Page 313 of 418 FirstFirst ... 213263303309310311312313314315316317323363413 ... LastLast
Results 3,745 to 3,756 of 5008

Thread: 2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #3745
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,329
    Hmm, Hawthorn trade their future third round pick, for a former number seven pick and Gold Coast's future fourth round pick. They then trade that fourth round pick for a former number one pick.
    So essentially, they got two players, who were respectively taken at one and seven, for a third round pick.
    Seems to be a real fetid stench coming from those dealings, doesn't there?

  2. #3746
    Well at least Tom Harley’s performance might take a bit of the heat off Horse ! Where’s the Harley must go thread !


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3747
    Knocked back by Langdon , Vandenberg and Duryea! Lowering the standards and still no luck ! That’s rough ! The swans must feel like me in my early 20’s!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #3748
    Guys I don’t agree

    What ur saying is correct only if we are still holding 26 and 33 etc

    ——

    If we use pick 26 and 33 tomorrow in a trade by wed night this week ie tomorrow then we will have 38,39,40,67 for Blakey and this rounds out to approx pick 6

    if he goes at pick 5 or 4,3,2,1 then deficit

    This is the point I have made ever since we got the split of new picks

    Trading is not over yet

  5. #3749
    Quote Originally Posted by jono2707 View Post

    A grade of D minus so far on our trade period.
    Personally, I think you are being generous.
    He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.

  6. #3750
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    If homo sapiens had evolved in Victoria instead of Africa, we would have never ventured north of the Murray River.
    They'd also have invented the espresso machine before the wheel.

  7. #3751
    Quote Originally Posted by Auntie.Gerald View Post
    Guys I don’t agree

    What ur saying is correct only if we are still holding 26 and 33 etc

    ——

    If we use pick 26 and 33 tomorrow in a trade by wed night this week ie tomorrow then we will have 38,39,40,67 for Blakey and this rounds out to approx pick 6

    if he goes at pick 5 or 4,3,2,1 then deficit

    This is the point I have made ever since we got the split of new picks

    Trading is not over yet
    I don't see why we would cannibalise our remaining selections in the draft and just land Blakey before the 5th Round. Getting Blakey plus one or two late second round draftees is surely what we need to be doing.

  8. #3752
    On the veteran's list
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Swans Heartland
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Legs Akimbo View Post
    Personally, I think you are being generous.
    Don't agree. Bad trades are worse than no trades at all. What is the point of clearing out Rohan and Hanneberry then trading back in players who are less valuable list cloggers? We couldn't trade our best pick because we are already assured of a gun in return. Vandenberg and Langdon both WANTED to stay at their present clubs and were only looking for alternatives IF family issues or contract issues couldn't be resolved. Duryea is less valuable that Newman, so what's the use of going hard after him. I don't think we have overtly chased a player from another club and then been beaten by anyone but the incumbent, who is always 90% sure to retain those players they WANT.

    I would be disappointed if we had made trades and finished up with St Kilda or Geelong marginal or seconds players. May, McRae, Lynch, Shiel, McCartin etc were never on our radar so they can't be deemed failures.
    Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.

  9. #3753
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Top End
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Cat View Post
    Don't agree. Bad trades are worse than no trades at all. What is the point of clearing out Rohan and Hanneberry then trading back in players who are less valuable list cloggers? We couldn't trade our best pick because we are already assured of a gun in return. Vandenberg and Langdon both WANTED to stay at their present clubs and were only looking for alternatives IF family issues or contract issues couldn't be resolved. Duryea is less valuable that Newman, so what's the use of going hard after him. I don't think we have overtly chased a player from another club and then been beaten by anyone but the incumbent, who is always 90% sure to retain those players they WANT.

    I would be disappointed if we had made trades and finished up with St Kilda or Geelong marginal or seconds players. May, McRae, Lynch, Shiel, McCartin etc were never on our radar so they can't be deemed failures.
    Big Cat, you really should warn readers before posting an opinion like that. It’s far too logical and might serve to dissipate some of the rage that many on here like to keep burning bright!

  10. #3754
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,969
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Cat View Post
    Don't agree. Bad trades are worse than no trades at all. What is the point of clearing out Rohan and Hanneberry then trading back in players who are less valuable list cloggers? We couldn't trade our best pick because we are already assured of a gun in return. Vandenberg and Langdon both WANTED to stay at their present clubs and were only looking for alternatives IF family issues or contract issues couldn't be resolved. Duryea is less valuable that Newman, so what's the use of going hard after him. I don't think we have overtly chased a player from another club and then been beaten by anyone but the incumbent, who is always 90% sure to retain those players they WANT.

    I would be disappointed if we had made trades and finished up with St Kilda or Geelong marginal or seconds players. May, McRae, Lynch, Shiel, McCartin etc were never on our radar so they can't be deemed failures.
    Totally agree - thanks for this. We had limited cap space and limited collateral. Best result is landing what genuine targets we could and maximising draft position.

  11. #3755
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Auntie.Gerald View Post
    Guys I don’t agree

    What ur saying is correct only if we are still holding 26 and 33 etc

    ——

    If we use pick 26 and 33 tomorrow in a trade by wed night this week ie tomorrow then we will have 38,39,40,67 for Blakey and this rounds out to approx pick 6

    if he goes at pick 5 or 4,3,2,1 then deficit

    This is the point I have made ever since we got the split of new picks

    Trading is not over yet
    There has to be a viable trade target worthy of giving away those picks, though. And at the moment, there isn't one on the horizon. There's no point trading them away for the sake of trading them away. If we don't trade in any more experienced players, the club has a choice of retaining the fringe players still in limbo (at least publicly) - Marsh, Fox, Robinson, Maibaum, Newman - or delisting some or all of them and drafting in more young players than the minimum we have to (Blakey +1). If they go the latter route (even in part) those late second/early first third round picks will be needed.

    It could be that the club is lurking, waiting for a mid range player or two to "fall out" of the big deals still waiting to happen, either because a club needs to clear some cap room, or could do with pick 26 or 33 to help them do a deal. But the player has to add value to the side and be worthy of the pick.

    Teams that could yet try and clear a player include Collingwood (if the Beams trade progresses - someone like Josh Thomas could be of interest), or Essendon (with the Shiel trade still in progress, not that any players spring to mind, not ones that they're likely to relinquish).


    I understand people's frustrations that the club doesn't look like achieving the goals it stated. But it is often hard to shake players loose from their existing clubs. We've lost almost no-one in the last few years that the club didn't seem comfortable with losing (regardless of whether posters on here agree with the club's position). Good players generally stay at well run, successful clubs.

  12. #3756
    Senior Player Plugger46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,674
    Agree TBC. We wanted Moore and Langdon. They didn’t come. No point in just going for the next ones on the pile and bringing in players for the sake of it.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO