List Mgmt. 2013 Trade / Draft / Free Agency

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Every single indication points to a ruckman being traded; paying big time for Hickey (with massive wraps on him within and outside of the club), highly rating Pierce internally, and now picking up Holmes. So who could be traded?
  • Hickey? Isn't going anywhere since we only just got him.
  • Pierce? As above, plus would have no value whatsoever.
  • Holmes? Of course not; as above, and can't be traded, anyway.
  • Stanley? Perhaps, but is of a different mould and would have little value (hasn't shown much other than injuries!)
  • McEvoy?......
Now, I'm not saying McEvoy is gone, but I highly doubt that we'd risk overfilling our list with ruckmen, especially when they're rather inconsequential to games (unlike a gun midfielder or key forward, for example). He would have the most value out of all of those players (don't forget about his tank and the interchange cap from next season, which would increase his worth), and is arguably the 'most tradeable', based purely on the timing and method of acquisition. Given that every indication is that the club expects Hickey to supersede him as soon as next year, with Pierce a real possibility as well (once he develops), then the only justifiable reasons why we wouldn't trade McEvoy is a lack of worthwhile interest, and/or his leadership is considered too valuable.

The former is a genuine possibility, especially since GWS have nabbed Mumford, whilst the latter seems possible, but I think the (superficial) breakdown of our ruck stocks suggests that leadership alone won't cut it; particularly with the 'ruthless' Pelchen at the helm. I would like to think that there will be some form of offloading of unused value in the ruck department, and everything I can see suggests that, if anyone is to be traded, it will be Big Mac.

As for where he could be headed, and for what; who knows? Perhaps, if these Patton rumours are true, something involving Collingwood that would send Mac there, Shaw to GWS, and Patton to us (with pick exchanges/other player movement occurring as well).
 
Melbourne are in no position to negotiate.

Their 2nd best player just left them and they are desperate for senior bodies and leadership.

Roos knows Aish/Kelly can't help and the cycle will continue.

I think given the situation both clubs are in it works.

Throw in McEvoy for Jack Fitzpatrick if you want to help them more.
Melbourne are in every position to negotiate. They have a sought after asset in pick 2. They can float it under the noses of every other club and take the best deal (wouldn't be hard to trump Armo + 22) or they can keep it and take the best mid in the draft.
 
FFS it was us, not the Whitten oval..!!
o-rly.jpg
 
they only way we would get patton is if we parted with pick 3.

Pick 3 and Fisher for Bruce, Patton and 10?

And take Freeman with #10....

So Holmes, Bruce, Patton and Freeman before we start reaching in the draft.
 
I'm a bit on the fence about whether we're considering to trade Mac. On one hand SW was screaming out for ruck depth in 2012 when we had Blake rucking half the season. On the other hand Pierce will be another 18 months developed and we've acquired Hickey and Holmes in that time. I'm sure we'd be open to enquiries and there's no use Mac dwelling in the ressies if he's overtaken by Hickey, as I expect. I see longterm Hickey and Stanley a better combination than a combination involving Ben.

Even with GWS getting Mummy there's still some suiters. If Hawthorn miss out on Longer there's an option. Freo and WC come to mind with Sandi and Cox not getting any younger. Mac could pair up with Zac Clarke or Nic Nat. Sydney losing Mummy may be interested....Mac for Parker straight swap?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thanks for that. Any take on how eager GWS are to trade him?
From what I have heard they will trade him and pick 4 will get the job done....think Patton will decide on who he wants to go to then gws will do the deal with that club. The ox said tonight his mail is Patton is close to agreeing on coming to the dogs but ox also said over the weekend buddy was 100% signing with gws so who knows
 
In all the Patton-phoria, I had a think about how we'd manage to fit Riewoldt, Hickey, Stanley (again, IMO he's a ruck/fwd) and Lee - with Sipposs, Markworth, Maister and White all in calculations in differing roles - into the team... And what I came up with was:

RK: Hickey - ****** - ******
HF: Curren - Riewoldt - Markworth
FF: Lee - Patton - ******
Int: Stanley - **** - **** - ****

Patton, Lee, Hickey and Stanley all in a round robin swap.

1. When Hickey is gassed, Stanley comes on to ruck, with whichever forward still there.
2. When said forward is gassed, Stanley roams forward and Hickey comes back into the ruck.
3. Rinse, lather and repeat.

:D
 
From what I have heard they will trade him and pick 4 will get the job done....think Patton will decide on who he wants to go to then gws will do the deal with that club. The ox said tonight his mail is Patton is close to agreeing on coming to the dogs but ox also said over the weekend buddy was 100% signing with gws so who knows

Saints supporter ;)

Will probably go to the Dogs though, he'd get more opportunity and they'd be willing to give up more if push came to shove.
 
Saints supporter ;)

Will probably go to the Dogs though, he'd get more opportunity and they'd be willing to give up more if push came to shove.
Yeah, they're further along in their rebuild as well. Curse their good finish to the year!!
 
The fact we've traded with GWS over their first two years in the competition and look likely to again with Bruce and potentially Fisher gives me hope we can negotiate a deal more effectively than the Dogs. Just need to satisfy Patton. I'm very much against losing pick 3 tho. Somehow we would need pick 9 coming back our way.
 
The fact we've traded with GWS over their first two years in the competition and look likely to again with Bruce and potentially Fisher gives me hope we can negotiate a deal more effectively than the Dogs. Just need to satisfy Patton. I'm very much against losing pick 3 tho. Somehow we would need pick 9 coming back our way.


or pick 4 (with compo)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top