Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 78

Thread: A trade for Seaby

  1. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloody Hell View Post
    GWS would be a first round pick.
    Too right. They blooming have enough.
    10100111001 ;-)

  2. #14
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloody Hell View Post
    I watched their last couple of games, and their rucks were a main source of their problems.

    Haven't seen Jamar for a while - but I think he's back this week? I also heard that Port (who with the retirement of Brogan are short on rucks) were going to make a big play to bring him home to Adelaide via free agency.
    Being Port Adelaide is the main source of their problem. The AFL should have known better than to invite one of the SANFL clubs to join the AFL. The other 8 clubs hate Port and that is at least 80 to 90% of the population so they only have a very small supporter base. On an South Australian football level they have a large support base something like Collingwood in a per centa basis but on an AFL level that will never cut it. No-one else in SA is going to follow them ause they are as hated if not more than Collingwood, probably more. Therefore they find it hard to get members and sponsors and therefore no money for players and players don't want to stay at a club that is broke just ask Paul Roos and Alister Lynch. He could go there as the AFL have propped them up for a couple of years but what happens after that?

  3. #15
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,041
    One thing Port don't need right now is more ruckmen. Lobbe Stewart and Trengove aren't brilliant, but they offer something to work with and shouldn't be Port's big priority right now.

    As for the existential question, Port's as viable as the Kangas and the Dogs. Moreso, really.

    They have more members than we do and their crowds used to be plenty good. Their problems are not existential. It's a combination of their current terrible onfield state (result of a few years of bad recruiting and some questionable coaching staff choices), their worst-in-the-league stadium deal, the SANFL bleeding both AFL clubs to prop up the local league, and an awful windswept ground in the middle of nowhere which nobody wants to go to any more.

    Once they abandon Footy Park for Adelaide Oval (an infinitely superior ground in an infinitely superior location) and their form starts to improve their crowds will pick up again, certainly enough to keep them viable.
    Last edited by R-1; 12th August 2011 at 11:18 PM.

  4. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by R-1 View Post
    As for the existential question, Port's as viable as the Kangas and the Dogs. Moreso, really.

    They have more members than we do and their crowds used to be plenty good. Their problems are not existential. It's a combination of their current terrible onfield state (result of a few years of bad recruiting and some questionable coaching staff choices), their worst-in-the-league stadium deal, the SANFL bleeding both AFL clubs to prop up the local league, and an awful windswept ground in the middle of nowhere which nobody wants to go to any more.

    Once they abandon Footy Park for Adelaide Oval (an infinitely superior ground in an infinitely superior location) and their form starts to improve their crowds will pick up again, certainly enough to keep them viable.
    All true, but there is a reason the AFL was never warm to the idea of promoting Southport (or, for that matter Labrador or Broadbeach) for a Gold Coast team: they didn't want to replicate the problem that had already established itself in Adelaide. They may pick up, they probably will be viable, but I can't see Port as ever being the powerhouse of Adelaide, West Coast or even Fremantle. I don't doubt their fans' passion; just their number.


    Anyway, Seaby won't go to Adelaide. GWS is most likely, obviously, but I can't think of any other clubs crying out for a big man and prepared to offer their number 1 spot to someone not already on their list.
    10100111001 ;-)

  5. #17
    Senior Player ernie koala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    northern beaches
    Posts
    3,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloody Hell View Post
    GWS would be a first round pick.
    I doubt GWS will just give away first round picks because they have plenty.
    GWS will give up market value.
    IMO market value for Seaby would be 2nd round at best.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

  6. #18
    Just wild about Harry
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,833
    Seaby to GWS is the most logical option as he doesnt have to relocate and GWS will need a big, seasoned body on the park. If we get a draft pick can we use it in a couple of years' time or does it have to be used at the next draft?

  7. #19
    Leadership Group goswannie14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Belmont, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    11,166
    Must be used this year.

    I would trade Seaby to Richmond for Reiwoldt. That would put Chamberlain in a quandry, to penalise him for being a Swans or to not penalise him because he is a Reiwoldt!
    Last edited by goswannie14; 13th August 2011 at 10:23 AM. Reason: fat fingers
    Does God believe in Atheists?

  8. #20
    If Seaby goes, that leaves Pyke aged 27, Mumford aged 24 and Currie 22 (ages as at start of season).

    If (as indicated in this thread) Currie is "gone", that is a pretty small list of No1 Ruckmen in this age of 3 on the bench and the consequent TOG required of that position.

    Without a strong No1 Ruckman, the pressure on the Swans game-style would be immense IMHO - it would make our current forward structure discussions pale into insignificance.

  9. #21
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,199
    I see him asking for a trade, most likely to GWS and the swans in good faith agreeing. Picks wise hard to say what deal is to be done, it's an uncertain time.

    Unfortunately for him/us he was meant to be number 1, the we got Mummy as well. He starts number 1'ish but with that foot injury ruining his first year and Mumford and Pyke seizing their opportunities the setup was rearranged by circumstances. Then the AFL introduce the sub rule in 2011, and his shot at number 2 is gone, as he has yet to prove himself as anything else but a solid ruckman. But he is wasted as such.

    I envisage Mummy #1, Pyke to number 2 and play down back/forward. LRT to settle back down in defense. Jesse god knows. Currie to get one final reprieve due to Seaby leaving purely for depth. We then target another young ruckman in the draft to develop for the next 3-5 years.

  10. #22
    Fandom of Fabulousness Lucky Knickers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    If we can trade to GWS would it be on the basis that we have one of the those reserve picks you can use any time in the next few years? That would be nice and handy.

  11. #23
    Senior Player Plugger46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    I doubt GWS will just give away first round picks because they have plenty.
    GWS will give up market value.
    IMO market value for Seaby would be 2nd round at best.
    Exactly. A first rounder for a 27yo bloke who couldn't get a go at the Eagles and now can't get a crack with us? Not knocking him but turn it up.
    Bloods

    "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

  12. #24
    GWS have a pretty decent ruckman atm anyway. Jonathan Giles is definitely an AFL standard ruckman in my mind.

    Richmond and Port are the clubs in most need for a strong, experienced ruckman as far as I can tell. The rest of the clubs either have that already or are definitely blooding a talented big man atm (Port have Lobbe who looks OK, so maybe Port won't bother with looking for a ruckman). Richmond are in desperate need for one though.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

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