Drafting Table

[liz]

Seaby is not a Free Agent as he has not played 10 years for us, he is not even a Limited Free Agent. But we can choose to trade Seabs for a GWS player. We might like to throw in one or two others to get what we want either from GWS or Suns. We might like to get a young Tall Forward and a young Tall Defender.

I hope that clears any confusion over Free Agency!

You're overlooking the fact that GWS can still take a number of out-of-contract players as part of their start-up concessions. That said, I'd be surprised i Seaby was of that much interest to the Giants. He'd be a long way behind Giles in terms of being a first choice ruckman, and doesn't offer the versatility around the ground that clubs are now looking for in their second rucks. Plus he's close to the end of his career and has spent large chunks of this season injured.

[Ludwig]

You're overlooking the fact that GWS can still take a number of out-of-contract players as part of their start-up concessions. That said, I'd be surprised i Seaby was of that much interest to the Giants. He'd be a long way behind Giles in terms of being a first choice ruckman, and doesn't offer the versatility around the ground that clubs are now looking for in their second rucks. Plus he's close to the end of his career and has spent large chunks of this season injured.

But if they were crazy enough to take Seaby anyway, would it be similar to the Scully deal, where they AFL compensated Melbourne with some draft picks? Would it be that GWS could get him for just what they paid him and nothing else, the league doing the compensating to Sydney for their 'loss'. I was wondering about this, because it would mean, if true, that we could get at least something for him instead of nothing by delisting him.

It seems to me that losing and unwanted player to free agency or GWS concession is a good alternative to delisting, if you can do it.

The way these free agency deals seem to work is that the parties involved in the switch each get something, by the other teams pay the price by being knocked down the order at the draft. It seems a bit unfair.

For instance, if Goddard goes to Freo, the other teams would get knocked down the drafting order to compensate St. Kilda for their loss. Why should the rest of the teams not a party to deal have to pay the price?

Am I missing something here?

[wolftone57]

You're overlooking the fact that GWS can still take a number of out-of-contract players as part of their start-up concessions. That said, I'd be surprised i Seaby was of that much interest to the Giants. He'd be a long way behind Giles in terms of being a first choice ruckman, and doesn't offer the versatility around the ground that clubs are now looking for in their second rucks. Plus he's close to the end of his career and has spent large chunks of this season injured.

Thanks Liz. I think they are interested because their young rucks are not quite ready to go yet. In the clashes of the resies it was obvious their talls were still a little on the skinny side. A young ruck if he is not naturally built, like Mummy, needs about three pre-seasons to mature/fill out. I would think we have a few they would be interested in. Jesse would also be of interest to them I would think. If we need a certain type of player we might be able to pick up a couple of Key Defenders in the Draft but we need to pick up another Key Forward if Spang & Walshy don't come good. We can't rely on Goodes as he is not a Key Forward, he has proven this over the years. Sure, he will kick goals but not as the second tall mainly as third or pinch hitting For/Mid.

[sprite]

We need a quality tall defender,

[jono2707]

We need a quality tall defender,

But we have Ted Richards (193cm) and Heath Grundy (192cm) (well we usually have him...) - they are both All Aust calibre. Hopefully LRT will slot back in soon too. Whilst I wouldn't be averse to us getting another, our most pressing need is up forward IMHO....

[dimelb]

Report in the Hun today that Melbourne would delist Lucas Cook: b. 3.3.1992, h. 196, w. 81. Obviously doesn't excite them, but would he be worth a look? Has anyone seen him play, and does he have development possibilities?

[Bloody Hell]

Report in the Hun today that Melbourne would delist Lucas Cook: b. 3.3.1992, h. 196, w. 81. Obviously doesn't excite them, but would he be worth a look? Has anyone seen him play, and does he have development possibilities?

Never heard of him, but considering the information you have provided, no.

20 and 81kgs? Beanpole. If you're on the Melbourne list and you can't get a game you won't make it at AFL level.

[Nico]

Never heard of him, but considering the information you have provided, no.

20 and 81kgs? Beanpole. If you're on the Melbourne list and you can't get a game you won't make it at AFL level.

Reported that he has not been able to add any bulk to his frame. Sounds like a forward that should be playing down back.

[swansrob]

I's like to see Spang bought in as a permanent FF next year. He showed last year that he's more than capable of competing at AFL level as a forward. Name him at FF, persevere (no knee-jerk relegation after a bad game), and I reckon we'd be on to a winning combo with him, Reid, a resting ruckman and maybe a Morton or Lamb picking up the crumbs? Goodes to be given free reign to whatever the hell he wants.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Spangher is injury prone. If he wasn't it would be a different story, but he is and you can't pin your hopes of a key position forward on a bloke who can't stay on the park for a season of footy.

[Jewels]

Spangher is injury prone. If he wasn't it would be a different story, but he is and you can't pin your hopes of a key position forward on a bloke who can't stay on the park for a season of footy.

Yep. I love Spang but his body just isn't up to it week in and week out.

[Big Al]

Yep. I love Spang but his body just isn't up to it week in and week out.

I have the same problem. *Old girlfriends are nodding their heads in agreement*