The "What do we get for Beams?" thread

[Museman]

You pr!cks are as bad as our negotiators......

Soft.

Not certain that i have said the deal is good, in fact i have said that i only want pick5 and Redden / Aish as a get out.
The fact that a few of us think Crisp will be a good footballer should not be read as acceptance of the current mooted trade ( 5 , 25 and Crisp).

He might end up decent, I don't see it, I see all B's in the highlights, the only thing that sets him apart is height.....and you can whack any 190 in the guts who's game is all B's...there is plenty around, no A grade vision no A grade Kick no A grade awareness....no A grade nothing...

There's a reason these 190cm mids a re as rare as rocking horse $h!t

It's not my point though....the deal hasn't been announced yet and you're all caving

[September Zeros]

I'm reposting the following because in 24 hours my opinion hasnt changed on this deal. Hence......

"I just feel we've been worn down on this and collectively talked into a sewer trade.

It started out as pick 4 and and established Brisbane mid (aish, redden, rich, Mayes) swapped for beams.

In my eyes this is the equitable trade. Trade done.

But now (thanks to the afl's shitty compo pick for frawley) it's pick 5. I don't think we should forget this downgrade. And we shouldn't be letting Brisbane forget it either. Straight off the bat that degraded the initial deal we would have been happy with, but how quickly we forget.

Then poeople started warming to 5, 21 and 25 in a swap for beams and we started to reluctantly accept it, in fact didn't the club actually put that on the table?

Most again would have been just ok with this scenario....just.

Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

All I see is this deal drifting further and further away from what we wanted and closer and closer to a win for the Brisbane lions and dayne beams.

All I want is what's best for the Pies.

Brisbane have targeted arguably our 2nd best midfielder and one of the comps most elite, offered him big money and in return for their underhanded theft of dayne they offer us shit, slightly less shit, and then a deal that just resembles shit.

All the other trades that Brisbane are trying to involve here with this five way crap are just masking the fact they want beams for a steal......its a smokescreen and we seem to have lost our way in it.

It all stinks to me right down to daynes disappointing actions himself and I'll be buggered if I'd be dealing with Brisbane now that the deadline has passed.

Call me stubborn, but why should we lose on this deal. They want someone who's contract we own. An elite midfielder no less. So pay up Brions.
Its so dam plain and simple for mine.

[swoop42]

For me the deal for Beams looks a bit better if we give up on Varcoe.

I certainly want Greenwood.

To me it should be either of these two options.

1.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp.

Lumumba, pick 48 for 23.

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 23, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

2.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp

Lumumba, pick 48 for Greenwood

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 25, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

I want a top 5 and a top 25 pick to take to the draft.

We could get an exciting young talent like Cockatoo with 23/25.

[RudeBoy]

I'm reposting the following because in 24 hours my opinion hasnt changed on this deal. Hence......

"I just feel we've been worn down on this and collectively talked into a sewer trade.

It's started out as pick 4 and and established Brisbane mid (aish, redden, rich, Mayes) swapped for beams.

In my eyes this is the equitable trade. Trade done.

But now (thanks to the afl's shitty compo pick for frawley) it's pick 5. I don't think we should forget this downgrade. And we shouldn't be letting Brisbane forget it either. Straight off the bat that degraded the initial deal we would have been happy with, but how quickly we forget.
Then poeople started warming to 5, 21 and 25 in a swap for beams and we started to reluctantly accept it, in fact didn't the club actually put that on the table?

Most again would have been just ok with this scenario....just.

Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

All I see is this deal drifting further and further away from what we wanted and closer and closer to a win for the Brisbane lions and dayne beams.

All I want is what's best for the Pies.

Brisbane have targeted arguably our 2nd best midfielder and one of the comps most elite, offered him big money and in return for their underhanded theft of dayne they offer us shit, slightly less shit, and then a deal that just resembles shit.

All the other trades that Brisbane are trying to involve here with this five way crap are just masking the fact they want beams for a steal......its a smokescreen and we seem to have lost our way in it.

It all stinks to me right down to daynes disappointing actions himself and I'll be buggered if I'd be dealing with Brisbane now that the deadline has passed.

Call me stubborn, but why should we lose on this deal. They want someone who's contract we own. An elite midfielder no less. So pay up Brions.
Its sio dam plain and simple for mine.

I'd like to disagree with your analysis..........but unfortunately I can't fault it.

[swoop42]

You pr!cks are as bad as our negotiators......

Soft.

Not certain that i have said the deal is good, in fact i have said that i only want pick5 and Redden / Aish as a get out.
The fact that a few of us think Crisp will be a good footballer should not be read as acceptance of the current mooted trade ( 5 , 25 and Crisp).

He might end up decent, I don't see it, I see all B's in the highlights, the only thing that sets him apart is height.....and you can whack any 190 in the guts who's game is all B's...there is plenty around, no A grade vision no A grade Kick no A grade awareness....no A grade nothing...

There's a reason these 190cm mids a re as rare as rocking horse $h!t

It's not my point though....the deal hasn't been announced yet and you're all caving

Our opinions mean nothing it's what the club does.

We all want a better deal but what can we do if Beams is being a dick?

I don't want him at our club next year to act like a cancer within our playing group. We'll lose far more with that than we'll do by accepting this proposed deal IMO.

Given that Ed has not come out strongly and done a Peter Gordon I feel we're all just preparing and protecting ourselves for the likely news to come.

[themonk]

I'm reposting the following because in 24 hours my opinion hasnt changed on this deal. Hence......

"I just feel we've been worn down on this and collectively talked into a sewer trade.

It's started out as pick 4 and and established Brisbane mid (aish, redden, rich, Mayes) swapped for beams.

In my eyes this is the equitable trade. Trade done.

But now (thanks to the afl's shitty compo pick for frawley) it's pick 5. I don't think we should forget this downgrade. And we shouldn't be letting Brisbane forget it either. Straight off the bat that degraded the initial deal we would have been happy with, but how quickly we forget.
Then poeople started warming to 5, 21 and 25 in a swap for beams and we started to reluctantly accept it, in fact didn't the club actually put that on the table?

Most again would have been just ok with this scenario....just.

Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

All I see is this deal drifting further and further away from what we wanted and closer and closer to a win for the Brisbane lions and dayne beams.

All I want is what's best for the Pies.

Brisbane have targeted arguably our 2nd best midfielder and one of the comps most elite, offered him big money and in return for their underhanded theft of dayne they offer us shit, slightly less shit, and then a deal that just resembles shit.

All the other trades that Brisbane are trying to involve here with this five way crap are just masking the fact they want beams for a steal......its a smokescreen and we seem to have lost our way in it.

It all stinks to me right down to daynes disappointing actions himself and I'll be buggered if I'd be dealing with Brisbane now that the deadline has passed.

Call me stubborn, but why should we lose on this deal. They want someone who's contract we own. An elite midfielder no less. So pay up Brions.
Its sio dam plain and simple for mine.

I'd like to disagree with your analysis..........but unfortunately I can't fault it.

Agreed, unfortunately many on here don't.

Brisbane rolled us in 02 & 03 & now they are doing it again.

That's it Pies, bend over........

[jdpie1970]

You pr!cks are as bad as our negotiators......

Soft.

Not certain that i have said the deal is good, in fact i have said that i only want pick5 and Redden / Aish as a get out.
The fact that a few of us think Crisp will be a good footballer should not be read as acceptance of the current mooted trade ( 5 , 25 and Crisp).

He might end up decent, I don't see it, I see all B's in the highlights, the only thing that sets him apart is height.....and you can whack any 190 in the guts who's game is all B's...there is plenty around, no A grade vision no A grade Kick no A grade awareness....no A grade nothing...

There's a reason these 190cm mids a re as rare as rocking horse $h!t

It's not my point though....the deal hasn't been announced yet and you're all caving

Who is caving ? Only making comments on Crisp. My preference is to keep Beams. After that 5 and Redden. My position is circular i.e keep then 5 and Redden.
Crisp will be a good footballer and if the world caves in he is not the one to ridicule. Save the animosity for Brisvegas and their conniving offering when there is 18 months left on a contract. I would also be looking over the Brisbane list and approaching all their Victorian "Untouchables" and offering them overs when they are 18 months out.

[Domesticated_Ape]

For me the deal for Beams looks a bit better if we give up on Varcoe.

I certainly want Greenwood.

To me it should be either of these two options.

1.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp.

Lumumba, pick 48 for 23.

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 23, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

2.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp

Lumumba, pick 48 for Greenwood

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 25, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

I want a top 5 and a top 25 pick to take to the draft.

We could get an exciting young talent like Cockatoo with 23/25.

Was just about to post something like deal 1, but I think we'll be giving up pick 30 as well.

Beams to Brisbane for 5, 25 and Crisp

25 to North for Greenwood

23 and Varcoe to Collingwood, Lumumba and 30 to Melbourne, Clarke and 48 to Geelong.

We lose: Beams, H, picks 30, 48
We get: Greenwood, Crisp, Varcoe, picks 5 and 23.

I'd just about take that. If Melbourne don't like it, North can have H and we'll keep 25.

[Harvey]

For me the deal for Beams looks a bit better if we give up on Varcoe.

I certainly want Greenwood.

To me it should be either of these two options.

1.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp.

Lumumba, pick 48 for 23.

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 23, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

2.Beams for 5, 25 and Crisp

Lumumba, pick 48 for Greenwood

We end up with 5, 9(Moore), 25, 30, Greenwood, Crisp

I want a top 5 and a top 25 pick to take to the draft.

We could get an exciting young talent like Cockatoo with 23/25.

Was just about to post something like deal 1, but I think we'll be giving up pick 30 as well.

Beams to Brisbane for 5, 25 and Crisp

25 to North for Greenwood

23 and Varcoe to Collingwood, Lumumba and 30 to Melbourne, Clarke and 48 to Geelong.

We lose: Beams, H, picks 30, 48
We get: Greenwood, Crisp, Varcoe, picks 5 and 23.

I'd just about take that. If Melbourne don't like it, North can have H and we'll keep 25.

Yea I think that ends up being the same result anyway. If we trade Beams for 5 and we get an extra second round, we wouldn't be using pick 30 and 48 anyway due to list spots. So pick 30 and 48 are essentially free bargaining chips.

We'd take three early live selections in the draft and upgrade Frost with our last pick.

[swoop42]

Your deal while good has a few variables in it I could see not coming off.

Melbourne wanting more for pick 23 and Clark than 30 and Lumumba is the main problem that I can see.

North not willing to give up Greenwood for Lumumba in a straight swap could cause problems if they want pick 30 as well. Pick 48 would be no problem.

I can live with giving up pick 30 for Varcoe as long as we get to keep pick 23/25.

Right now though the proposed deal sees us not ending up with pick 23 or 25 and that seems unders for us to me.

Your proposed deal is how it should be. Nothing less.

[Harvey]

Actually, just realised Brisbane is getting off really lightly there and getting a bargain for Beams. I'd much rather just do the deals separately for Greenwood and maybe Varcoe using H, our second and third rounders and just keep Beams or sell him to the highest bidder.

There's really no reason to involve Brisbane in our negotiations for Greenwood and Varcoe. Let's complete those trades first and then tell Brisbane to offer up something valuable rather than have them trying to mask the true value of their offer in our other trades.

[September Zeros]

Your deal while good has a few variables in it I could see not coming off.

Melbourne wanting more for pick 23 and Clark than 30 and Lumumba is the main problem that I can see.

North not willing to give up Greenwood for Lumumba in a straight swap could cause problems if they want pick 30 as well. Pick 48 would be no problem.

I can live with giving up pick 30 for Varcoe as long as we get to keep pick 23/25.

Right now though the proposed deal sees us not ending up with pick 23 or 25 and that seems unders for us to me.

Your proposed deal is how it should be. Nothing less.

Agreed Swoop. Its the minimum deal I'd accept.

I'm 100% with you in wanting to take a pick in the 20's into the draft along with pick 5.

[Domesticated_Ape]

Your deal while good has a few variables in it I could see not coming off.

Melbourne wanting more for pick 23 and Clark than 30 and Lumumba is the main problem that I can see.

North not willing to give up Greenwood for Lumumba in a straight swap could cause problems if they want pick 30 as well. Pick 48 would be no problem.

I can live with giving up pick 30 for Varcoe as long as we get to keep pick 23/25.

Right now though the proposed deal sees us not ending up with pick 23 or 25 and that seems unders for us to me.

Your proposed deal is how it should be. Nothing less.

Melbourne need to understand that Mitch Clarke becomes a de-listed free agent on the 31st of this month if they don't trade him. He was going to come to us for pick 48, way back before he decided to go to Geelong.

Geelong should also be happy with a Varcoe/Clarke straight swap. So maybe the Dees can take 48 too, or Geelong's pick 55 or whatever it is.

I reckon North would love H for Greenwood. They know Levi is gone and they'd prefer a best 22 player than a draft pick right now IMO.

Also agree with Harvey that we shouldn't even be talking to Brisbane about this deal. There might have been threats by Beams to walk out and not play next season though. If there have been, hopefully the club makes it public after the trade goes through. No need to protect Dayne's integrity if he has none.

[swoop42]

Your deal while good has a few variables in it I could see not coming off.

Melbourne wanting more for pick 23 and Clark than 30 and Lumumba is the main problem that I can see.

North not willing to give up Greenwood for Lumumba in a straight swap could cause problems if they want pick 30 as well. Pick 48 would be no problem.

I can live with giving up pick 30 for Varcoe as long as we get to keep pick 23/25.

Right now though the proposed deal sees us not ending up with pick 23 or 25 and that seems unders for us to me.

Your proposed deal is how it should be. Nothing less.

Agreed Swoop. Its the minimum deal I'd accept.

I'm 100% with you in wanting to take a pick in the 20's into the draft along with pick 5.

I'm beginning to think some of the better minds on Nick's should be doing the trade deal.

If we lose Beams and Lumumba and don't come out with a deal like the ape has suggested then I'm going to be really angry.

We would have received unders for mine and that's unacceptable in a deal that's borderline acceptable in the first place.

[AN_Inkling]

Now we are warming to the idea of 5, 25 and crisp who was what, pick 40 in the rookie draft. So picks 4, 25 and 40!!!! FMD

It's worse than that. Crisp was pick 40 in the Rookie draft, not the National draft. So it's more like: 5, 25 and 130 .