The only good thing about the Gold Coast is that if a team gets shifted to Tassie, it’s less likely to be us.
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part II
- Thread starter #gosaintas
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
The only good thing about the Gold Coast is that if a team gets shifted to Tassie, it’s less likely to be us.
Might be on my own here, but id be happy to sell our first this year.
We have very good core of class with Gresh, Billings, Steele, Clark and soon bytel.
Then we have Ross, Hanners and hopefully Steven as a senior core. Plus a few fringe players.
On that basis I'd be wrapped with Hall and potentially another inside mid.
Get us competitive and up the ladder next year, then start attracting big names.
It's a two step process IMO.
Hard to gague what Hill will cost TBH.
If Acres was involved, it may not be pick 5. If not then you'd want something coming back as well as Hill.
There's also a good chance we take his brother as a FA as incentive to have him nominate us.
How about a 5 way tie for first?
- Banned
- #3,854
I can understand we need backup rucks, and Draper would have been the perfect answer of someone who can share the load forward and rucking. He is now out of the picture, how does Goldstein offer that option? I can recall him resting forward at times but how affective was he? For me the perfect backup ruckman playing with Marshall as the main ruck is a tall forward who can ruck eg Allen WCE, Chol Richmond or Himmelberg from Adelaide. Perhaps if we pick up Ben King one the King boys or Bruce can continue to play that role.
In the interim obviously we need backup ruckman and so why not keep Pierce or Longer (given they are over their concussion) as a backup and go out and get another young or developing state ruckman. I just cant see the benefit in picking up another average ruckman in Goldstein on a 3 year contract & $$$ when his own club will only offer him 2 year extension?
Obviously we have salary cap we need to spend, but rather than rewarding a croc from another club, offer the current list (everyone) a huge carrot if they make finals or the top 4?
In the interim obviously we need backup ruckman and so why not keep Pierce or Longer (given they are over their concussion) as a backup and go out and get another young or developing state ruckman. I just cant see the benefit in picking up another average ruckman in Goldstein on a 3 year contract & $$$ when his own club will only offer him 2 year extension?
Obviously we have salary cap we need to spend, but rather than rewarding a croc from another club, offer the current list (everyone) a huge carrot if they make finals or the top 4?
Goldy would be a great get. However we can't play both in the seniors and he went come across to spend time at Sandy.
If we are looking at a back up from state leagues, then ad you say we might as well keep Billy Or Lewis. I'd prefer the latter TBH. Give him the number one spot at Sandy next year.
- May 6, 2009
- 10,561
- 25,390
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Assuming jake re-signs I wonder if the club has the stones to do as the hawks did last year, and trade a young gun where they had a surplus- in order to bring in a gun to fill a gap elsewhere.
Last year the hawks looked at their list and saw they had 2 guys in sicily and burton who play their best football in a similar manner and position- attacking off half back.
They obviously identified that you can't play 2 loose attacking backmen in the same side no matter how good they are- you will lose games of football with that structure.
Rather than keeping both and playing 1 out of their best position (lessening their effectiveness)- they used that surplus to fix an area they were deficient in post cyril (small fwd/mid= wingard).
It took plenty of risk and guts to trade a guy like burton- especially as he was basically the only home grown elite kid they have had in a decade.
But they were prepared to make a big call- because it's about winning premierships, not collecting stars without regard to how they all fit together.
Having heard years of (often warranted) moaning on here about richo playing guys out of position (goat etc), I would have thought the prospect of moving battle on for a gun mid could garner support- given he could well be staring down the barrel of playing away from chb for the next ~4 years.
(Plus the option of him playing fwd greatly reduces too with king to come into the team).
I'm assuming it will be howled down though through the invoking of a thoughless rule of thumb about 'you don't trade out good players'... without mention of the fact that premiership winning clubs sometimes do exactly that.
People on here act like mob wives sometimes in their attitude to player trades- they want all of the benefits without taking on any of the risk.
Anyone else see a similarity emerging between battle now and burton 12 months ago?
Last year the hawks looked at their list and saw they had 2 guys in sicily and burton who play their best football in a similar manner and position- attacking off half back.
They obviously identified that you can't play 2 loose attacking backmen in the same side no matter how good they are- you will lose games of football with that structure.
Rather than keeping both and playing 1 out of their best position (lessening their effectiveness)- they used that surplus to fix an area they were deficient in post cyril (small fwd/mid= wingard).
It took plenty of risk and guts to trade a guy like burton- especially as he was basically the only home grown elite kid they have had in a decade.
But they were prepared to make a big call- because it's about winning premierships, not collecting stars without regard to how they all fit together.
Having heard years of (often warranted) moaning on here about richo playing guys out of position (goat etc), I would have thought the prospect of moving battle on for a gun mid could garner support- given he could well be staring down the barrel of playing away from chb for the next ~4 years.
(Plus the option of him playing fwd greatly reduces too with king to come into the team).
I'm assuming it will be howled down though through the invoking of a thoughless rule of thumb about 'you don't trade out good players'... without mention of the fact that premiership winning clubs sometimes do exactly that.
People on here act like mob wives sometimes in their attitude to player trades- they want all of the benefits without taking on any of the risk.
Anyone else see a similarity emerging between battle now and burton 12 months ago?
Last edited:
Well at least you care
Of course it does. You say disaster, I show you real disasters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like to place my left hand in their shoulder to show that i care...
Nope
I'm as creative as you are on trade ideas.
However, I honestly believe we are one year away from having real surplus players.
Our elite kids aren't quite consistent enough to demand premium value and the others simply aren't good enough to attract interest.
It would have to be a stunning offer for me to consider it.
- May 6, 2009
- 10,561
- 25,390
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Agreed- goldy for mine is only an option in the extreme instance where we trade out marshall for an A grade mid.
Assuming that doesn't occur- goldy doesn't fit for us.
There are a heap of decent level backup ruckmen we can grab as marshall insurance- z smith, phillips, abbott, pierce etc.
I like that our plan A is to nab a young prospect like draper- plan b of any number of vfl ruckmen is fine.
A left of field option I think would be trying to nab nicnat with a monster offer.
Unlike goldy, he could play ruck/fwd with marshall well, even with king in the team too (although such a setup would mean bruce would need to be swapped with a small).
Sounds impossible to get nicnat out of WA though- but he's the kind of A grade ruck who could play alongside marshall.
Well at least you took some time to seriously consider the idea...
- May 6, 2009
- 10,561
- 25,390
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
See that's the thing though- hawks traded burton to fix a specific, glaring hole they had identified in their best 22.
If battle is facing years of being played out of his best position, spending those years being B-C grade (aka the acres treatment according to some)- why is it madness to explore a trade for him IF it fixed a current hole in our best 22?
Eg a gun ball winning mid?
Was more a response to the Battle/Burton possible similarity...
- Jan 10, 2011
- 34,367
- 57,683
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Ormond AFC
I said this the last two years. We are happy to lose a pick for next year until next year arrives. I’d rather get it over and done this year. We need to somehow get a pick around 12 to 15 I suppose if we did finish in a spot that got us pick 10 this year then that would be the pick. A bit high but probably all we have
- Jan 10, 2011
- 34,367
- 57,683
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Ormond AFC
He seems to playing in his best position. Why is that suddenly changing. Also battle is on a huge upward trend. And is a kpp. Burton seemed close to his peak and is a flanker. No way should we look at trading battle unless we got the most crazy offer
Because I honestly believe that he will become A grade and won't be played out of position.
Not saying it's madness at all.
Firstly we have no idea if King will make it.
Secondly if push came to shove I'd rather Battle up forward and trade Bruce.
Now if GWS wanted to trade Whitfield, then it becomes very tempting. In fact I'd even trade out Gresh.
- Oct 2, 2010
- 20,736
- 75,435
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
How have you come to the conclusion Battle will spend years playing out of position?
I know that criticising Hawthorn is taboo but how has that gone for them?
Winguard been ok at best, they still can’t decide where they want to play Sciliy and Burton is just continuing on his merry way.
Not to mention Port got Duursma (pick 15 which became 18) out of the deal as well.
So far doesn’t look like a great decision from the Hawks.
So I doubt trading Battle would be a good decision for us.
Yep.
I honestly think we have got the draft well enough apart from Paddy.
Our later picks have been Gold and make up for the early ones we've stuffed up.
Our better kids are getting into that 50-100 game range.
So whilst it's still early to top up, IMO it's perfect timing to add quality 150 games plus trade to the list.
Mate, they will welcome back Mitch next year and if they land Cogs... Look out
- Banned
- #3,874
You are a bit premature in suggesting Hawthorn did the right thing last year. IMO they made a critical error in going after Wingard and trading out Pick 15 & 35 plus Burton in a super draft year. Burton alone is a better value footballer than Wingard IMO, plus Pick 15 (18) Xavier Duursma has shown he will be an A grade player. I agree in some past trades they have done well, but last year wasnt one of them.
Our issue is our list has been so poorly managed over the past decade we havent had the excess qualitiy players to trade out, when that occurs ala Hawthorn during the successful years people will be more than happy to do as you suggested.
No I don't see a similarity emerging at all. I think by doing this trade we'd be robbing our backline for the next ten years.
Obviously no one is untouchable but it would want to be a bloody good midfielder for us to give up Battle. Quality key position players don't grow on trees. Battle has had one pre season training as a key defender and has rightfully held his spot all year.
Also, the jury is well and truly out on whether the Wingard deal was a good one for the Hawks. They also gave up picks 15 and 35 along with Burton. If anything this trade is looking like a win for Port.
- Status
