Why didn't we take Freo's offeR?

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:20 am

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.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:37 am

Kepler told Freo lets skrew Essendon don't trade for me im going into the PSD

whether thats true or not im glad he is gone

dodgey · Post by **dodgey** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:49 am

we originally asked for #24 and was denied...we then relented and asked for #40 and was STILL denied as Freo only wanted to give up #56.

we called their Bluff and Lot...Or they called Our bluff and Won IF they can pick him up in the Pre-season draft.

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:51 am

Sounds to me like we were outbluffed (if there is such a word).

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:54 am

So here we have it.

We wanted to offload Kepler so he can attempt to prosper at a new club. No other club showed interest other than Freo. Freo offer rubbish for him, which is what he is probably worth considering that our previous hierarchy decided to acquire him with pick No.6 FFS. Now he doesn't want to sign with the club and wants to go into the PSD knowing that Freo will pick him up and we get nothing. Our club made the right decision not accepting "shit" from Freo. Kepler seems determined to not only screw us on the field, but off it as well.

How you can blame Knights for;

1. Bradley being on our list
2. Bradley for turning into a joke
3. Trying to get some "decent" compensation for the costly experience

is beyond me.

I know the drug epidemic in WA is out of control and affecting lots of people. Perhaps you are caught up in it?

keri · Post by **keri** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:59 am

Harvs called our bluff, and Knights did the right thing and didn't buckle. Just so happened that on this one, we lost out.

Stocksy · Post by **Stocksy** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:21 am

Throw any wingman into centre half back against some of the best Benny and see if they fair any better...

And as for the drug epedemic in WA, Benny I think you will find it worse in your own back yard if you take those rose tinted glasses off...

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:27 am

Pick 54=nothing. Useless pick that we might not even use.

Knights has made the point that you can get f***** if you don't want to deal in a resonable manner. Kepler walks for nothing, we lose nothing.

The greater pity here is that Kepler walked.

Stocksy · Post by **Stocksy** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:38 am

Jazz_84 wrote:Kepler told Freo lets skrew Essendon don't trade for me im going into the PSD

whether thats true or not im glad he is gone

Your a deadset f***stick!

Knights told him where he sat in the big picture of the club (an honest opinion which I think from a player management perspective is fantastic, lets face it a good work place is a place where everybody knows where they stand.) and Kep decided from there that it would best for him to move on. He was told by Knights that he considered him a forward and that there were others that would be played in front of him.

So get the f*** off the screw Essendon band wagon, if your boss come and told you that where you were with the company would be as high as you would ever go but you were of the beleif you had more to acheive would you stay or look elsewhere?

I think the club done the right thing as far as not bending at the knee's with letting him go at pick 56 and think Knight's has done a fantastic job so far with his player management skills and his honesty with the group, still a long way to go yet but so far so good.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:55 am

Stocksy wrote:Throw any wingman into centre half back against some of the best Benny and see if they fair any better...

And as for the drug epedemic in WA, Benny I think you will find it worse in your own back yard if you take those rose tinted glasses off...

Never said it was better or worse than VIC. I just think gringo might be caught up in it based on his postings in recent times.

keri · Post by **keri** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:01 am

Stocksy wrote:
Jazz_84 wrote:Kepler told Freo lets skrew Essendon don't trade for me im going into the PSD

whether thats true or not im glad he is gone
Your a deadset f***stick!

Knights told him where he sat in the big picture of the club (an honest opinion which I think from a player management perspective is fantastic, lets face it a good work place is a place where everybody knows where they stand.) and Kep decided from there that it would best for him to move on. He was told by Knights that he considered him a forward and that there were others that would be played in front of him.

So get the f*** off the screw Essendon band wagon, if your boss come and told you that where you were with the company would be as high as you would ever go but you were of the beleif you had more to acheive would you stay or look elsewhere?

I think the club done the right thing as far as not bending at the knee's with letting him go at pick 56 and think Knight's has done a fantastic job so far with his player management skills and his honesty with the group, still a long way to go yet but so far so good.

That's pretty much how I see it. Without the Jazz bashing though.

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:11 am

Freo were offering pick 56, we have pick 55 and the rules are that if we trade for a pick we have to use it.

You saw Geelong trade for pick 90 and Collingwood for pick 96, this was because they had to use them and as they would be their last pick in the draft they can be used to recruit their father son pick ups.

If we didn't have to match Kangaroos shot at Darcy Daniher then I reckon we would have traded Bradley for pick 56.

Maybe why we wanted a higher one would it would be more use in the draft than what was on offer. We may very well use pick 55 and pass on the last to go to the PSD.

I know its only one pick I'm talking about but trading must suit the club first.

I would be surprised to be honest if Kepler isn't recruited and really based on what was on offer we haven't lost anything.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:34 am

bombercol wrote:Freo were offering pick 56, we have pick 55 and the rules are that if we trade for a pick we have to use it.

Not anymore.
Maybe we threw him into the PSD so the teams in front of us will pick him up and give us more of a chance at getting Brennan?

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:44 am

I cant believe how many people have lost sight of the fact that this guy is an absolute hack. He has never shown ANYTHING. If Freo were offering us a pick we weren’t going to use, then it’s right of us to let him take his chances in the PSD. If any club is silly enough to pick him up, then good luck to them.

Again, another complete waste of a top 10 pick.

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:46 am

Rossoneri wrote:
bombercol wrote:Freo were offering pick 56, we have pick 55 and the rules are that if we trade for a pick we have to use it.
Not anymore.
Maybe we threw him into the PSD so the teams in front of us will pick him up and give us more of a chance at getting Brennan?

Rosso, you are right, they don't need to be used.

As far as increasing our chances of getting Brennan, given that Kangaroos, Brisbane and Freo were the main interested parties I don't think Kepler would help us out on Brennan.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:47 am

Yawn. Typical rubbish Gringo.

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

FACT #2: We've delisted 7 players from the senior list, meaning we have to replenish them with 7 players. We've elevated 2 rookies, which leaves us 5 spots to fill. We will use our first 4 picks in the ND (6, 23, 39 and 55), and our first pick in the PSD. Freo offered us pick #56, which we wouldn't be using anyway.

The only reason we would've taken #56 for Bradley, in the knowledge that we aren't going to use it anyway, would've been as a show of goodwill like Geelong taking picks in the 90s for their offloads. To the idea of a show of goodwill toward Freo on our behalf, i say "f*** 'em".

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:57 am

bombercol wrote:
Rossoneri wrote:
bombercol wrote:Freo were offering pick 56, we have pick 55 and the rules are that if we trade for a pick we have to use it.
Not anymore.
Maybe we threw him into the PSD so the teams in front of us will pick him up and give us more of a chance at getting Brennan?
Rosso, you are right, they don't need to be used.

As far as increasing our chances of getting Brennan, given that Kangaroos, Brisbane and Freo were the main interested parties I don't think Kepler would help us out on Brennan.

Ask Carlton, Richmond, Bulldogs and Melbourne if they would pick him up for free.

However, if any of those teams pick Bradley over Brennan, then they are just plain f****** stupid.

I doubt very much that he will last as long as get to Freo

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:07 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:Yawn. Typical rubbish Gringo.

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

FACT #2: We've delisted 7 players from the senior list, meaning we have to replenish them with 7 players. We've elevated 2 rookies, which leaves us 5 spots to fill. We will use our first 4 picks in the ND (6, 23, 39 and 55), and our first pick in the PSD. Freo offered us pick #56, which we wouldn't be using anyway.

The only reason we would've taken #56 for Bradley, in the knowledge that we aren't going to use it anyway, would've been as a show of goodwill like Geelong taking picks in the 90s for their offloads. To the idea of a show of goodwill toward Freo on our behalf, i say "f*** 'em".

Who knows what we could have done with that draft pick - we could have even used it during draft week. If you can make the trade, you do.

Whilst your ramblings above are coherent, we still look silly.

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:10 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote: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?

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:18 pm

gringo wrote:
jimmyc1985 wrote:Yawn. Typical rubbish Gringo.

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

FACT #2: We've delisted 7 players from the senior list, meaning we have to replenish them with 7 players. We've elevated 2 rookies, which leaves us 5 spots to fill. We will use our first 4 picks in the ND (6, 23, 39 and 55), and our first pick in the PSD. Freo offered us pick #56, which we wouldn't be using anyway.

The only reason we would've taken #56 for Bradley, in the knowledge that we aren't going to use it anyway, would've been as a show of goodwill like Geelong taking picks in the 90s for their offloads. To the idea of a show of goodwill toward Freo on our behalf, i say "f*** 'em".
Who knows what we could have done with that draft pick - we could have even used it during draft week. If you can make the trade, you do.

Whilst your ramblings above are coherent, we still look silly.

Again, you're naive to the facts of the matter.

To say we look silly for not accepting a pick we wouldn't have used is nitpicking. The substantive difference in:
1) Accepting pick #56 and not using it; and
2) Not accepting pick #56 and getting nothing in return for Bradley,
is precisely zero, apart from the aforementioned factor of goodwill. Nought. Zilch. Absolutely nothing.

If contrary to what i'm saying we do end up using our 5th pick in the ND at #71 when we could've instead had our 5th pick at #56, then yes, our decision to not accept #56 will look silly. But as it currently stands, it's irrelevant.

Perhaps you need to brush up on the concept of illusory consideration.