List Mgmt. Official 2016 trade period discussion

[UnitedWarrior93]

I think CS and team will be working on a new system to beat these "new age" style teams like Dogs, Saints, GWS etc whose modus operandi is sheer running at all costs and very quick delivery of ball by handpassing.
Watching the highlights this post season, Saints and even Pies have been trying to perfect this style, whereas Doggies have.
We have been apparently setting up our structures to beat the Hawks, and may have succeeded, but we must evolve further, yet our list and style of players won't allow us to beat Dogs at their game. And we successfully did stifle them this year twice, but there were definitely circumstances.
I guess this is a very long-winded reply, but I think we need to get best available skilled footballer, and I agree with you.

Well I heard that the last few years at the dogs, all they do pre-season besides running, is handball, in and tight, quick hands for a month before starting to work on their kicking. Their hands are super quick and always find a teammate on the outside.

 

[Vdubs]

Caddy was definitely a player as supporters we had these on for.

If I have a dollar for every time I read potential next to caddys name I would be a billionaire or close to it. If You bypass all that he is a 24 year old B grader...

The sky isn't going to fall without him, he will be replaced, and we will move on without fuss.

I have never been that enamoured with Caddy, except near goals, but in crunch MF contests, he seemed to panic a lot and cough up the ball, and his disposal was not elite.
I have no doubt he will be replaced, and probably already was.
My gripe is what we got for him, when he was the demanded player for Deledio, we said no, Deledio then goes to GWS, and yet Caddy still gets to Tigerland.
Pick 24 may well be a beauty, but the original messages from the club suggested Caddy was a part of our future planning, and now we have to develop a kid. That is not a disaster at all, but weren't we aiming for the now?

 

[nohairandfair]

lol Duncs actually hashtagged norks.

Exactly ... don't shoot the messenger.

 

[year of the cat]

I have never been that enamoured with Caddy, except near goals, but in crunch MF contests, he seemed to panic a lot and cough up the ball, and his disposal was not elite.
I have no doubt he will be replaced, and probably already was.
My gripe is what we got for him, when he was the demanded player for Deledio, we said no, Deledio then goes to GWS, and yet Caddy still gets to Tigerland.
Pick 24 may well be a beauty, but the original messages from the club suggested Caddy was a part of our future planning, and now we have to develop a kid. That is not a disaster at all, but weren't we aiming for the now?

Lot's of mixed messages Vdubs. This past week won't go down as one of the highlights of the past 10 years as a Geelong fan it would be fair to say.

 

[Turbocat]

Lot's of mixed messages Vdubs. This past week won't go down as one of the highlights of the past 10 years as a Geelong fan it would be fair to say.

There was something in the paper about the club knowing it would get negative feedback.. Last year Cook was so happy with news and vibe that bringing in Danger and others... I wonder if this trade period will have a reverse affect at all. Not all those 50,000 members are rusted on.

 

[Turbocat]

Barlow just takes another young guys spot in midfield. Would rather see Cockatoo and Lang have a crack, we need to start developing these young blokes.

Play the kids we have and lets the chip fly where they may...we dont need Barlow or any other player close to 30

 

[Vdubs]

Any thoughts on who else may get cut from our squad?
I am in the Keep Murdoch minority. Even as a fast leading KF. His strengths must be utilised better, and he must deliver- one more year on contract, iirc.
Clark? Who knows. Absolutely no news on him since his awol.
I am not sure of the requirements from this stage on.
But I hope Parsons gets a promotion, or at least another year; he will be worth it.

 

[Vdubs]

Play the kids we have and lets the chip fly where they may...we dont need Barlow or any other player close to 30

Agree, but they are trying for the imminent flag while we have a raging Danger and fit Selwood, Hawk, Taylor. After that period, who knows where we are headed.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

In terms of gameplan, consider this; We comfortably beat Dogs twice and also effectively implemented a gameplan to account for Hawks at the business end... However, we obviously got smashed by Swans twice who play a similar contested style, but focussing on bigger midfield crunch and less outside attack.

Given Sydney go down a Tom Mitchell....are they able to sustain the intense bash and crash style next year?

I think Scott has the tools to create a balanced style, shifting a tad from slow backline movement to utilise Thurlow, Bews and Thuoy from the back flank. However, he will still want contested ball scenarios to take advantage of Dangerwood and a 3 man ruck div *assuming Blicavs still plays the role

I think on balance, removing Caddy from the midfield/forward mix and replacing with a Cockatoo would enable us to find the sweet spot to counter Sydney and maintain effectiveness in ascendancy on Dogs.

Another big question is in regard to how we handle an improving GWS style who will have a fast relentless high risk ball movement strategy....perhaps thisnis where slower ball movement can prevail?

We have an open window and we need to make improvements in gameplan to not only counter opposition strategies but to play to our strengths.


Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[Vdubs]

So of that stuff I agree with for example Cadds doesn't run hard enough defensively and while he is a better mid than a forward of all our mids he is the best forward (i.e. impacts when forward) so it was the right call to play him there. It does help the salary cap and as far as attitude we can't know or not know without being inside the club, and we have a lot of depth in Caddy's position.

My issue is the bolded. On Wednesday night everyone knew at some stage Richmond were getting a first rounder off GWS for Deledio and for some reason we didn't. You could live with Caddy being traded for unders if they held out for a first rounder til 1.55pm and then traded for 24 at the last minute if Richmond refused. But they traded Caddy before Richmond even got that pick so of course there was nothing available! Doesn't look like they tried very hard to get a first rounder. Balme needed a scalp and they were chasing Caddy heavily-there is a good chance that at the last minute if it was a case of give the first rounder or we refuse to trade him that they would have given the first rounder-but we didn't even try. And when you consider the night before we traded out a first rounder the recruitment team would have known there was a premium on bringing another first rounder back in but yet they didn't push for it? doesn't make sense to me. It is all a bit mixed messages as Wellsy is saying Caddy wanted to go and we wanted to keep him but wanted to respect his wishes but your guy is saying we basically forced it (and took unders on it).

My issue is that we keep taking unders on players who depart and get schooled on their trade value. I don't think Wellsy's drafting is as bad as a lot of people are saying on the board this week-I don't have time to go through it now but if you do you will see his drafting is very good (most of the busts on the high value picks have been due to injuries after they were drafted not lack of talent) and he is also very good at getting high character people into the club which is why we don't have the big amount of off field scandals that a lot of clubs have. The issue with those types of people is because they have brought honest people in they then tend to honestly believe what they say, so I think when players through their managers come to Wellsy and say they have a reason to need to leave he honestly believes thats so and that we should help them. I think unfortunately the club underestimates the role of the player manager who will often lie and act more in their own best interests than the players and make stuff up.

Look at Caddy, Geelong obviously take unders on the trade (although might win eventually if we draft well at 24). Does Caddy benefit that much? Not really. He will be stuck behind Martin Cotchin and Prestia just as much as he was ever stuck behind Dangerfield and Selwood so he's not getting heaps more opportunity, he is unlikely to play a final for a while and possibly not for his whole career now. Richmond sink a long term contract and put someone in their top 10 highest paid players who is highly unlikely to ever become elite (I love the way he plays but he doesnt have the polish in his game to become elite his ceiling is B grade to A at best) so at best they break even on the trade IMO. Balmey has a small win as he can show his new bosses he can get stuff done. The bigger winner is Caddy's manager who gets a significantly better cut now Caddy has upped his contract length and salary. Given we know from Caddy's own comments that he was happy to stay or go I have a feeling a lot of it is probably his manager suggesting to him to take the Richmond offer because it's best for the manager that he does. Similar with Kersten really, he is not going to get more opportunities at Freo than he would have here so unless he is truly homesick is he better off? Not really. But you bet his manager is given how much extra salary cap room Freo have to us. Now there are genuine compassionate reasons why players sometimes need to move and I think clubs should always accomodate that, but 95 % of the cases where we take unders have no such reasons. So when we get told that a player 'needs' to go it's most of the time the manager deceiving us to try and get a better deal for himself or the player or both. Most of the time we think we are taking unders to help a player compassionately in view of the way they have helped the club, we are actually really just lining a manager's pockets and not giving the player something he really needs. The issue is that while most players are reasonably honest most player managers are liars, and I don't think a really honest guy like Wellsy can identify that well enough. I am happy for him to keep being in charge of drafting for a long time but when it comes to player contracts and negotiating deals for our players in trade week I think we would benefit if we can get someone else in to do it-someone who is very hard headed and cynical and understands how much lying there is in the business and can prevent us continually getting schooled by player managers.

Brilliant.
Long but easy to read and well worth it.

 

[nohairandfair]

Still can't reconcile why the Cats were chasing Deledio who was contracted to the Tigers on $800k and has struggled with chronic achilles/calves for the last two seasons. It was high risk stuff in the extreme and the odds of even a good to satisfactory outcome looked slim.

Very relieved he has gone to GWS. They are perhaps the only club to have the picks, existing talent and resources to absorb the "hit" if Deledio is in fact cooked.

 

[Turbocat]

Agree, but they are trying for the imminent flag while we have a raging Danger and fit Selwood, Hawk, Taylor. After that period, who knows where we are headed.

I have stated my opinion on that... right now I'm comparing our chances of success to hitting nails in with a feather...not going to happen..without growth from our younger players. If we put some games into kids we have and draft then perhaps we are a chance . We have lost far more than we have gained atm. Get games into Parsons and Gardner and Cockatoo etc. If we must bring in players that are 20 something like Stewart.

 

[year of the cat]

There was something in the paper about the club knowing it would get negative feedback.. Last year Cook was so happy with news and vibe that bringing in Danger and others... I wonder if this trade period will have a reverse affect at all. Not all those 50,000 members are rusted on.

Interesting. I hadn't caught up with that. I'd love to ask Scott or Cook what the expectations are for our team in 2017? From a list perspective I doubt we go into 2017 with a stronger list than 2016. And if we do indeed fail to make an impact in the finals again next year, what the plan is for the list going forward?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Still can't reconcile why the Cats were chasing Deledio who was contracted to the Tigers on $800k and has struggled with chronic achilles/calves for the last two seasons. It was high risk stuff in the extreme and the odds of even a good to satisfactory outcome looked slim.

Very relieved he has gone to GWS. They are perhaps the only club to have the picks, existing talent and resources to absorb the "hit" if Deledio is in fact cooked.

The other thing with GWS is their squad is that good they can make finals without him they only need him for 3-4 games in September (thats why they got him). Whereas most clubs including us would need him to play most of the year for us to get a good ladder position and can't afford for him to only play 6-7 games if his achilles is flaring up.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Any thoughts on who else may get cut from our squad?
I am in the Keep Murdoch minority. Even as a fast leading KF. His strengths must be utilised better, and he must deliver- one more year on contract, iirc.
Clark? Who knows. Absolutely no news on him since his awol.
I am not sure of the requirements from this stage on.
But I hope Parsons gets a promotion, or at least another year; he will be worth it.

Murdoch and Horlin Smith both have another 2 years on their contracts. Assuming Stanley has re-signed the only players left uncontracted are Lonergan (who it sounds like will go on next year) Clark and Luxford. It really depends how many spots they want to clear which is about a) how many picks they want to use in the draft b) whether they want 38 or 40 on the senior list and c) whether they want to elevate Ruggles or leave him on the rookie list next year. We should find out on the 31st at the next list lodgement.

Parsons won't be delisted if he was going to be it would have been done with the other 5 rookies who got delisted. I doubt he will get elevated but he will stay on as a rookie and probably get elevated in 12 months.

 

[Lana]

I think CS and team will be working on a new system to beat these "new age" style teams like Dogs, Saints, GWS etc whose modus operandi is sheer running at all costs and very quick delivery of ball by handpassing.
Watching the highlights this post season, Saints and even Pies have been trying to perfect this style, whereas Doggies have.
We have been apparently setting up our structures to beat the Hawks, and may have succeeded, but we must evolve further, yet our list and style of players won't allow us to beat Dogs at their game. And we successfully did stifle them this year twice, but there were definitely circumstances.
I guess this is a very long-winded reply, but I think we need to get best available skilled footballer, and I agree with you.

I felt that we made the right defensive adjustments to counter the fast running teams. At the start of the year we running a high press but by the end of it we started zoning further back to stop teams getting over top off a fast rebound. Cowan's entry into the team was as a response to the loss against St Kilda who used quick switches from stoppages to get the ball I50 before our defenders had enough time to move from one side of the ground to the other. His job was to block that exit avenue.

What happened against Sydney was pretty independent of our game plan we were extremely lethargic and spent the first 20 minute losing a vast majority of 50-50 contests which is an annoying thing to have happen given that 50-50s were one of our strong points this year and everyone will have a different explanation for why we were so poor at it on the day. Our players were rattled by the scoreboard pressure and their skills dropped accordingly. There times when guys like Stanley and Motlop (and others) had the ball in space and we had a quick fast break and plenty of space I50 only for them to completely **** it up but either rushing the kick or taking too long to kick it. We had enough of the play in the the last 3 quarters but our players couldn't stay composed enough to make use of it.

I'm not so sure that we'll radically change our gameplan. Them letting Caddy go suggests to me that they're not going to try and follow the leader and copy what we saw in the grand final. It also depends how they see Mackie, Lonergan and Clark fitting in and our ideal ruck combination.

 

[Turbocat]

So of that stuff I agree with for example Cadds doesn't run hard enough defensively and while he is a better mid than a forward of all our mids he is the best forward (i.e. impacts when forward) so it was the right call to play him there. It does help the salary cap and as far as attitude we can't know or not know without being inside the club, and we have a lot of depth in Caddy's position.

My issue is the bolded. On Wednesday night everyone knew at some stage Richmond were getting a first rounder off GWS for Deledio and for some reason we didn't. You could live with Caddy being traded for unders if they held out for a first rounder til 1.55pm and then traded for 24 at the last minute if Richmond refused. But they traded Caddy before Richmond even got that pick so of course there was nothing available! Doesn't look like they tried very hard to get a first rounder. Balme needed a scalp and they were chasing Caddy heavily-there is a good chance that at the last minute if it was a case of give the first rounder or we refuse to trade him that they would have given the first rounder-but we didn't even try. And when you consider the night before we traded out a first rounder the recruitment team would have known there was a premium on bringing another first rounder back in but yet they didn't push for it? doesn't make sense to me. It is all a bit mixed messages as Wellsy is saying Caddy wanted to go and we wanted to keep him but wanted to respect his wishes but your guy is saying we basically forced it (and took unders on it).

My issue is that we keep taking unders on players who depart and get schooled on their trade value. I don't think Wellsy's drafting is as bad as a lot of people are saying on the board this week-I don't have time to go through it now but if you do you will see his drafting is very good (most of the busts on the high value picks have been due to injuries after they were drafted not lack of talent) and he is also very good at getting high character people into the club which is why we don't have the big amount of off field scandals that a lot of clubs have. The issue with those types of people is because they have brought honest people in they then tend to honestly believe what they say, so I think when players through their managers come to Wellsy and say they have a reason to need to leave he honestly believes thats so and that we should help them. I think unfortunately the club underestimates the role of the player manager who will often lie and act more in their own best interests than the players and make stuff up.

Look at Caddy, Geelong obviously take unders on the trade (although might win eventually if we draft well at 24). Does Caddy benefit that much? Not really. He will be stuck behind Martin Cotchin and Prestia just as much as he was ever stuck behind Dangerfield and Selwood so he's not getting heaps more opportunity, he is unlikely to play a final for a while and possibly not for his whole career now. Richmond sink a long term contract and put someone in their top 10 highest paid players who is highly unlikely to ever become elite (I love the way he plays but he doesnt have the polish in his game to become elite his ceiling is B grade to A at best) so at best they break even on the trade IMO. Balmey has a small win as he can show his new bosses he can get stuff done. The bigger winner is Caddy's manager who gets a significantly better cut now Caddy has upped his contract length and salary. Given we know from Caddy's own comments that he was happy to stay or go I have a feeling a lot of it is probably his manager suggesting to him to take the Richmond offer because it's best for the manager that he does. Similar with Kersten really, he is not going to get more opportunities at Freo than he would have here so unless he is truly homesick is he better off? Not really. But you bet his manager is given how much extra salary cap room Freo have to us. Now there are genuine compassionate reasons why players sometimes need to move and I think clubs should always accomodate that, but 95 % of the cases where we take unders have no such reasons. So when we get told that a player 'needs' to go it's most of the time the manager deceiving us to try and get a better deal for himself or the player or both. Most of the time we think we are taking unders to help a player compassionately in view of the way they have helped the club, we are actually really just lining a manager's pockets and not giving the player something he really needs. The issue is that while most players are reasonably honest most player managers are liars, and I don't think a really honest guy like Wellsy can identify that well enough. I am happy for him to keep being in charge of drafting for a long time but when it comes to player contracts and negotiating deals for our players in trade week I think we would benefit if we can get someone else in to do it-someone who is very hard headed and cynical and understands how much lying there is in the business and can prevent us continually getting schooled by player managers.

Good run of thought there Pure..

On the managers.. I have no idea what we as a club think in respect of what they say etc..except what we should know is its Scorpion and Frog and if a players manager is talking , there is a good chances he is being as honest ..as a guy at Honest Harrys Car Yard.

As I said in another post somewhere..our Kiwi idealism ...that we can just get under on the trade and come from behind and win is not something we should always rely on. Often enough we are forced.. an out of contract players , as we have talked about before and we have little flex , as not getting what we want we should have walked away. Unless they got what they wanted.

They wanted back into the draft which I can not fault , yet we make the same approach as last year getting in 2e and may well see us doing the same thing next year because come trade time we will want into the draft again. Who goes then Thurlow or Cockatoo?

 

[Lana]

So of that stuff I agree with for example Cadds doesn't run hard enough defensively and while he is a better mid than a forward of all our mids he is the best forward (i.e. impacts when forward) so it was the right call to play him there. It does help the salary cap and as far as attitude we can't know or not know without being inside the club, and we have a lot of depth in Caddy's position.

My issue is the bolded. On Wednesday night everyone knew at some stage Richmond were getting a first rounder off GWS for Deledio and for some reason we didn't. You could live with Caddy being traded for unders if they held out for a first rounder til 1.55pm and then traded for 24 at the last minute if Richmond refused. But they traded Caddy before Richmond even got that pick so of course there was nothing available! Doesn't look like they tried very hard to get a first rounder. Balme needed a scalp and they were chasing Caddy heavily-there is a good chance that at the last minute if it was a case of give the first rounder or we refuse to trade him that they would have given the first rounder-but we didn't even try. And when you consider the night before we traded out a first rounder the recruitment team would have known there was a premium on bringing another first rounder back in but yet they didn't push for it? doesn't make sense to me. It is all a bit mixed messages as Wellsy is saying Caddy wanted to go and we wanted to keep him but wanted to respect his wishes but your guy is saying we basically forced it (and took unders on it).

My issue is that we keep taking unders on players who depart and get schooled on their trade value. I don't think Wellsy's drafting is as bad as a lot of people are saying on the board this week-I don't have time to go through it now but if you do you will see his drafting is very good (most of the busts on the high value picks have been due to injuries after they were drafted not lack of talent) and he is also very good at getting high character people into the club which is why we don't have the big amount of off field scandals that a lot of clubs have. The issue with those types of people is because they have brought honest people in they then tend to honestly believe what they say, so I think when players through their managers come to Wellsy and say they have a reason to need to leave he honestly believes thats so and that we should help them. I think unfortunately the club underestimates the role of the player manager who will often lie and act more in their own best interests than the players and make stuff up.

Look at Caddy, Geelong obviously take unders on the trade (although might win eventually if we draft well at 24). Does Caddy benefit that much? Not really. He will be stuck behind Martin Cotchin and Prestia just as much as he was ever stuck behind Dangerfield and Selwood so he's not getting heaps more opportunity, he is unlikely to play a final for a while and possibly not for his whole career now. Richmond sink a long term contract and put someone in their top 10 highest paid players who is highly unlikely to ever become elite (I love the way he plays but he doesnt have the polish in his game to become elite his ceiling is B grade to A at best) so at best they break even on the trade IMO. Balmey has a small win as he can show his new bosses he can get stuff done. The bigger winner is Caddy's manager who gets a significantly better cut now Caddy has upped his contract length and salary. Given we know from Caddy's own comments that he was happy to stay or go I have a feeling a lot of it is probably his manager suggesting to him to take the Richmond offer because it's best for the manager that he does. Similar with Kersten really, he is not going to get more opportunities at Freo than he would have here so unless he is truly homesick is he better off? Not really. But you bet his manager is given how much extra salary cap room Freo have to us. Now there are genuine compassionate reasons why players sometimes need to move and I think clubs should always accomodate that, but 95 % of the cases where we take unders have no such reasons. So when we get told that a player 'needs' to go it's most of the time the manager deceiving us to try and get a better deal for himself or the player or both. Most of the time we think we are taking unders to help a player compassionately in view of the way they have helped the club, we are actually really just lining a manager's pockets and not giving the player something he really needs. The issue is that while most players are reasonably honest most player managers are liars, and I don't think a really honest guy like Wellsy can identify that well enough. I am happy for him to keep being in charge of drafting for a long time but when it comes to player contracts and negotiating deals for our players in trade week I think we would benefit if we can get someone else in to do it-someone who is very hard headed and cynical and understands how much lying there is in the business and can prevent us continually getting schooled by player managers.

The thing is that the teams that court a player will tell them everything they want to hear and flash a little extra cash. Colllingwood promised Howe that he would never play as a defender and that he would either be in the forward line or playing an Issac Smith role on the wing. Not a third of the way into the season and he is a defender. When you perceive yourself as a fringe player and you get a love bomb from another senior coach it might be hard for them to say no.

 

[Vdubs]

I felt that we made the right defensive adjustments to counter the fast running teams. At the start of the year we running a high press but by the end of it we started zoning further back to stop teams getting over top off a fast rebound. Cowan's entry into the team was as a response to the loss against St Kilda who used quick switches from stoppages to get the ball I50 before our defenders had enough time to move from one side of the ground to the other. His job was to block that exit avenue.

What happened against Sydney was pretty independent of our game plan we were extremely lethargic and spent the first 20 minute losing a vast majority of 50-50 contests which is an annoying thing to have happen given that 50-50s were one of our strong points this year and everyone will have a different explanation for why we were so poor at it on the day. Our players were rattled by the scoreboard pressure and their skills dropped accordingly. There times when guys like Stanley and Motlop (and others) had the ball in space and we had a quick fast break and plenty of space I50 only for them to completely **** it up but either rushing the kick or taking too long to kick it. We had enough of the play in the the last 3 quarters but our players couldn't stay composed enough to make use of it.

I'm not so sure that we'll radically change our gameplan. Them letting Caddy go suggests to me that they're not going to try and follow the leader and copy what we saw in the grand final. It also depends how they see Mackie, Lonergan and Clark fitting in and our ideal ruck combination.

Great thoughts.
Really agree with the bolded.

 

[Vdubs]

Wouldn't say Barlow is renowned for his skills, IMO they're pretty average, he is a big guy who knows his way around a stoppage but we're pretty good around the clearances. Nor do I think our midfield is crying out for more experience, Selwood, Dangerfield, S.Selwood, Guthrie Blicavs and Menegola will all be 25 or older from round 1 next year. If anything we need to be giving more opportunity to our younger next group of mids like Cockatoo and Lang.

I agree with your assessment of Caddy, I thought he was our 3rd best inside mid. But the club chose to send him away when there was nothing forcing them to do so, so they must think we're alright for that kind of player.

His best 2016 game, but against a sad Port, bit hard to assess

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Any thoughts on who else may get cut from our squad?
I am in the Keep Murdoch minority. Even as a fast leading KF. His strengths must be utilised better, and he must deliver- one more year on contract, iirc.
Clark? Who knows. Absolutely no news on him since his awol.
I am not sure of the requirements from this stage on.
But I hope Parsons gets a promotion, or at least another year; he will be worth it.

Where is Parsons' best position do you think?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Interesting. I hadn't caught up with that. I'd love to ask Scott or Cook what the expectations are for our team in 2017? From a list perspective I doubt we go into 2017 with a stronger list than 2016. And if we do indeed fail to make an impact in the finals again next year, what the plan is for the list going forward?

For me, in 2017 it's a premiership or bust. Expectations should be high and I'm sure that internally they will be aswell.

 

[Partridge]

For me, in 2017 it's a premiership or bust. Expectations should be high and I'm sure that internally they will be aswell.

Yep, it has to be now.

 

[Vdubs]

Where is Parsons' best position do you think?

If "wing" still is relevant, he is your classic, both offensively and defensively.
And I know GFC is very happy with his progress.

 

[year of the cat]

For me, in 2017 it's a premiership or bust. Expectations should be high and I'm sure that internally they will be aswell.

Of the same opinion. If we don't impress next year, I'd be prepared to suffer the consequences of trading a few established players to get some hopefully elite juniors back into the club.