This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Wokko wrote:5 + 25 is what we'll take at 4:59pm on Friday if nothing else can be arranged. If that gives you a sad then you better stock up on some beers.
Remember, the players involved in trades have to agree. Has anyone considered that nobody worthwhile (Top 22) from Brisbane actually wants to come here?
And you have that information from where ?
Have you considered that it is a huge play for Brisbane to not get Beams into their lineup ? Would you risk keeping Elliot (sits somewhere around the same mark in Pies as Redden at Brissy) to not get Trent Cotchin (Beams equivalent) into the Pies ? The opportunity to get a player that would become your best player immediately just does not happen.
As much as you say he will go through to them next year, things change. He is 24 years old and from what i remember of being 24 a month is a lifetime in the context of decision making.
Wokko wrote:5 + 25 is what we'll take at 4:59pm on Friday if nothing else can be arranged. If that gives you a sad then you better stock up on some beers.
Remember, the players involved in trades have to agree. Has anyone considered that nobody worthwhile (Top 22) from Brisbane actually wants to come here?
I got some Chinese merchandise up for grabs, only asking slightly overs, you got friends who think like you too????
You make no sense and appear blinded by your own misplaced wit. Does the Chinese merchandise have to agree before I buy it? Is my money demanding to go to China now or it'll just walk there next year?
Harvey wrote:Agree with Museman. When a players uncontracted is when you might accept having to take unders or nothing. When a player still has a year to go why would you cave in and accept unders? You've still got 2 whole trade periods to try negotiate a fair outcome.
You two have no clue. He doesn't go into the draft
He goes to Brissy as a restricted free agent after they
Offer him 900k a yr for 5 yrs. we won't match that
And just like that he's gawn
You probably shouldn't say "you have no clue" & then get your facts wrong.
Beams is not a RFA next year. It's another year after that.
Apologies to Harvey & Museman, thought it had already
Changed to 7 yrs. but we can't let him go to draft next yr
Domesticated_Ape wrote:There's also the fact that we can get Greenwood anyway with either our second rounder or the Lumumba pick.
This is the point for me. We've got the Greenwood deal worked out, we don't need Brisbane for it. Merging it with the Lions deal makes things more difficult for us, not less. We have to find two mid-aged players for those we are losing this off-season. We would have thought: trade a second rounder for one and include one in the Beams deal. Greenwood is our second rounder deal. Being unfairly compensated in the Beams deal by accepting the absolute minimum (5 and 25) means we still have work to do to find another player.
And it is important to do whatever we can to ensure that Brisbane pays a fair price. They are taking our second best player. I can't remember a lesser deal in recent years for a club in such a situation. It will have been a failed negotiation if this is what we receive.
Wokko wrote:5 + 25 is what we'll take at 4:59pm on Friday if nothing else can be arranged. If that gives you a sad then you better stock up on some beers.
Remember, the players involved in trades have to agree. Has anyone considered that nobody worthwhile (Top 22) from Brisbane actually wants to come here?
That's unders so no we shouldn't need to take it. They would offer the same thing next year so what will we lose by standing our ground? In fact, in 12 months time maybe one of their young draftees wants out and then there'll be more scope to negotiate a fair outcome.
I'm not advocating a Luke Ball/Nick Stevens situation at all. Next year when he's uncontracted sure at 4:59pm on a Friday we'll accept it despite it being unders because we've run out of options. This year though we've still got another 12 months option value on Beams, why should we negotiate like Beams is uncontracted? It's not like we'll lose him for nothing tomorrow.
Defender wrote:I'm over this shit, all's I ask is we don't cave.
I think we all agree we don't want to cave, we just cant agree on what caving in actually is.
They can jam picks 5 and 25 up their clacker as far as I'm concerned, if they can arrange to get pick 10 off the Crows I'd take 5 and 10, after making them sweat.
Wokko wrote:5 + 25 is what we'll take at 4:59pm on Friday if nothing else can be arranged. If that gives you a sad then you better stock up on some beers.
Remember, the players involved in trades have to agree. Has anyone considered that nobody worthwhile (Top 22) from Brisbane actually wants to come here?
And you have that information from where ?
Have you considered that it is a huge play for Brisbane to not get Beams into their lineup ? Would you risk keeping Elliot (sits somewhere around the same mark in Pies as Redden at Brissy) to not get Trent Cotchin (Beams equivalent) into the Pies ? The opportunity to get a player that would become your best player immediately just does not happen.
As much as you say he will go through to them next year, things change. He is 24 years old and from what i remember of being 24 a month is a lifetime in the context of decision making.
They say a week is a long time is footy and a year tends to be a bit longer again..
Hate to ask the question, but what if Bucks gets sacked half way through 2015?
We all know it's a possibility. I support him and reckon he's on the right track, but there's plenty of Pies fans who don't, as any of the readers of this forum know.
If Bucks goes, then maybe Beams stays. Right now, anyone would prefer Bucks, he at least wants to be there. But there's way too many things that could happen between now and next year to get spooked into trading Beams cheaply.
Wokko wrote:5 + 25 is what we'll take at 4:59pm on Friday if nothing else can be arranged. If that gives you a sad then you better stock up on some beers.
Remember, the players involved in trades have to agree. Has anyone considered that nobody worthwhile (Top 22) from Brisbane actually wants to come here?
I got some Chinese merchandise up for grabs, only asking slightly overs, you got friends who think like you too????
You make no sense and appear blinded by your own misplaced wit. Does the Chinese merchandise have to agree before I buy it? Is my money demanding to go to China now or it'll just walk there next year?
I wasn't counting on questions, I just assumed you'd buy
Domesticated_Ape wrote:There's also the fact that we can get Greenwood anyway with either our second rounder or the Lumumba pick.
This is the point for me. We've got the Greenwood deal worked out, we don't need Brisbane for it. Merging it with the Lions deal makes things more difficult for us, not less. We have to find two mid-aged players for those we are losing this off-season. We would have thought: trade a second rounder for one and include one in the Beams deal. Greenwood is our second rounder deal. Being unfairly compensated in the Beams deal by accepting the absolute minimum (5 and 25) means we still have work to do to find another player.
And it is important to do whatever we can to ensure that Brisbane pays a fair price. They are taking our second best player. I can't remember a lesser deal in recent years for a club in such a situation. It will have been a failed negotiation if this is what we receive.
I'm not so strong on replacing both Beams and Lumumba with senior players. I think we can get by with Greenwood and two highly talented youngsters, but otherwise I agree with you 100%. I doubt that pick 25 will find us that other player anyway. People don't rate the draft this year.
Can't say "In Hine we trust" anymore if we get rolled on this deal. I know it's short notice for him, but he's supposed to be the best and we have the power in this situation.
Domesticated_Ape wrote:There's also the fact that we can get Greenwood anyway with either our second rounder or the Lumumba pick.
This is the point for me. We've got the Greenwood deal worked out, we don't need Brisbane for it. Merging it with the Lions deal makes things more difficult for us, not less. We have to find two mid-aged players for those we are losing this off-season. We would have thought: trade a second rounder for one and include one in the Beams deal. Greenwood is our second rounder deal. Being unfairly compensated in the Beams deal by accepting the absolute minimum (5 and 25) means we still have work to do to find another player.
And it is important to do whatever we can to ensure that Brisbane pays a fair price. They are taking our second best player. I can't remember a lesser deal in recent years for a club in such a situation. It will have been a failed negotiation if this is what we receive.
I'm not so strong on replacing both Beams and Lumumba with senior players. I think we can get by with Greenwood and two highly talented youngsters, but otherwise I agree with you 100%. I doubt that pick 25 will find us that other player anyway. People don't rate the draft this year.
Can't say "In Hine we trust" anymore if we get rolled on this deal. I know it's short notice for him, but he's supposed to be the best and we have the power in this situation.
This is another point that seems to have bypassed most, the bears offered pick 4, it's no longer pick 4, it's 5 in a draft where the top 4 are considered by all reports to be standouts, and it's lucky dip to an extent from there down.
I wasn't counting on questions, I just assumed you'd buy 
