#38 Jeremy Howe

Post by **Pies4shaw** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:24 pm

So, Kennedy and Seedsman for Howe and pick 68. Or, of you prefer to break it down into its constituent parts, Seedsman for pick 32, then Kennedy and pick 32 for Howe and pick 68. The sense you get is that Collingwood was quite pleased to move Kennedy and Seedsman on.

magpieazza · Post by **magpieazza** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:25 pm

If this is true we are getting ripped off !!!

I mean that sincerely.

Essentially we get Howe for Kennedy and Seedsman, no f arking way!!!

I thought it read that we would get pick 32 as well, but apparently not....

Don't care about 68 UNLESS that is the difference between us getting Aish.

Post by **Pies4shaw** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:26 pm

thebaldfacts wrote:Shocking trade. Don't even want Howe. Prefer draft picks.

You well may. The Club, on the other hand, doesn't want draft picks - it plainly wants players.

droversdog65 · Post by **droversdog65** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:27 pm

thebaldfacts wrote:Shocking trade. Don't even want Howe. Prefer draft picks.

Superficial reasoning.

We have had a good run of highish draft picks for the last few years and the club is bursting at the seams with kids.

We need young and proven players to bridge the gap between youth and experience. Howe along with Treloar and Aish provide this.

magpieazza · Post by **magpieazza** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:28 pm

Pies4shaw wrote:So, Kennedy and Seedsman for Howe and pick 68. Or, of you prefer to break it down into its constituent parts, Seedsman for pick 32, then Kennedy and pick 32 for Howe and pick 68. The sense you get is that Collingwood was quite pleased to move Kennedy and Seedsman on.

Which is severely underselling our players.

Seedsman for 32 is fair but Kennedy for 68 is F.......

magpieazza · Post by **magpieazza** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:28 pm

Pies4shaw wrote:So, Kennedy and Seedsman for Howe and pick 68. Or, of you prefer to break it down into its constituent parts, Seedsman for pick 32, then Kennedy and pick 32 for Howe and pick 68. The sense you get is that Collingwood was quite pleased to move Kennedy and Seedsman on.

Which is severely underselling our players.

Seedsman for 32 is fair but Kennedy for 68 is F.......

MAY-Z · Post by **MAY-Z** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:29 pm

Ends up not a bad result for us

I dont think Seedsman would've got many games for us next season and according to most threads on here that talk about kennedy he was a terrible player

thebaldfacts · Post by **thebaldfacts** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:31 pm

magpieazza wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:So, Kennedy and Seedsman for Howe and pick 68. Or, of you prefer to break it down into its constituent parts, Seedsman for pick 32, then Kennedy and pick 32 for Howe and pick 68. The sense you get is that Collingwood was quite pleased to move Kennedy and Seedsman on.

Which is severely underselling our players.

Seedsman for 32 is fair but Kennedy for 68 is F.......

Not happy. But then again I was not happy about Crisp and Varcoe last year.

inxs88 · Post by **inxs88** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:31 pm

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

We just got rolled in value terms. If Tom Bell is worth 21 and Seedsman 32 that is bad enough but we a\have effectively given up 2 players that should be worth Second rounders and got a second rounder (Howe) and a crap 4th rounder in 68. Yuk

TurkishPie · Post by **TurkishPie** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:32 pm

Kennedy + Pick 47 for Howe would have been a better deal

themonk · Post by **themonk** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:32 pm

magpieazza wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:So, Kennedy and Seedsman for Howe and pick 68. Or, of you prefer to break it down into its constituent parts, Seedsman for pick 32, then Kennedy and pick 32 for Howe and pick 68. The sense you get is that Collingwood was quite pleased to move Kennedy and Seedsman on.

Which is severely underselling our players.

Seedsman for 32 is fair but Kennedy for 68 is F.......

Meanwhile Hawthorn is getting pick 15 for Anderson, does he have more of an upside than Seeds?

Time to move on and focus on the big 2 now, Treloar & Aish.

watt price tully · Post by **watt price tully** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:32 pm

MAY-Z wrote:Ends up not a bad result for us

I dont think Seedsman would've got many games for us next season and according to most threads on here that talk about kennedy he was a terrible player

Not when we're selling

Deja Vu · Post by **Deja Vu** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:32 pm

Howe will be the Crisp of 2016.

Watch this thoroughbred as he runs amok along the wings of the MCG.

Never rated Kennedy. Not one bit. Happy for him if he makes a career at Melbourne. Seedsman showed glimpses but far too inconsistently.

Turning fringe players into best 22 is what we need. Depth is OK but we need less depth and more quality. Howe will have a better career at Pies than he did at Melbourne

magpieazza · Post by **magpieazza** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:33 pm

It means we didn't get the most out of our stock.

I'm furious because Kennedy was a valuable player and should have been portrayed as that. Melbourne had high value put on him and I reckon Kennedy and a late pick for Howe is about right.

Winners are not Collingwood, however I wouldn't be surprised if it came out tomorrow that we do get 32 as that would make sense. That way we can get Aish with two second rounders which is what Collingwood should be angling at, you would think!!!!

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:34 pm

Collingwood Receive: Jeremy Howe, Pick 68
Collingwood Lose: Paul Seedsman , Ben Kennedy

Howe (played 22 games this year for 10 goals) for Seedsman (played 12 games for 4 goals and a blinder ANZAC Day ) and that is pretty good as far as I am concerned. Pick 68 for Kennedy, that's about where I rate Kennedy.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

#38 Jeremy Howe