19 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Interesting that Cameron wanted to go to Brisbane and is IN contract and Brisbane offer pic19 which the cows said no then at the last min Brisbane up it’s offer to pic 12 and the deal is done. 

Lever is OOC and we offer a first and second rounder and the cows say no then instead of waiting we offer two first rounders just to get the deal done and to work on other deals which was only Balic as it turns out. 

Not that great in negotiating imo 

something we may never know is was there any real opportunities that simply eluded us but given the path we went with the period it's a reasonable question to wonder if we pulled the trigger a little too keenly.

Doesnt really matter now. It's over...( until next year where some effect will raise it's head I suppose )

Who else was available is probably a fair call.

I like the cheap deals for Darcy Lang, Harry Wigg and Logan Austin. But all 3 are probably players you have to promise opportunity for. They all need footy and won't improve without it. They probably needed good cash as well. It depends on how you rate our depth players.

I like Jarman Impey as a risk that could've paid off in a position we need more depth in and for a pick we had.

Dev Smith is worth the risk for the Bombers given they got him for a very good deal in the end. He's someone who could've helped us on a wing/half forward.

Not sure we did enough but not sure it was there for us either. Lever and Balic for Watts and keeping a lot of our players on short term deals surely has the salary cap in good shape, there's flexibility to have a good run at free agency and trades next year.

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Strauss' mythical kicking is up there with the Yeti monster and the LochNess Monster. No-one has ever seen it......

You are right. Like Watts he couldn't get the ball.

Beyond me that some posters claim we didn’t fill any holes with our trades, namely Lever. Missed our two games against North and our games against Fremantle and Hawthorn in particular? 

Edited October 19, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

35 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Interesting that Cameron wanted to go to Brisbane and is IN contract and Brisbane offer pic19 which the cows said no then at the last min Brisbane up it’s offer to pic 12 and the deal is done. 

Lever is OOC and we offer a first and second rounder and the cows say no then instead of waiting we offer two first rounders just to get the deal done and to work on other deals which was only Balic as it turns out. 

Not that great in negotiating imo 

Fascinating pretzel logic there - so according to you the Crows holding out in the Cameron trade indicates they wouldn't have held out in the Lever trade?  Hmmm OK.

Here's what I think happened.

Brisbane made an offer for Cameron, the Crows held out until they got a better offer.

We made an offer to the Crows for Lever, they said they wanted a different offer which we then delivered, otherwise they would have held out just like they did in the Cameron trade.

56 minutes ago, drdrake said:

You need to look at what we lose, agree Lever will strengthen our back line, doesn't address O Mac is a mile off, Frost is hit and miss and T Mac is needed up forward.  Our mids are one dimensional with no speed and we lose one of two players that I would consider elite kicks in our side.  I'm sure Hogan will love T Mac kicking the ball to him he is one of the worst field kicks in the AFL, great set shot but cant hit a target.

So tell me how does this trade period improve our list

So.... a couple of tall, ready to go defenders, a new midfield with multiple dimensions and a few guys that are elite kicks.

Not asking much.

 

32 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

So, are you saying that you should make a lower offer initially, then if the seller refuses, then you have to increase your 2nd offer?

That's what Brisbane did.  That's what we did.

I'm certain the negative posters are now starting to take the pi$$ on this matter now.  Can be the only explanation.

No I’m saying we should have held firm with our initial offer which I thought was fair tbh then see what the cows do. Remember he was ooc. 

Were gold coast drunk? Pick 2 for Weller, seriously? Collingwood giving up a future second rounder for a yet to debut rookie listed player is also bewildering. Was hoping we'd do more with our second rounders but not unhappy with Lever and Balic. 

2 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

No I’m saying we should have held firm with our initial offer which I thought was fair tbh then see what the cows do. Remember he was ooc. 

So, you are critical of our negotiation skills, then your follow up is to make one offer and hold firm.

You do understand what negotiation means, right?

1 minute ago, The Chazz said:

So, you are critical of our negotiation skills, then your follow up is to make one offer and hold firm.

You do understand what negotiation means, right?

Don’t be smart. 

Just now, DemonOX said:

Don’t be smart. 

Please, correct me where I am wrong.

10 minutes ago, DSP said:

So.... a couple of tall, ready to go defenders, a new midfield with multiple dimensions and a few guys that are elite kicks.

Not asking much.

 

Sorry we have been addressing our list issues since 2006 with no real progress and by giving up 2 first round picks the likelihood of us addressing what we need is not good.

3 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Please, correct me where I am wrong.

Maybe instead of offering another first rounder just to get the deal done they could have waited and looked at offering a future second rounder. 

Imo we were to quick to change the deal. Trade period is two weeks for a reason. 

Edited October 19, 20178 yr by DemonOX

1 minute ago, DemonOX said:

Maybe instead of offering another first rounder just to get the deal done they could have waited and looked at offering a future second rounder. 

Imo we were to quick together nchange th deal. 

And if they don't accept?

1 minute ago, DemonOX said:

Maybe instead of offering another first rounder just to get the deal done they could have waited and looked at offering a future second rounder. 

Imo we were to quick together nchange th deal. 

The initial offer was this years first rounder and next years second. They insisted on 2 first rounders.....

 

4 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

The initial offer was this years first rounder and next years second. They insisted on 2 first rounders.....

 

And given what they paid for Gibbs, it has been confirmed that they wouldn't have accepted any less for Lever.

5 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

And if they don't accept?

What if they did accept it. 

What if....? 

6 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

The initial offer was this years first rounder and next years second. They insisted on 2 first rounders.....

 

Thanks for pickling that up. We could have gone first and second this yr and future second maybe that could have been a possibility but we will never know. 

To me it just seems like u tell us what u want and we will give it to u. 

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

He was even more impressed with $800k per year 

well he would have been if that was what we offered.....but we didn't

his manager also suggested he could have got more elsewhere but this may just be spin

24 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

So, you are critical of our negotiation skills, then your follow up is to make one offer and hold firm.

You do understand what negotiation means, right?

Do you ?

The premise to hold firm is just as valid. It is.:)

6 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Thanks for pickling that up. We could have gone first and second this yr and future second maybe that could have been a possibility but we will never know. 

To me it just seems like u tell us what u want and we will give it to u. 

How you can come to the assumption that a number of offers weren't made is staggering.

Don't forget, we only have a certain amount of picks, and the order number of those picks are what they are.  We can't pull picks out of our arse, so we have a small selection to use.  Yes, we can try and shuffle our order by packaging picks for others.  But let's not forget that the difference between a late 1st round pick and and early 2nd round pick can literally be 1 spot in the order.

Is it worth potentially missing out on a young star, just to save ourselves 5-10 spots in the draft order?

And I'll say it again, the 2018 draft order hasn't been finalised.  Let's bookmark this discussion for 12 months, so we all know what the true "cost" of the Lever deal actually was.

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Do you ?

The premise to hold firm is just as valid. It is.:)

We clearly negotiated a deal that we were happy with.  As it turns out, it was a deal that Adelaide was happy with too.  Common trend?  It was a deal.

Wait until the death and you never know what way it goes.  Would you be willing to potentially lose a player that we committed to, just to improve our draft position by a handful or so spots?

Yeah, let's want to become a destination club by being impossible to deal with... 

2 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

How you can come to the assumption that a number of offers weren't made is staggering.

Don't forget, we only have a certain amount of picks, and the order number of those picks are what they are.  We can't pull picks out of our arse, so we have a small selection to use.  Yes, we can try and shuffle our order by packaging picks for others.  But let's not forget that the difference between a late 1st round pick and and early 2nd round pick can literally be 1 spot in the order.

Is it worth potentially missing out on a young star, just to save ourselves 5-10 spots in the draft order?

And I'll say it again, the 2018 draft order hasn't been finalised.  Let's bookmark this discussion for 12 months, so we all know what the true "cost" of the Lever deal actually was.

There is also no need to rush in and give what they want either. That is what is staggering. 

Agree with u in looking at it in 12 months to see where it sits though. 

This is my summation of what I know about the dialogue regarding this negotiation: