2012 Trade Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

In that case:
IN: Moloney, Martin
OUT: Pick 53
Intact: Pick 8, 24, 33

Would be a good trade period. :thumbsu:

Would be.

Probably retire Hudson, use those first 3 picks and elevate McKeever and Crisp or 4 picks and only elevate McKeever.
 
There's no need to elevate Crisp - he's been promising, but he's not yet a guaranteed first 22 player. List spots are tight - no disadvantage in keeping him as a rookie.

McKeever should be elevated. He's had his maximum of 3 years on the rookie list. Even if we just sign him up for 1 year as depth, given we have no developing young defenders beside him and Justin Clarke. Of course, this didn't save McCauley & McCulloch - we cut both of them anyway even when we had no ruck depth. However if McKeever was to be delisted, we should have heard about it by now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

There's no need to elevate Crisp - he's been promising, but he's not yet a guaranteed first 22 player. List spots are tight - no disadvantage in keeping him as a rookie.

McKeever should be elevated. He's had his maximum of 3 years on the rookie list. Even if we just sign him up for 1 year as depth, given we have no developing young defenders beside him and Justin Clarke. Of course, this didn't save McCauley & McCulloch - we cut both of them anyway even when we had no ruck depth. However if McKeever was to be delisted, we should have heard about it by now.

1. I might overrate rate him but I think he's probably in the best 30 to 32 at our club. He finished the season slowly and might not have the same level of improvement but I think a Rockliff-type pre-season could see him push for best 22 selection.

2. It might cost Crisp games if we don't have anyone on the LTI that's probably the only disadvantage.
 
Would be.

Probably retire Hudson, use those first 3 picks and elevate McKeever and Crisp or 4 picks and only elevate McKeever.

I haven't been keeping tabs on our list space but does that assume we also re-contract Bartlett and Cornelius?
 
Wow - basically Gysberts for Pedo straight swap. SMH. :rolleyes:

Melbourne gave up the better draft pick and the better player. Stunning.
 
1. I might overrate rate him but I think he's probably in the best 30 to 32 at our club. He finished the season slowly and might not have the same level of improvement but I think a Rockliff-type pre-season could see him push for best 22 selection.

2. It might cost Crisp games if we don't have anyone on the LTI that's probably the only disadvantage.

I agre with what you say. He's got some good attributes, excellent work ethic. Obviously the coaches rate him.

But the way things stand at the moment, changes to our senior list:
OUT = Buchanan, Drummond, Stiller, Hawksley, Sheldon, Retzlaff = 6
IN = Moloney, ?Martin, ?McKeever, Pick 8, Pick 24, Pick 33 = 6

If we elevate Crisp, it'll have to be:
- we retire Hudson (might already be onthe cards anyway with Martin brought in)
- delist McKeever
- delist Cornelius/Bartlett

Other than if Hudson was already on the way out, I would not promote Crisp at one of the other guys' expense.
 
I see the recruitment of Martin as the end of Hudson which might have been brought about by the new ruck rules.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I see the recruitment of Martin as the end of Hudson which might have been brought about by the new ruck rules.

It seems more than coincidental that our interest in Martin surfaced just after the change to the ruck rules were announced.
 
Spangher and pick 72 to Hawks for pick 66

Sydney dumping salaries so they can offer more to Tippett to try and out price other teams from drafting him? Trading him for White + 23 achieved two things; clearing White + draftee's salary and being able to backend deal.

Him going into the draft means they can't backend his massive deal without Tippett putting a smaller price tag on his head and risking other teams drafting him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

2012 Trade Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top