List Mgmt. 2014 Trade and Free Agency Targets Thread

[B4Bear]

Freo are throwing the kitchen sink at Frawley. Bloke will likely end up being one of the highest paid players going around.
The mind boggles.

Ah, good to see Ross 'what does develop mean' Lyon sticking to his usual routine.

Get a good list, import players, over pay them, do not develop anyone, bankrupt the club, and leave.

He better go to GC next, being on AFL life support, they would be the only team that can afford his methods.

 

[justroyal]

Yeah there was a reason he was given a year contract in the first place

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Would be a very harsh call to delist Nahas. He was close to cementing his spot in the 22 before his injury.

 

[Uncle_Leo]

 

[hcd199]

Would be foolhardy to delist Nahas: he was on the cusp of cementing a spot prior to injury, and even if his role has been taken by another there's no reason why he can't prove to be a valuable depth player. Disappointed if the rumour is true.

 

[King Corey]

No Leo.. say it ain't so?

Really liked what Nahas brought to the team and his still had more offensive game to offer.

Would've liked to see Nahas, LT, Kayne in the same side making defenders soil themselves.

 

[scooby1279]

Geoff Walsh has stated that they have not yet decided on contracts for Nahas or Firrito as yet. I am pretty sure both will get another contract they both deserve it and Nahas was just unlucky, if he wasn't injured he would still be playing in the seniors.

 

[Hatchy1992]

Keep Nahas on the list. His defensive pressure was great and only injury cut his year short. I would delist/trade LA and shop Tarrant around. However if there is no interest probably keep him on for another season.

Delist Curran and re-rookie him. Seems to be highly rated by the club.

 

[apollo_creed]

Anthony - gone
Hine - gone
Curran - a medical call so I have nfi but you'd expect he's gone unfortunately
Wilkins - tricky because he was a long term prospect but I think he'll go as well

Grima and Spud will likely go around again. Jacobs should get a 1 year deal.

Nahas right on the edge. Might depend on what we do with the FA's.

It's not just Turner who can play the role, either. That will be Garner's spot as well.

You don't keep 26yo small fwds as depth.

he's not depth mate. he was very good when he played. he'd be playing now if it wasn't for his injury.

 

[apollo_creed]

Nahas form is being overrated. He was good, not great. Started well in games but then dropped out and missed a lot of goals (set shots are horrible).

I would be ok with giving him another year but gartlett has much more upside and we should go after him and delist Robbie if we get him.

his pressure was excellent as well. can't bring a player in, ask the player to perform a role, have the player perform and then tell them to bugger off!
we're a better club than that. and we're not getting garlett. other clubs will want and need him more, other clubs can and will offer more.

 

[GremlinCRHF]

Could we slide in and make that a 3 way trade? What have we got that GWS would want and would get us Dangerfield?

 

[Heaps of fun]

he's not depth mate. he was very good when he played. he'd be playing now if it wasn't for his injury.

He's depth while Kayne is playing like this. Not much is splitting them now but Kayne's a serious prospect for the future.

 

[apollo_creed]

He's depth while Kayne is playing like this. Not much is splitting them now but Kayne's a serious prospect for the future.

possibly but there is the prospect of using him as a sub.

 

[jess_1804]

there is a supposed photo of LT lighting a dart on FB WTF

Yeah, a photo where you can't see his face, a ciggie or the beer he was supposedly drinking...

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

The kids most of us consider off limits.

 

[Event Horizon]

Jeff??

Yes

 

[giantroo]

Yes

Wouldn't mind it at all. Turner, LT and Garlett roaming that forward line.

 

[gokangas]

Have to agree with the keep him crew. Was doing well before the injury and a nice depth player to have on the list. As long as the price is ok I would certainly keep him.

 

[Event Horizon]

Wouldn't mind it at all. Turner, LT and Garlett roaming that forward line.

Agreed, but it may cost Nahas his spot, as there only so many "questionable" journey men who play the same position that we can carry on the list.

 

[Kimbo]

Apparently are interested in Garlett.

Dayle or Jeff?

 

[kelman]

his pressure was excellent as well. can't bring a player in, ask the player to perform a role, have the player perform and then tell them to bugger off!
we're a better club than that. and we're not getting garlett. other clubs will want and need him more, other clubs can and will offer more.

His pressure/intent was very good but usually dropped off after the first or second quarter. No way he was established best 22 before injury. He was fringe. If we don't get Garlett I would be happy if the club give him another year, but he is depth.

 

[shintemaster]

Given the injury history of some of our guys, doubt we'll need to be scratching around for players to get rid of. Would be very surprised if Nahas didn't get another year.

 

[Petrie4PM]

Keep Nahas of course.

Delist:
Warren
Curran
McGennis
Wilkins

Trade (or delist)
Hine
Anthony (no point keeping for depth/insurance, he's not apart of our future)

Harper - delist and re-rookie, sorry but he has gone backwards but that talent shouldn't be let go

Unsure (controversial)

Daw
Currie
McMahon - had his time, great bloke, undersized and not up to it - tippet nail in his coffin - would you agree one year as backup or delist and re-rookie?

Sorry don't slay me but I don't like Daw. Got some dukes but just cant play AFL footy at level required. Brown so much more aggresive and instinctive.

I also dont think Eric Wallace will amount to an AFL player (his contract just got extended). If I had my say I would let go daw/currie/wallace (sorry).

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

The only reason we'd let go of Currie is if we are guaranteed a second ruckman of similar quality. So far my limited vision sees nothing to suggest that.

 

[Petrie4PM]

The only reason we'd let go of Currie is if we are guaranteed a second ruckman of similar quality. So far my limited vision sees nothing to suggest that.

Yes, you do have a point, keeping as injury back up could be useful as we aren't too strong when brown+petrie ruck but I was keeping in mind a fit tarrant and was thinking too many talls in fwd at one time could be a problem (black, petrie, brown, tarrant)