Why didn't we take Freo's offeR?

[gringo]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

[Rossoneri]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

We tried pick 55 + Bradley for pick 40, but Freo would take it.

They simply offered pick 56, and we said f*** it, whats the point? We wont use it if we wont a pick in the PSD (which we will use on someone)

[jimmyc1985]

Yawn. Typical rubbish Gringo.

FACT #1: Bradley was offered another contract but decided to walk.

Is that actually a fact?

Not questioning you, I just hadnt heard that. Whats the source?

Didn't listen to Knights' interview on 3AW last night myself, but from what i've read on BBlitz it was intimated that that was the case.

[gringo]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

We tried pick 55 + Bradley for pick 40, but Freo would take it.

They simply offered pick 56, and we said f*** it, whats the point? We wont use it if we wont a pick in the PSD (which we will use on someone)

What I was suggesting was that we trade Kepler to Freo for pick 56, and then package up picks 56 and 55 and offer both picks to another club for a higher pick who are looking for an additional pick in the draft.

[jimmyc1985]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

Firstly, you said "draft week" in your previous post, not trade week. But assuming you meant trade week as you now claim to, again, you're naive to the facts of the matter.

Freo were still frigging around at 1.55PM on Friday and changed their offer from #40 to #56 thereabouts. Even if the deal had been closed at #56, we had no time to construct a package deal whereby we could've secured an upgrade.

But that's OK, keep digging. Your credibility can't go any lower so there's no harm in trying.

[gringo]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

Firstly, you said "draft week" in your previous post, not trade week. But assuming you meant trade week as you now claim to, again, you're naive to the facts of the matter.

Freo were still frigging around at 1.55PM on Friday and changed their offer from #40 to #56 thereabouts. Even if the deal had been closed at #56, we had no time to construct a package deal whereby we could've secured an upgrade.

But that's OK, keep digging. Your credibility can't go any lower so there's no harm in trying.

Essendon needed to get on the front foot with trading Kepler early. Coming out and saying we wanted a first round pick for him was ridiculous.

As it is, we've got nothing for him. There are a number of scenarios that could have unfolded during trade week had we off-loaded him for pick 56. It seems we didn't have the instinct or talemt required to make such a deal, and now we are left out in the rain holding our dick.

I'm sorry if the above is a little complex for your cous cous infused head to comprehend.

[Essendon4eva]

Mark Johnson and Kepler gave service to our club, (regardles of how bad I feel kepler was). Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves. Spit in a face to them, espicially Mark Johnson.

[Jazz_84]

Your a deadset f***stick!

firstly i do apologize for my first post, i admit it was a little narrow minded, but seriously this forum is turning to shit with all this abuse being thrown about for no reason, it's not like i care what you call me or think of me and you know that so whats the point??

and on topic we loss Bradley who wouldn't get a game next year anyway so i don't see this as a losing scenario, sure we might have got pick 56 but at the moment with all the kids we have i think it wouldn't have been useful unless there was an absolute diamond in the rough which is very rare these days

[jimmyc1985]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

Firstly, you said "draft week" in your previous post, not trade week. But assuming you meant trade week as you now claim to, again, you're naive to the facts of the matter.

Freo were still frigging around at 1.55PM on Friday and changed their offer from #40 to #56 thereabouts. Even if the deal had been closed at #56, we had no time to construct a package deal whereby we could've secured an upgrade.

But that's OK, keep digging. Your credibility can't go any lower so there's no harm in trying.

Essendon needed to get on the front foot with trading Kepler early. Coming out and saying we wanted a first round pick for him was ridiculous.

As it is, we've got nothing for him. There are a number of scenarios that could have unfolded during trade week had we off-loaded him for pick 56. It seems we didn't have the instinct or talemt required to make such a deal, and now we are left out in the rain holding our dick.

I'm sorry if the above is a little complex for your cous cous infused head to comprehend.

Filthy was right. You're an idiot.

[tom9779]

Why didn't we take the trade for Kepler when we had the chance? Surely Kepler must have made his intentions known that he was not going to come back to the club. And if he hadn't, the club should have realised he rates Essendon as highly as he does low stab passes, and traded him for whatever we could have got. Now we look stupid.

Is Knights to blame? Has be been dabbling in Filthy's pipe?

I'm glad Pev remains on the list. He had a very good year and deserved his spot.

Knights...seen heaps of Kep, knows what his worth, more than freo were offering?

[Jazz_84]

Mark Johnson and Kepler gave service to our club, (regardles of how bad I feel kepler was). Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves. Spit in a face to them, espicially Mark Johnson.

unfortunately there isn't much sentiment in footy these days, it's a tough world that the players have to live in, same goes for the coaches as we all recently found out

[gringo]

By use it during trade week I mean we could have packaged up the draft pick we could have got for Kepler with another one of our draft picks for a higher pick in the draft. This could concievably have been done with a club looking for an additional pick in the draft.

Firstly, you said "draft week" in your previous post, not trade week. But assuming you meant trade week as you now claim to, again, you're naive to the facts of the matter.

Freo were still frigging around at 1.55PM on Friday and changed their offer from #40 to #56 thereabouts. Even if the deal had been closed at #56, we had no time to construct a package deal whereby we could've secured an upgrade.

But that's OK, keep digging. Your credibility can't go any lower so there's no harm in trying.

Essendon needed to get on the front foot with trading Kepler early. Coming out and saying we wanted a first round pick for him was ridiculous.

As it is, we've got nothing for him. There are a number of scenarios that could have unfolded during trade week had we off-loaded him for pick 56. It seems we didn't have the instinct or talemt required to make such a deal, and now we are left out in the rain holding our dick.

I'm sorry if the above is a little complex for your cous cous infused head to comprehend.

Filthy was right. You're an idiot.

Ahh, clearly one of Melbourne's great minds operating at the height of its powers. Brilliant argument. I take my hat off to you.

[Stocksy]

Mark Johnson and Kepler gave service to our club, (regardles of how bad I feel kepler was). Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves. Spit in a face to them, espicially Mark Johnson.

I dont get it...

There are no guarantee's in life let alone football. They were honest with him, upfront with him & offered him round to see what they could get for him...

And then you put that crap in that they should be out to get the best deal for MJ NOT the club. Now i dont know about you E4E but I support the Essendon Football Club, not the Mark Johnson FC. I would always be hoping the EFC puts the club first.

[robbie67]

Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves.

I see the "moron fairy" has paid another visit.

[jimmyc1985]

Ahh, clearly one of Melbourne's great minds operating at the height of its powers. Brilliant argument. I take my hat off to you.

The fact you are an idiot has never been on better display than throughout this entire "Kepler saga" and the way you've chosen to interpret it.

You spent the entire year telling us how crap Kepler is at almost every conceivable opportunity. Trade week rolls around and the best we can muster for him, after hanging him out for the whole week, is pick #56 in a weak draft. This fact should've allowed you to feel almost totally vindicated in your views that he's complete "junk", as you so often described him. A reasonable person holding the views you do about Kepler would've taken it this way.

However, rather than behaving like a reasonable person having recently been vindicated, you twist the entire scenario and use it as an opportunity to sink the boots into the club. In the process, you somewhat contradict what you've been telling us all year regarding Kepler, and try to have your cake and eat it too.

For that reason alone, and besides your scant regard to facts, you're an absolute idiot.

[keri]

Mark Johnson and Kepler gave service to our club, (regardles of how bad I feel kepler was). Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves. Spit in a face to them, espicially Mark Johnson.

I dont get it...

There are no guarantee's in life let alone football. They were honest with him, upfront with him & offered him round to see what they could get for him...

And then you put that crap in that they should be out to get the best deal for MJ NOT the club. Now i dont know about you E4E but I support the Essendon Football Club, not the Mark Johnson FC. I would always be hoping the EFC puts the club first.

Well said. Better players have been treated worse.

Some around here just want to have a go at the club, and are finding reasons to where there are none.

[Madden]

Yawn. Typical rubbish Gringo.

FACT #1: Bradley was offered another contract but decided to walk.

Is that actually a fact?

Not questioning you, I just hadnt heard that. Whats the source?

Didn't listen to Knights' interview on 3AW last night myself, but from what i've read on BBlitz it was intimated that that was the case.

This is a quote from Knights in today's Age:

"I said to Kepler that we've got (Matthew) Lloyd, (Scott) Lucas, (Scott) Gumbleton, (Jay) Neagle and (Courtney) Johns that are probably going to be playing up front or given opportunities. I believe Kepler is a forward, so I didn't think his opportunities were going to be with our club, and I had to tell him that."

Doesn't sound like he would have offered him a new contract on that analysis.

[gringo]

Our goal should have been to guarantee them new homes. Not get the best deal we could for ourselves.

I see the "moron fairy" has paid another visit.

Without offering an opinion on yourself or Essendon4Eva, that is very good - "the moron fairy". I haven't heard that before.

[gringo]

Ahh, clearly one of Melbourne's great minds operating at the height of its powers. Brilliant argument. I take my hat off to you.

The fact you are an idiot has never been on better display than throughout this entire "Kepler saga" and the way you've chosen to interpret it.

You spent the entire year telling us how crap Kepler is at almost every conceivable opportunity. Trade week rolls around and the best we can muster for him, after hanging him out for the whole week, is pick #56 in a weak draft. This fact should've allowed you to feel almost totally vindicated in your views that he's complete "junk", as you so often described him. A reasonable person holding the views you do about Kepler would've taken it this way.

However, rather than behaving like a reasonable person having recently been vindicated, you twist the entire scenario and use it as an opportunity to sink the boots into the club. In the process, you somewhat contradict what you've been telling us all year regarding Kepler, and try to have your cake and eat it too.

For that reason alone, and besides your scant regard to facts, you're an absolute idiot.

Hmmm. That's a lot of writing. I will deal with your ramblings in order:

1. If I did refer to Kepler as junk, it was in error. I should have said "junkety junk".

2. EFC's recent inability to trade Kepler would suggest that "junkety junk" is a fair assessment of Kepler's worth to an AFL team.

3. Regardless of points 1 and 2, EFC knew, or should have known, that Kepler would not be at the club next year. Accordingly, EFC's first port of call was to determine what we could trade Kepler for.

4. Consistent with its mission statement of attaining the worst trades possible, Fremantle appear to have shown an early interest in Kepler.

5. Rather than move quickly to make this trade, EFC stated it wanted a first round pick for Kepler, and, initially stuck to its guns.

6.As a result, EFC missed out on trading Kepler to Fremantle for pick 56.

7. Having trades 55 and 56 would have strengthened EFC's position during trade week – refer to my post of 12.28pm.

8. As it is, Kepler has been delisted without EFC receiving any consideration. This is completely unsatisfactory and makes EFC look reactionary and unprofessional.

[Rossoneri]

5. Rather than move quickly to make this trade, EFC stated it wanted a first round pick for Kepler, and, initially stuck to its guns.

6.As a result, EFC missed out on trading Kepler to Fremantle for pick 56.

7. Having trades 55 and 56 would have strengthened EFC's position during trade week – refer to my post of 12.28pm.

8. As it is, Kepler has been delisted without EFC receiving any consideration. This is completely unsatisfactory and makes EFC look reactionary and unprofessional.

We would have traded him for pick 40 by Wednesday, but then Freo figured that because they got us from a first round to 4th round, lets take it one step further. Pick 56 only came up in the latter part of Friday. What bargaining strength would we have had then?