Ship X Player out (because I said so)

[Devil Fish]

If we want to get something decent, we need to give up something decent. I know it's a difficult concept to comprehend, but it's fact. I think a lot of clubs rate Goldy because he gets 1000+ hitouts per week. I personally don't rate him highly because he gives so little around the ground - 8 possessions last night. 1 mark. And if I'm not mistaken, he had 8 possessions at 3/4 time!!!! I know 2-3 years ago a lot of guys here were banging on that Goldy was tracking ahead of Cox at the same stage of their careers. How's that looking now?
Hitouts are over-rated - how many actually result in quality clearances per game - 2 to 3? And Kreuzer showed how valuable a ruckman can be when he can effectively become another midfielder.
Goldy has been smashed this year by Tom Nicholls (on debut vs GC), Zac Smith from Freo, Kreuzer last night.........

So we've re-signed Daw. Currie looked good in the pre-season. Has the club got the balls to make a big play for a decent trade-pick or will we continue to offer up scraps in the blind faith that a club is stupid enough out there to accept our trash?

 

[verypoorboy]

Arguably our most important player. Would be a huge huge risk. I like it.

 

[Zondor]

Give me a ruckman who can take a contested mark and dominate around the ground ahead of a ruckman who only manages to impact the contest with tap outs. Tap Outs have to be the most overrated stat in football. So yeah if by trading Goldstein we manage to snare a gun midfielder I'm all for it. Currie could do exactly what Goldy is doing at the moment and that is "tapping the ball". :stern look

 

[viccles]

Scott won't do it

 

[Souup]

Geelong, Hawthorn and Fremantle have all shown this year that you don't need a star ruck - just someone that will compete and contest around the ground.

Still not sure what to do with Goldy though, i am a fan of him and can't see him going. But as has been said - you've got to give something to get something...

 

[shinboner magic]

I love Goldy as he gives his all but gets smashed around the ground.
I play currie and see what his got.

We need to get a gun midfielder if he was to get traded- no draft pick crap.

Currie/daw duo would do a good job

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Needs a chop out, does to much of the ruck work on his own. I would rather they try the Daw/Goldy combo first, drop Tarrant bring in Daw. Or get Tarrant or Black doing some ruck work during the game.

 

[LB2Snake]

Has been states before. Goldy and Car Keys to GWS, number 1 pick to bulldogs, we get griffen.
Would do that in a heart beat. Give me a contested mark ruckmen over tap outs any day.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Goldie for Dale Thomas sounds fair, they need a ruck and we could do with a quality midfielder

 

[Marstermind]

Huge call. If we're smart with the deal I'm not against it even though I rate Goldy. But in 4 years Brad has been conservative in trade week and conservative at selection. I don't see it happening

 

[DJ Dupree]

I'm in the unenviable position of both liking Goldy, but agreeing with the OP 100%.

I don't want him traded because he gives his all. And yet, he doesn't provide a good target forward. He does not take many contested marks around the ground. All he seems to have people swanning, fawning (and foeling) over, is his ability to jump slightly, and tap the ball down, to our advantage AT BEST 30% of the time.

Why is tapping the ball down from one 50/50 contest to create another rated so highly?

I would gladly go in with two bit-part primarily forwards/part time ruckmen, who are nimble and capable of both getting the ball at ground level and taking contested pack marks to lift the team when required.

I do not see the sense in playing one knackered tall guy who simply taps the ball down to a contested situation. What is the point of this? Why not let the other ruckman toil against someone not quite as good, get another midfielder in there, and win the 50/50 anyway?

Why not?

It'd be so easy to address some of our problems by tricking other teams into biting, and trading for our lumbering ruckman (who, incidentally, lowered his colours to Kruezer last night). We could then perhaps get one or two quick defenders, or a silky midfielder, or another Currie-type.

I just don't see the value in ruckmen who tap the ball but don't do much else. Sorry.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Close thread, ridiculous call.

 

[LB2Snake]

Goldie for Dale Thomas sounds fair, they need a ruck and we could do with a quality midfielder

Don't we try and do both deals? Thomas as free agent, plus griffen deal. 2 goal kicking midfielders right there. Bang!

 

[DJ Dupree]

Time for North to return to the days of the big swagger, when it comes to bringing players in to the club.
The huge 70s swagger. Trade our way up to a flag.

 

[DarwinRoo]

No ****ing way!

 

[The Big H]

Dale Thomas as a free agent and Ryan Griffen in trade? I likey very much! But is Hot curry really any good? And do the Dogs give up their best player to snare someone who may be the greatest forward since Lockett or do his knee (ala Patton) and maybe never make it.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Dale Thomas as a free agent and Ryan Griffen in trade? I likey very much! But is Hot curry really any good? And do the Dogs really need another plodding ruckman (they already have Minson).

Ask the dumb ****s on here and Currie is Gary Dempsey reincarnated.

Trade Goldy just like we traded Hansen and how we haven't missed him because Pederson has dominated, oh wait.

 

[Marstermind]

Ask the dumb ****s on here and Currie is Gary Dempsey reincarnated.

Trade Goldy just like we traded Hansen and how we haven't missed him because Pederson has dominated, oh wait.

Fair enough. But play along - assume North were committed to trading in quality from another club. Who would you target and what would you put on the table?

 

[Orange Peanut]

Jason Kidd = The BFNAA

 

[DarwinRoo]

If we go after a free agent we don't have to trade anybody.

 

[steveodore]

I'm in the unenviable position of both liking Goldy, but agreeing with the OP 100%.

I don't want him traded because he gives his all. And yet, he doesn't provide a good target forward. He does not take many contested marks around the ground. All he seems to have people swanning, fawning (and foeling) over, is his ability to jump slightly, and tap the ball down, to our advantage AT BEST 30% of the time.

Why is tapping the ball down from one 50/50 contest to create another rated so highly?

I would gladly go in with two bit-part primarily forwards/part time ruckmen, who are nimble and capable of both getting the ball at ground level and taking contested pack marks to lift the team when required.

I do not see the sense in playing one knackered tall guy who simply taps the ball down to a contested situation. What is the point of this? Why not let the other ruckman toil against someone not quite as good, get another midfielder in there, and win the 50/50 anyway?

Why not?

It'd be so easy to address some of our problems by tricking other teams into biting, and trading for our lumbering ruckman (who, incidentally, lowered his colours to Kruezer last night). We could then perhaps get one or two quick defenders, or a silky midfielder, or another Currie-type.

I just don't see the value in ruckmen who tap the ball but don't do much else. Sorry.

 

[Marstermind]

If we go after a free agent we don't have to trade anybody.

Why limit ourselves to the free agency list? I said trade in. Assume a player we want wants to come to us and we have to make a deal. Who realistically would you want it to be, and what's the deal?

 

[steveodore]

don't call shit

 

[Jack Reacher]

Hansen for Bellchambers anyone?

 

[winalotroos]

This is just a joke, he had a bad day........ Every week dopes are wanting to trade our best..I don't get it.