Official Trades Discussion Thread

Ruckmen are much stronger now than then. West wasn't the worst ever relative to rucks then. Now he would be.

 

I actually think Walters for Kreuzer is a pretty fair deal. That said if there's one thing you need more than a ruck it's to retain the only bloke in his forward line who isn't 6'4.

 

Kreuzer cops a bit of Jack Watts syndrome at times.

2013 - non-elite rucks

Code:

Name		Kicks	HB	Disp	Marks	Goals	Tackles		Hitouts		Brownlow
Krezuer		6.8	4.6	11.5	3.3	0.5	4.2		25.2		0.38
Leuenberger	7.4	6.1	13.6	3.6	0.4	2.4		30.4		0.40
Ryder		8.0	4.9	12.9	3.9	0.6	3.2		22.8		0.06
Jacobs		6.5	4.8	11.3	3.2	0.2	1.9		28.3		0.00
Lobbe		5.6	6.2	11.8	2.7	0.2	4.9		28.0		0.00
Maric		6.0	6.9	12.8	3.4	0.5	2.5		23.2		0.00
McEvoy		5.3	6.2	11.5	4.7	0.3	2.9		20.4		0.05

Not only has he had to play forward quite a bit more than the others there barring Ryder perhaps, but, with the exception of Ryder again he's played most games with another ruck in the side be it Hampson or Warnock and when Warnock's played he's not played ruck most of the game. There's a lot more than stats I know but I don't think the intangibles go against Kreuzer either; he can rest forward pretty well, he's better than most at ground level and all that. He's maligned pretty unfairly because yeah, he hasn't lived up to the potential pick 1 is associated with; but then again when you're a young ruck and bust an ACL it does make life very tough, especially when agility and all the things having a busted knee ruins in the future were things that made Kreuzer a point of difference ruck.

tl;dr statistically he's not much different to all the other rucks in that mid range and there are intangibles i.e. Warnock being in the team with him that render it an achievement to be statistically as good.

I don't know where the hate is from.


Also worth noting that I believe the following

- Yeah Kreuzer isn't a top 5 ruck whereas Walters may be a top 5 fwd. But having a good ruck compared to a shoddy one is certainly a lot more important to the fortunes of a side than having a top 5 small forward compared to a shoddy one IMO.

- You think too much about the evenness of the deal and not enough about how the deal helps you. You can lose a deal on value and still be a big winner. I don't think Walters would have been the right move but I do think giving something like Prestia + upgrade would have been a tenfold win to you and it'd have helped Theo too big time.

 

You'd rather see Theo finish 4th and you 6th than you finish 2nd and theo 1st?

 

so you'd prefer you to have a 10% chance of first and theo 20% than theo 40% and you 30%?

 

I'm speaking hypothetically. The concept is correct though, taking a shit deal on value in this instance still would have imo doubled your prem odds. Irrelevant of how it boosted theos, it'd have reduced mine/ninos/morgies/bretts etc in doing so anyway

 

And I get that. I just don't think what Theo was proposing was really unfair at all and balancewise it helped you.

With all due respect it seems as if your definition of a fair deal is Essendon's definition of breaking even.

 

That's it I'm not simmin your game till 4am now was gonna do it now eat a dick cunt