Bombertalk

keri wrote:

Essendon4eva wrote:Peverill. Jason Johnson. We might not have got anything for them, but I would have liked to have heard they were being shopped around.

There would have been no point shopping JJ around, and as for Peverill, he shouldn't be shopped around at all. Matter of opinion of course, but even if we did want him gone, what we have gotten for him?

I don'tknow. I jsut wanted Knights to be more active. That doesn't mean making done deals, but at least TRYING to get something for them. Espicially considering, we are looking to a future without them anyway. Knights made it clear, that from round one our young players would be getting games. Almost guarantee's those guys will be playing VFL.

Essendon4eva wrote:

keri wrote:

Essendon4eva wrote:Peverill. Jason Johnson. We might not have got anything for them, but I would have liked to have heard they were being shopped around.

There would have been no point shopping JJ around, and as for Peverill, he shouldn't be shopped around at all. Matter of opinion of course, but even if we did want him gone, what we have gotten for him?

I don'tknow. I jsut wanted Knights to be more active. That doesn't mean making done deals, but at least TRYING to get something for them. Espicially considering, we are looking to a future without them anyway. Knights made it clear, that from round one our young players would be getting games. Almost guarantee's those guys will be playing VFL.

How do you know he hasnt?
We have tried to get Brennan, tried to unload Cole, Dyson and Bradley.

Essendon4eva wrote:

keri wrote:

Essendon4eva wrote:Peverill. Jason Johnson. We might not have got anything for them, but I would have liked to have heard they were being shopped around.

There would have been no point shopping JJ around, and as for Peverill, he shouldn't be shopped around at all. Matter of opinion of course, but even if we did want him gone, what we have gotten for him?

I don'tknow. I jsut wanted Knights to be more active. That doesn't mean making done deals, but at least TRYING to get something for them. Espicially considering, we are looking to a future without them anyway. Knights made it clear, that from round one our young players would be getting games. Almost guarantee's those guys will be playing VFL.

You want him to be active in trade week for the sake of it? Even if he isn't willing to give away picks for players, and the players we would consider giving away are not worth picks?

Can you explain what in the name of arse would be the point of that exercise?

Did I say for the sake of it? We want to develop young players for the future right? SO try and affload guys like the Johnson's and Peveril for draft picks, or other young medfeilders.

Essendon4eva wrote:Did I say for the sake of it? We want to develop young players for the future right? SO try and affload guys like the Johnson's and Peveril for draft picks, or other young medfeilders.

The public's choice. Retard of the Year.

Right...

What is retarded about that statement?

You want to shop every expierienced player on our list that's not a KPP. That's what is retarded, imbecile.

If we are going to play every one player that Sheed's played in the VFL. Than yes, we should try adn get young guys for them.

Just ignore him guys he is a fckwit and we all know it and by biting to his shit we are all just ******* up the topics... Getting very dull!!

Here's my logic: If we could conceivably get what players we are willing to trade are worth, then we trade. Given the state of the trade this year, that isn't going to happen.

There's no point getting rid of players who do make a contribution, for example, Peverill, for players who may or may not be any good, given the state of the draft this year.

keri wrote:Here's my logic: If we could conceivably get what players we are willing to trade are worth, then we trade. Given the state of the trade this year, that isn't going to happen.

There's no point getting rid of players who do make a contribution, for example, Peverill, for players who may or may not be any good, given the state of the draft this year.

I have to say that ever since you have posted on this board, you have provided very logical, sensible posts every single time. Well said.

That's nice of you to say. Thank you!

BenDoolan wrote:

keri wrote:Here's my logic: If we could conceivably get what players we are willing to trade are worth, then we trade. Given the state of the trade this year, that isn't going to happen.

There's no point getting rid of players who do make a contribution, for example, Peverill, for players who may or may not be any good, given the state of the draft this year.

I have to say that ever since you have posted on this board, you have provided very logical, sensible posts every single time. Well said.

Yes, I refer to her as the "anti-Essendon4eva".

Now THAT's a compliment!