List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part III

[L_W_P]

Im kind of warm to it. If we end up flipping Steven into Smith I would call that a net win. Smith is elite and would be setting some standards for the team. Later starter too so could have 3-4 years left.

If he is costing us more than a late pick though then it's a hard pass.

 

[bird_man]

Why would Smith even leave?

Think it's very unlikely

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

I’m not a stats man but Ratts kept trotting out that we were having more scoring shots than top 4 contenders but couldn’t get the job done.

What does that tell you about our forward line?

Mate you are doing it wrong. According to this board it is ALWAYS ALWAYS about the midfield.

The reason we have been bottom 2-4 for points conceded for the past 5 years (1961, 2082, 1986, 2041, 2162) and have barely improved across that time is always the midfields fault.

The reason we are in the bottom few for scores converted per inside 50's every year is also always the midfields fault.

The answer is always that we just fix the midfield everything will be magically better.

Seriously, everytime someone criticises Brown for being an outdated player, or Geary / McKenzie / Savage for not being able to hit the side of a barn door, the conversation always turns to "our backline is actually really good and once we fix the midfield it will be fine." Our backline has actually been consistently very poor for 5 years straight but somehow escapes scrutiny! Similarly, Bruce / Kent / Long can go games on end without kicking a goal, but "once we fix the midfield it will be fine."

This board has become almost cult like in focusing on drafting / trading to build the midfield, and consistently excusing the obvious shortcomings in our backline / forwardline as being the fault of the mids.

Maybe the fact that we drafted King last year, traded for Austin, are floating Bruce / Carlisle to gauge their value, are sniffing around players like Keath / Tomlinson, tells you that at least the club recognises that the problem might not entirely be the midfield!

 

[gringo2011]

I don’t Think anyone is anti-Bruce. It’s the argument of how do we improve and what can we lose to get better. Given you’ll need to give up something decent to get anything.
The discussion would go along the lines of is Bruce our best option for the future not right now and can we replace him with a better set up.

My analogy is having a wooden boat with a hole in it. You decide to trade a board with another owner but he doesn't want the board with a hole so you trade a good board out and still have hole. It might be in another place but it's still a hole.

At the moment we have a bunch of people saying that it's okay to sell off the good boards because we have planted trees in the garden and any of them might make nice boards in the future.

 

[lewdogs]

The Dogs have a serious prospect for next year in Jamarra Ugle-Hagan. Looks like a top 5 pick and he's in their academy.

 

[bird_man]

Another thing to factor in is that the draft is ridiculously even from pick 5 to 12.

If we were to trade 5 and Bruce out and get Hill and 12 in we could still end up snagging a Robertson, Weightman or a Stephens at 12

 

[jwikked]

Mate you are doing it wrong. According to this board it is ALWAYS ALWAYS about the midfield.

The reason we have been bottom 2-4 for points conceded for the past 5 years (1961, 2082, 1986, 2041, 2162) and have barely improved across that time is always the midfields fault.

The reason we are in the bottom few for scores converted per inside 50's every year is also always the midfields fault.

The answer is always that we just fix the midfield everything will be magically better.

Seriously, everytime someone criticises Brown for being an outdated player, or Geary / McKenzie / Savage for not being able to hit the side of a barn door, the conversation always turns to "once we fix the midfield it will be fine." Similarly, Bruce / Kent / Long can go games on end without kicking a goal, but "once we fix the midfield it will be fine."

This board has become cult like in its focus on the midfield.

Maybe the fact that we drafted King last year, traded for Austin, are floating Bruce / Carlisle to gauge their value, are sniffing around players like Keath / Tomlinson, tells you that at least the club recognises that the problem might not entirely be the midfield!

Who on here blames the midfield? If we could kick straight in the last 3 years we’d have won twice as many games.
Goal kicking and poor kicking in general is 100% the teams biggest problem. How many games in 2018 where we in until the final quarter, despite kicking 3 goals 10 to half time?

It’s ball butchers that are holding us back. Ben Dixon did **** all in helping that aspect of the team.

 

[Savage Kent]

If saints get end of 2nd round pick FA compo for newnes (pick 38), I'd look at the following trade:
Saints: Pick 6 + 38
Freo: Hill + 25

 

[gringo2011]

Mate you are doing it wrong. According to this board it is ALWAYS ALWAYS about the midfield.

The reason we have been bottom 2-4 for points conceded for the past 5 years (and haven't really improved in this area for the last few years) is always the midfields fault.

The reason we are in the bottom few for scores converted per inside 50's every year is also always the midfields fault.

The answer is always that we just fix the midfield everything will be magically better.

Seriously, everytime someone criticises Brown for being an outdated player, or Geary / McKenzie / Savage for not being able to hit the side of a barn door, the conversation always turns to "once we fix the midfield it will be fine." Similarly, Bruce / Kent / Long can go games on end without kicking a goal, but "once we fix the midfield it will be fine."

This board has become cult like in its focus on the midfield.

Maybe the fact that we drafted King last year, traded for Austin, are floating Bruce / Carlisle to gauge their value, are sniffing around players like Keath / Tomlinson, tells you the that at least the club recognises that the problem might not entirely be the midfield!

Are you serious? We have a poor midfield. Ross is our best mid and most fans want him sold off for what ever we can get. Hanners played about 3 games, Stuv about 5 and then our next best is full time tagger. The rest are GOPs or developing still.

Even the Goldy have Swallow, Miller, Fiorini and some developing. besides them we are probably the next worse. We have nearly rebuilt the whole side in 5 years.

From the list at the end of 2013 we will likely have Geary, Roberton (possibly delisted), Ross and Webster. I think the fact that they are still trying to patch together a competitive list suggests they don't rate the work of the recruiting staff of that period from any area of the ground.

 

[From 45]

Why would Smith even leave?

Think it's very unlikely

He's at an age where he needs to look at the best possible contract as it would most probably be his last contract.. He's won premiership so why wouldn't he cash in

 

[Jade Buddha]

Mate you are doing it wrong. According to this board it is ALWAYS ALWAYS about the midfield.

The reason we have been bottom 2-4 for points conceded for the past 5 years (1961, 2082, 1986, 2041, 2162) and have barely improved across that time is always the midfields fault.

The reason we are in the bottom few for scores converted per inside 50's every year is also always the midfields fault.

The answer is always that we just fix the midfield everything will be magically better.

Seriously, everytime someone criticises Brown for being an outdated player, or Geary / McKenzie / Savage for not being able to hit the side of a barn door, the conversation always turns to "our backline is actually really good and once we fix the midfield it will be fine." Our backline has actually been consistently very poor for 5 years straight but somehow escapes scrutiny! Similarly, Bruce / Kent / Long can go games on end without kicking a goal, but "once we fix the midfield it will be fine."

This board has become almost cult like in focusing on drafting / trading to build the midfield, and consistently excusing the obvious shortcomings in our backline / forwardline as being the fault of the mids.

Maybe the fact that we drafted King last year, traded for Austin, are floating Bruce / Carlisle to gauge their value, are sniffing around players like Keath / Tomlinson, tells you that at least the club recognises that the problem might not entirely be the midfield!

Nice rant Animal and yes we are the cult of midfield.
I’ll go back and practice
Midfield, midfield, midfield...... I think it’s coming

 

[Jade Buddha]

My analogy is having a wooden boat with a hole in it. You decide to trade a board with another owner but he doesn't want the board with a hole so you trade a good board out and still have hole. It might be in another place but it's still a hole.

At the moment we have a bunch of people saying that it's okay to sell off the good boards because we have planted trees in the garden and any of them might make nice boards in the future.

Love your analogies G keep them coming
Oh and by the way I’ve grown attached to that hole over the years and although it’s not a big hole it’s my hole.

 

[Noidenous]

Mate you are doing it wrong. According to this board it is ALWAYS ALWAYS about the midfield.

The reason we have been bottom 2-4 for points conceded for the past 5 years (1961, 2082, 1986, 2041, 2162) and have barely improved across that time is always the midfields fault.

The reason we are in the bottom few for scores converted per inside 50's every year is also always the midfields fault.

The answer is always that we just fix the midfield everything will be magically better.

Seriously, everytime someone criticises Brown for being an outdated player, or Geary / McKenzie / Savage for not being able to hit the side of a barn door, the conversation always turns to "our backline is actually really good and once we fix the midfield it will be fine." Our backline has actually been consistently very poor for 5 years straight but somehow escapes scrutiny! Similarly, Bruce / Kent / Long can go games on end without kicking a goal, but "once we fix the midfield it will be fine."

This board has become almost cult like in focusing on drafting / trading to build the midfield, and consistently excusing the obvious shortcomings in our backline / forwardline as being the fault of the mids.

Maybe the fact that we drafted King last year, traded for Austin, are floating Bruce / Carlisle to gauge their value, are sniffing around players like Keath / Tomlinson, tells you that at least the club recognises that the problem might not entirely be the midfield!

The club knows what it's doing and you should blindly trust the club...

... except when it comes to the midfield and 'number of A-graders'.

 

[Noidenous]

Who on here blames the midfield? If we could kick straight in the last 3 years we’d have won twice as many games.
Goal kicking and poor kicking in general is 100% the teams biggest problem. How many games in 2018 where we in until the final quarter, despite kicking 3 goals 10 to half time?

It’s ball butchers that are holding us back. Ben Dixon did fu** all in helping that aspect of the team.

Correction:

If we didn't keep lobbing the ball as high as possible in a predictable fashion, we'd have won twice as many games.

 

[St Neil]

The Dogs have a serious prospect for next year in Jamarra Ugle-Hagan. Looks like a top 5 pick and he's in their academy.

If that’s the case then future draft picks might appeal to them to match bids next year. Could these be linked to the Bruce deal and pick 12?

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

Are you serious? We have a poor midfield. Ross is our best mid and most fans want him sold off for what ever we can get. Hanners played about 3 games, Stuv about 5 and then our next best is full time tagger. The rest are GOPs or developing still.

Even the Goldy have Swallow, Miller, Fiorini and some developing. besides them we are probably the next worse. We have nearly rebuilt the whole side in 5 years.

From the list at the end of 2013 we will likely have Geary, Roberton (possibly delisted), Ross and Webster. I think the fact that they are still trying to patch together a competitive list suggests they don't rate the work of the recruiting staff of that period from any area of the ground.

Yes I am actually serious. Just because a person disagrees with the majority of views, doesn't mean they aren't taking a serious look at our list and the possible ways to improve it.

For a start, I absolutely don't share your pessimism about where we are at. I don't believe the sky is actually falling as you remind us over and over. I definitely rate us a long way ahead of teams like Carlton, North and GC, and I don't think we are actually that far off it. I believe we have a really solid nucleus to build from.

Regarding the midfield, I am reasonably happy with Hanners, Gresh, Dunstan, Steele, Clarke, Billings and Hill as a midfield nucleus. Happy to sell players like Sincs, Newnes, Acres and Ross for the right price to move our list forward.

IMO, for us to become a consistently good side the biggest change we need to make is to our backline. That is an area we haven't improved in 5 years. We are running with a setup that is 10 years out of date, and I am personally happy to see the back of both Richo and Playfair (although the Hammill decision is definitely questionable). IMO, to improve we need to stack our backhalf with elite kicks and interceptors. I don't actually care one bit how 5 of the 7 backline players defend. This isn't 2005. We need a backline with weapons first, defence second. For me, this is our biggest weakness and why I am happy we are finally playing Coff off a back flank and are sniffing around Keath. Hill's rebounding will help massively too. But we still have a long way to go back there, and I am not sure the return of our captain rd 1 necessarily helps this.

Anyway that's just my 2 cents. I accept that most others disagree.

 

[kernelT]

Are you serious? We have a poor midfield. Ross is our best mid and most fans want him sold off for what ever we can get. Hanners played about 3 games, Stuv about 5 and then our next best is full time tagger. The rest are GOPs or developing still.

Even the Goldy have Swallow, Miller, Fiorini and some developing. besides them we are probably the next worse. We have nearly rebuilt the whole side in 5 years.

From the list at the end of 2013 we will likely have Geary, Roberton (possibly delisted), Ross and Webster. I think the fact that they are still trying to patch together a competitive list suggests they don't rate the work of the recruiting staff of that period from any area of the ground.

Clearly issues all over the ground, the club is going hard on young key forward stocks with the aim of getting an elite one.

If we can turn an average key forward into another quality mid we should all be happy, the often repeated suggestion that Bruce will kick twice as many goals with better delivery is pure fantasy... like the other one about him being vital to our transition from defence - he takes 4 marks per game.

I’m tipping our average score next year will not be less than our 70-odd from the past 2 years, regardless if Bruce is playing or not.

 

[kernelT]

Yes I am actually serious. Just because a person disagrees with the majority of views, doesn't mean they aren't taking a serious look at our list and the possible ways to improve it.

For a start, I absolutely don't share your pessimism about where we are at. I don't believe the sky is actually falling as you remind us over and over. I definitely rate us a long way ahead of teams like Carlton, North and GC, and I don't think we are actually that far off it. I believe we have a really solid nucleus to build from.

Regarding the midfield, I am reasonably happy with Hanners, Gresh, Dunstan, Steele, Clarke, Billings and Hill as a midfield nucleus. Happy to sell players like Sincs, Newnes, Acres and Ross for the right price to move our list forward.

IMO, for us to become a consistently good side the biggest change we need to make is to our backline. That is an area we haven't improved in 5 years. We are running with a setup that is 10 years out of date, and I am personally happy to see the back of both Richo and Playfair (although the Hammill decision is definitely questionable). IMO, to improve we need to stack our backhalf with elite kicks and interceptors. I don't actually care one bit how 5 of the 7 backline players defend. This isn't 2005. We need a backline with weapons first, defence second. For me, this is our biggest weakness and why I am happy we are finally playing Coff off a back flank and are sniffing around Keath. Hill's rebounding will help massively too. But we still have a long way to go back there, and I am not sure the return of our captain rd 1 necessarily helps this.

Anyway that's just my 2 cents. I accept that most others disagree.

100%

This is exactly why brown has to go.

 

[MOLTEN GANGLANDS]

yeah bianco is a gun, great kick, mark, sTrOnG iN tHe CoNtEst (actually), don't care if he's a back flanker, just a good all round footballer could play a number of positions

 

[bird_man]

yeah bianco is a gun, great kick, mark, sTrOnG iN tHe CoNtEst (actually), don't care if he's a back flanker, just a good all round footballer could play a number of positions

Think he's more of a mid than a flanker

Averaged around 27 touches a game

 

[gringo2011]

Yes I am actually serious. Just because a person disagrees with the majority of views, doesn't mean they aren't taking a serious look at our list and the possible ways to improve it.

For a start, I absolutely don't share your pessimism about where we are at. I don't believe the sky is actually falling as you remind us over and over. I definitely rate us a long way ahead of teams like Carlton, North and GC, and I don't think we are actually that far off it. I believe we have a really solid nucleus to build from.

Regarding the midfield, I am reasonably happy with Hanners, Gresh, Dunstan, Steele, Clarke, Billings and Hill as a midfield nucleus. Happy to sell players like Sincs, Newnes, Acres and Ross for the right price to move our list forward.

IMO, for us to become a consistently good side the biggest change we need to make is to our backline. That is an area we haven't improved in 5 years. We are running with a setup that is 10 years out of date, and I am personally happy to see the back of both Richo and Playfair (although the Hammill decision is definitely questionable). IMO, to improve we need to stack our backhalf with elite kicks and interceptors. I don't actually care one bit how 5 of the 7 backline players defend. This isn't 2005. We need a backline with weapons first, defence second. For me, this is our biggest weakness and why I am happy we are finally playing Coff off a back flank and are sniffing around Keath. Hill's rebounding will help massively too. But we still have a long way to go back there, and I am not sure the return of our captain rd 1 necessarily helps this.

Anyway that's just my 2 cents. I accept that most others disagree.

I reckon Carlton are probably short term at least better off than us. North are shit GC are shit too, they leak players when ever they get them.

 

[SAIINT]

Pick 5 for Hill and 25
Newnes to Sydney FA
Steven for 34
Bruce and 25 for 12 and 30
30 for Jones
34 for Keath
55 for Ryder

Take 12 and Newnes compo to the draft

In: Hill, Jones, Keath, Ryder, 12, Newnes compo

Out: Steven, Bruce, Newnes, 5, 55

Take the best mid with pick 12

A lot is going to rely on that Hill deal. If we can get something back for 5 it's going to help big time.

Freo won't throw in 25. Pick 5 straight swap most likely unless Acres forms part of a deal.

As for Bruce, you would think that Geelong would back themselves again next year, could they try to do a deal for Bruce and Steven...Pick 16 and 34 would be around the mark.

 

[Diehard Saint]

I reckon Carlton are probably short term at least better off than us. North are s**t GC are s**t too, they leak players when ever they get them.

Why on earth would they go for a 33yr old Eddie Betts though?

 

[SAIINT]

Hopefully Newnes goes for a decent contract somewhere else. I wonder then if the AFL will take pity on us due to the various players we are losing due to ill health and bump up our compo for him. It is the sort of thing they do and means they don't have to give us a straight up compo pick that we asked for for losing players and being shit, which In part would set a tricky precedent for them.

 

[austinnn]

SEN trade talk just said that we are talking to Isaac Smith and are in front of the Dogs if he chooses cash over club...

All I know about Isaac Smith is that he's 30 and he's that fella that was embarrassed after he missed while being too casual kicking a clutch goal a few years ago.

Why would we want him? What type of player is he?