2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread

[bombermick]

Re: Tap Tap On The Shoulder

No way the club will turn over that many players in a compromised draft and when by reports next years crop is stronger.

Exactly. There's no point Hirdy sacking a large bunch this year. Better to cut the obvious choices (Williams, Dyson etc) and and then do a mass clean-out next year, if required.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

Are we going to be realistically active during the GWS auction period (ie. are we going to trade for one of the four picks?)

If so what are we willing to give up?

My thoughts are if we were, it'd be a KPD (Only because we have a plethora of such) and our first round (hopefully we can offload Hille for something).

sheeds said today he believes in the philosophy of recruiting a spine for structural purposes but with Phil Davis and I think the young fellas name is cameron they have 2 CHB dont they? Whilst we have a few KPD i think our full back stocks are limited. I think Freo might offload a Zac Clarke which overtakes the Hille trade deal, and freo might also get Mitch Clarke. If anyting GWS would be looking for KPF, which we need. I think it's going to be too hard with our current list, it's just not deep enough to trade off the talent we have unless they take a steinberg or Gumby, doubtful.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

According to yesterdays HUN Xavier Ellis is about to put pen to paper to remain at hawthorn.

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

Stupid boy.

 

[BomberJacqui]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

hey so my teacher reckons essendon could get trengove from port for jetta & ricky dyson

Is this even a chance? lol thought we would have to give a 1st rounder too.

With Carlisle coming through it seems a bit pointless but that would be a bargain

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I wouldn't do that.

Carlisle's showed so much in the last two weeks, it almost rules Trengove surplus to our needs.

And Jetta's our only decent crumbing forward.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

Carlisle's recent form has very little to do with whether we do or don't need Trengove.
Even if he'd played like you'd expect a skinny 19yo to, Trengove still would've been behind Pears and Hooker, Hurley if we want him there, and ahead of TSlatts and Davis for a tall back spot, both of whom are at least good VFL level.

Last player we need.

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

The argument was that having him as a semi proven tall defender, we'd have all of he, Pears and Hooker, allowing Hurley to always play forward, or at the very least, rotate with Hurley.

He can also ruck, allowing us greater flexibility with Ryder and Bellchambers.

Carlisle's effectively solved that solution, as well as Myers beginning to show signs of the 3rd man we'll need if Fletcher ever retires.

 

[Smokin]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

yea, cant see any need at all to go after another tall defender.

To be honest, I highly doubt he will be trading much if it all. Perhaps for a out of favour small forward or something speculative, giving up little.

Our list is really on crying out for a genuine game breaking mid, but seriously everyone could do with another one how are we going to get one without giving up what we dont want to? Even then, they have to be prepared to leave and walk to us.

Hird has pretty much said we wont be big traders, and I believe him. Bomber and McCartney seem really big on the fact you can teach ability and a hell of a lot of improvement, and that looks to be the path we will take.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

We bat 5 deep in young, specific, tall backs who range between solid VFL players and star AFL defenders; plus a great old stager, plus two guys who start elsewhere but are also solid AFL defenders.

My argument was why give away a first rounder for a player who won't be our 1st, 2nd or even 3rd string... given we have quite competent 4th/5th/6th/7th strings...

Would you have been happy for us to go all-out and get Shane Tuck last year because Melksham is not proven and Tuck is semi-proven??? Exaggeration, but that's my point.

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

Let me clarfiy: I don't want us to now.

And if you had've asked me if I'd be all for us going after another promising young midfielder, I'd say yes.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I'm just pointing out you shouldn't be *that* easily swayed by 2-3 weeks of good form when it's really just a continuation.
The kid looked decent last year and has been really good all year at CHB for Bendigo.
Even if he came up and got chucked around like a cardboard cut-out, he's tracking fine.


A small forward or really good rover would be a-whole-nother ball game, because those are weak areas on the list.

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I probably shouldn't, but I am.

You can never have too many KPPs. Just look at 2008, when some complained that we selected Hurley, because we already had Lloyd, Lucas, Gumbleton, Neagle, Pears, Hooker, Daniher, Ryder, Bellchambers.

Then again in 2009 when we selected Carlisle instead of another small.

Then again in 2010 when we selected Steinberg (though probably a 3rd) instead of another small.

In 2011 we'd be knackered had we not selected Hurley and Carlisle. Not to mention the biggest surprise in Crameri.

Neagle's done, Gumby just about, Daniher likewise,Lloyd and Lucas gone, Hooker and Pears continually injured.

Getting another promising, flexible tall, if for the right price, wouldn't be the worst thing.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I'd argue you can never have too many of anything.
Look how buggered we were without a ruck in late 2009, that doesn't mean you go and draft 10 rucks.

The flipside of too many of one type is...?

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

The difference is there's room for two ruckmen on the field at any time - 3 if you're James Hird - whereas you can have up to 6 KPP on the field.

We have 40 odd places on our list. Having 8-10 of those places for KPP isn't as absurd as you're making it sound.

 

[The Gospel]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I think we are looking well for the future, however could be improved with another small forward in the moled of gartlett, betts, milne. Dont think that Davey is that person, he isnt kicking goals and even his tackling is down, maybe time for him to be on the trade table???

 

[BrunoV]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

Surely we only need Trengove if we have lost faith (ie the club and not the fans) that Gumbleton will work out.

I wonder if there is an secret desire to chase someone like Dangerfield or Boak. There is nothing new here, but players are entitled to be disenfranchised with things from time to time and it could be the perfect opportunity to swoop. Dangerfield made no attempt to hide his displeasure at the speculation about Neil Craig; and who would stay at Port Adelaide if given the chance to leave?

Neither club is in a position to hold onto players that arn't 100% prepared to buy into the direction of the respective clubs.

If we have the opportunity to add a high class, prime moving midfield type we shoudl go for it. I'd start with the first round pick and then ask the opposition what they want (whether I agree to what they want is a different matter).

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

I think we are looking well for the future, however could be improved with another small forward in the moled of gartlett, betts, milne. Dont think that Davey is that person, he isnt kicking goals and even his tackling is down, maybe time for him to be on the trade table???

Absolutely. I'd be looking to upgrade Davey, somehow, though I'm not sure what we'd get for him.

I've said it for about 2 or 3 years now, but there must be (and has been) a quality small forward out there in one of the state leagues.

 

[bombermick]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

We need to find our own Ballantyne, even if it costs us our first pick. There has to be some good small forwards out there. Perhaps Saeed? Davey is good at implying pressure, but his hands are not sure enough.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

My stance on Trengove is that he's going to be a top line player, so if he wants to come to Essendon and the deal is acceptable from our POV we should do it without a moment's hesitation.

I don't think we should neccessarily go out of our way to get him, however.

 

[Burzum]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

Monfries + whatevs for Trengove.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 2]

The difference is there's room for two ruckmen on the field at any time - 3 if you're James Hird - whereas you can have up to 6 KPP on the field.

We have 40 odd places on our list. Having 8-10 of those places for KPP isn't as absurd as you're making it sound.

IMHO we play our best with 3 proper talls & a pinch-hitter back, a proper tall & a pinch-hitter forward, and 2 rucks both of whom swing forward.

Wouldn't be terrible acquisition but I can think of a hundred who'd suit us better.

 

[yaco55]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

Doubt that we need Trengove at this stage and you never give up a first round pick for a small forward.

Think if we can pick up a Sylvia/Vince type as an extra midfielder it would be a bonus.

Other positions to be filled via the draft.

 

[The Gospel]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

Doubt that we need Trengove at this stage and you never give up a first round pick for a small forward.

Think if we can pick up a Sylvia/Vince type as an extra midfielder it would be a bonus.

Other positions to be filled via the draft.

Agree Never give a 1st round pick for a small forward, but Colin Sylvia would be a great pick up for us.
He can play on ball or as that small forward we really need. If he could play forward most of the year, i think 40 goals wouldnt be out of the question.
But what or who, do we have to give up????

 

[Kong]

Re: 2011 Official Trade/Delisting Discussion Thread [Part 3]

Davey + 1st rounder for Sylvia + 2nd rounder?