won, but my view is that we haven't lost (it's possible for 2 teams to win in a trade - see Kelly vs Tyson/Salem for a "win/win" deal).

I didn't rate Howe, and still don't. His forward pressure was always a criticism of his (which you acknowledge was a area that was down for us in 2016), and as a HBF under our new style, he wasn't able to play his role.  Plus, we had other HBF in Hunt and Wagner that were far more reliable than Howe, and have also got Melksham, Hibberd and a fit Salem coming in too.

I always thought we would've got more back for him (Howe) than what he was worth.  At this stage, we probably got what he deserved, but what BenKen has got is another 12 months in our system to prove his worth.  

Yeah look I don't rate Howe either and I'm glad we traded him, I just think with him turning down the GC deal we had to do a panic deal to get him where he wanted to go and ended up getting less than his market value due to that. It's not about trading him for another HBF, it's about trading him for a player of worth and I don't see Kennedy's value anywhere near that of Howe's which as "Ouch" mentioned, would be reflected in their relative salaries.

 

[The Chazz 4,077]

Just now, stuie said:

Yeah look I don't rate Howe either and I'm glad we traded him, I just think with him turning down the GC deal we had to do a panic deal to get him where he wanted to go and ended up getting less than his market value due to that. It's not about trading him for another HBF, it's about trading him for a player of worth and I don't see Kennedy's value anywhere near that of Howe's which as "Ouch" mentioned, would be reflected in their relative salaries.

 

Wow Stuie, we're actually (mostly) agreeing.  Although I don't think we got less than market value, I think we got what he was truly worth 9which is what I'm most disappointed about).

But I don't think you can compare two players based on their relative salaries, especially in this case.  Howe would've been well overpaid, which I'm sure was part of the reason why he looked elsewhere, and why we were happy to do the panic deal.

[DeeSpencer 23,126]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

This makes no sense at all.

Collingwood get a best 22 player, we delist the player we received 2 season later, but we didn't lose out?

Righto then...

 

We swapped Kennedy for Toumpas and got a 2nd round pick for Howe, then within a year used a similar 2nd rounder to replace Howe with Hibberd.

I'm hoping Kennedy has more to offer like he did at the start of 2016 but if he doesn't then I won't be comparing him directly to Howe. Howe wanted out, he wasn't going to perform for us, his play made that pretty clear. A 2nd round pick was a fair return for him. 

 

[stuie 7,374]

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We swapped Kennedy for Toumpas and got a 2nd round pick for Howe, then within a year used a similar 2nd rounder to replace Howe with Hibberd.

I'm hoping Kennedy has more to offer like he did at the start of 2016 but if he doesn't then I won't be comparing him directly to Howe. Howe wanted out, he wasn't going to perform for us, his play made that pretty clear. A 2nd round pick was a fair return for him. 

 

Yes it was a complicated trade, but the original point was about who did better out of us and Collingwood in the context of Kennedy v Howe. Following your logic, given you say we got pick 29 for Howe, and we used pick 29 for Hibberd, then surely Howe must be rated higher than Kennedy given how much we're talking up Hibberd?

 

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Yes it was a complicated trade, but the original point was about who did better out of us and Collingwood in the context of Kennedy v Howe. Following your logic, given you say we got pick 29 for Howe, and we used pick 29 for Hibberd, then surely Howe must be rated higher than Kennedy given how much we're talking up Hibberd?

 

That's incorrect.  My point (presuming that it was mine that you're referring to) was that we (i.e. MFC) couldn't lose out of the trade (in my view).  I didn't reference Collingwood until a later post.