Ship X Player out (because I said so)

[Only Forwards]

Couldn't that same position be taken for nearly every thread on BF? From changes, to MRP decisions, to results etc, none of which we have any control over or influence on - it's just discussion.

I don't see why such discussion over potential trades is seen as such a bad thing when all it is directed at is trying to improve the team and looking for ways to do it.

Or it is used by people who haven't seen 'it' with a certain player and justify getting him out by saying he has currency.

It mires in people taking potshots, and people making up the most ridiculous hypotheticals.

People under or over valuing what we have, and over or underestimating what we would get.

Some people (as above) would have us ship as much as we can out for a bag of magic beans.

The biggest fairy tales can be found in the trades threads. the worst part is the hypotheticals are just the start, once trading gets closer and people get a sniff that we are actually doing something they go beserk.

 

[royals1922]

I suspect you are trolling us( or indeed that may be the point of your post) but I'll indulge you.

We trade Petrie to the Bulldogs for 2nd round pick.

You are correct the best we might get for Petrie is a 2nd rounder so why trade one of our key forwards to a team that is crying out for one for a second rounder therby strengthening the dogs at NM's expense.

Trade Goldstein, Pick 5 and 2nd round pick from Bulldogs for Pick 1 to GWS.

You mean trade our number 1 ruckman and pick 5 and a second round pick for an untested KPP when we have Tarrant, Daw, Black and Hansen thereby strengthening GWS's ruck division and giving GWS the 5th best kid in the land.

So far we've improved the Dogs and GWS and weakened NM.

Pick up Boyd with pick 1, McDonald for second round at the draft.

So you are sure no one is going to bid a number 1 pick for McDonald, if for no other reason, for shits and giggles. See my comment re Boyd above.

Delist McMahon, Firrito, Anthony, Gibson and other list cloggers. Boomer retires.

So we've lost 100 gamer in Petrie and a 70 gamer in Goldstein ,and we lose 100 gamers in McMahon, Firrito and Boomer and get no replacement senior players.

Pick up Thomas as a free agent.

Go after and offer molto $$$ to Thomas if he chooses to to come to NM when Collingwood have never lost a senior player that they ever wanted to keep and every other side in the comp wants.

Use 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round, rookie, pre season picks on reliable key defenders and young defenders (extreme to the max but hey I'm a hoot and its a numbers game, surely one of them will be decent).

And draft no midfielders, forwards, back up ruckmen in the hope that we get a shut down defender.

Make Ziebell captain, Cunnington vice, Thompson and Swallow his support.

So make a 70 gamer with a poor MRP record our captain (which I suppose is logical given that the side has been gutted of experience and senior players).

Sack Brad Scott. Or the budget option and my personal preference, make him wanna quit. Hire a monkey to take his spot.

How do you make him quit? Give him a mega wedgie 3 times a day in which case he still might sue the club for breach of contract anyway.

....come out of the trade and draft period looking like a BOSS

Right....

Good thing I'm not in charge down at the club ey?

Perhaps you should ring NM and ask if they need your help....

Risk it all I say, we're already the laughing stock of the AFL what is there to lose?

So your asking should we retire our ageing stars, trade up our players and rely on unproven talent?
I say absolutely.

Yes that has worked for so many clubs before, it will work for NM.

Net effect of the trades, improve the Dogs, improve GWS, take all the experience out of the team, draft 15 million defenders, throw all our resources at a player who will more than likely re-sign for Collingwood and get one KPP when we have a few of them allready.

And I thought I was radical.

 

[verypoorboy]

I suspect you are trolling us( or indeed that may be the point of your post) but I'll indulge you.



You are correct the best we might get for Petrie is a 2nd rounder so why trade one of our key forwards to a team that is crying out for one for a second rounder therby strengthening the dogs at NM's expense.



You mean trade our number 1 ruckman and pick 5 and a second round pick for an untested KPP when we have Tarrant, Daw, Black and Hansen thereby strengthening GWS's ruck division and giving GWS the 5th best kid in the land.

So far we've improved the Dogs and GWS and weakened NM.



So you are sure no one is going to bid a number 1 pick for McDonald, if for no other reason, for shits and giggles. See my comment re Boyd above.



So we've lost 100 gamer in Petrie and a 70 gamer in Goldstein ,and we lose 100 gamers in McMahon, Firrito and Boomer and get no replacement senior players.



Go after and offer molto $$$ to Thomas if he chooses to to come to NM when Collingwood have never lost a senior player that they ever wanted to keep and every other side in the comp wants.



And draft no midfielders, forwards, back up ruckmen in the hope that we get a shut down defender.



So make a 70 gamer with a poor MRP record our captain (which I suppose is logical given that the side has been gutted of experience and senior players).



How do you make him quit? Give him a mega wedgie 3 times a day in which case he still might sue the club for breach of contract anyway.



Right....



Perhaps you should ring NM and ask if they need your help....



Yes that has worked for so many clubs before, it will work for NM.

Net effect of the trades, improve the Dogs, improve GWS, take all the experience out of the team, draft 15 million defenders, throw all our resources at a player who will more than likely re-sign for Collingwood and get one KPP when we have a few of them allready.

And I thought I was radical.

You sound like the old scout that Billy Beane fired on Moneyball...are you sure you're not him?

 

[royals1922]

You sound like the old scout that Billy Beane fired on Moneyball...are you sure you're not him?

I didn't know we'd suddenly become Father Christmas giving gifts out to GWS and the Dogs.

I've been on record many times as saying that nearly every player is tradeable as long as NM get something reasonable for their players. We obviously have different views as to what is reasonable.

 

[dus]

We should play Currie for the rest of the season, in tandem with Goldy or Daw.

If Currie outperforms Goldy before years end, effectively relegating Goldy to 2nd ruck, then why not test the water with Goldy on the market. If the right deal comes up, I'm all for trading him.

Goldy isn't untouchable. I'd say his importance is overrated on here. He is rarely sighted around the ground as others have eluded to. Can't go forward. Can't play a kick behind the ball. Average tapwork.

People have become to attached to him because he is all we see in the ruck, game in game out. Watching Daw ruck was one of the most exiting times of the season for me.

Do the deal, play Currie and Daw, mabon won't make it so draft a young kid to develop.

Problem is whether right or wrong, Brad won't even consider it.

 

[Black Diamond]

If Currie outperforms Goldy before years end, effectively relegating Goldy to 2nd ruck, then why not test the water with Goldy on the market. If the right deal comes up, I'm all for trading him.

So if Currie outperforms Goldstein in the last six weeks of a poor season, we trade Goldstein?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

We easily have the dumbest supporter group in the AFL.

Do you check the other team boards? Might I suggest you have a look at the bummers board for comparison. Then check out the tiggers. (Not saying that this thread isn't filled with imbecility though)

 

[verypoorboy]

So if Currie outperforms Goldstein in the last six weeks of a poor season, we trade Goldstein?

Precisely.
Well actually we trade him either way but its more fun to give him a glimmer of hope before we ship him off to GWS.

 

[benbanjo]

I said last nights game was his worst game for a while. That is not a ringing endorsement for his games against the GC and Freo. The point I was making is that he is out on his feet and as the year has progressed he has struggled more and more to keep up. He needs help.

When both Hamish and Goldy were together in the one side it was hard for both of them to get enough game time. That in itself did not help Goldy as he thrives on hard work.

However the increasing pace of the game, the fact that other clubs have worked out that he shoulders the workload virtually singlehanded; and so they run him around more; coupled with the increasing exhausting impact that the afl wanted through introduction of the sub-rule, has made it harder for him to cope with the higher workload that having one specialist ruckman now faces.

I don't think that means we should trade him; rather we should attempt to address the issue by trying to find ways to rest him during the game.

Last night Aaron Black was giving him a "chop out" to use the modern vernacular. This was I believe the first time this has happened. With time and work, Black and Tarrant might be able to add this to their games. The requirement is for someone tall, mobile, able to take a mark, to do the onball/around the gound work for at least 5 minutes a game.

Just my opinion.

When Ben Hudson retires we should get him down to the club and teach those boys how to ruck, he is only 196, rather undersized for a ruckman but has always held his own and never had an amazing leap like jeff white or Daw....Tarrant is 196 and build like a wall should be able to adapt!

 

[utility]

It'd be handy to have Sav Rocca ruck on the forward line. That aspect of Sav's game was severely underrated.

Perhaps Drew needs to do the ruck work forward of the centre square. That may be enough cover for Goldy without bringing in another ruckman.

 

[dus]

So if Currie outperforms Goldstein in the last six weeks of a poor season, we trade Goldstein?

If the right deal came along I'd be disappointed if we didn't at least consider it.

If Currie debuts and plays 6 in a row, and outperforms Goldy, then that says a fair bit about where Goldy is at. White. Flag. Waived.

 

[DarwinRoo]

If the right deal came along I'd be disappointed if we didn't at least consider it.

If Currie debuts and plays 6 in a row, and outperforms Goldy, then that says a fair bit about where Goldy is at. White. Flag. Waived.

Then wouldn't we trade Currie?

 

[Horace]

We trade Petrie to the Bulldogs for 2nd round pick. Trade Goldstein, Pick 5 and 2nd round pick from Bulldogs for Pick 1 to GWS.
Pick up Boyd with pick 1, McDonald for second round at the draft.
Promote Daw and Currie to be our main ruckmen. Our 3 talls Black, Boyd and Tarrant. Hansen to play CHB like this season. McDonald to get a half back flank alongside Mullett. Move Atley and Harper to the middle, start playing Garner as well. Delist McMahon, Firrito, Anthony, Gibson and other list cloggers. Boomer retires. Pick up Thomas as a free agent. Use 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round, rookie, pre season picks on reliable key defenders and young defenders (extreme to the max but hey I'm a hoot and its a numbers game, surely one of them will be decent).
Make Ziebell captain, Cunnington vice, Thompson and Swallow his support.
Sack Brad Scott. Or the budget option and my personal preference, make him wanna quit. Hire a monkey to take his spot.

....come out of the trade and draft period looking like a BOSS

Good thing I'm not in charge down at the club ey?

And even better that you don't post too often .

The recruiting staff have carefully put together a good young list that has the potential to challenge for a top 4 spot next year and maybe a flag in 2015 and you have suggested tearing it apart in a ffrezy at this years trading period/draft. Just the Petrie trade alone wrecks any chance of us challenging for a top 4 spot next year.

In your scenario above, Daw aged 22 and Currie aged 24 with 6 games between them replace Goldstein aged 25 with 95 games experience. Boyd with no games replaces Petrie with 238 games. I can't believe that anyone can so comprehensively underestimate how important experience is in this game. If you make moves like this you effectively go into a rebuild phase, when we have just been through a rebuild of sorts and are at the stage where we are just about ready to seriously challenge.

If we extend that to our three tall forwards, Petrie, Black and Tarrant have combined games experience of 286 games versus Boyd, Black and Tarrant combined experience of 48 games. Also do you not understand how important people like Drew are in a forward structure in directing and telling other forwards where to run to and position themselves.

The sorts of changes people are talking about in this thread take us back to where the GC were (and still are to a fair extent) in their first two seasons and the GWS are in their first two seasons. On pure paper talent those two lists are the best in the competition because they have so many more high draft picks than anyone else. But on performance and games won, they have a combined 6 wins between them.

But make no mistake in 2/3/4/5/6 years. if they keep their lists together - note that keep their lists together - they will dominate the competition and the other 16 clubs can expect to share 3rd to 18th spots between them more often than not.

I am also astounded that people seem to think that we can do as we please in all of those suggested changes/trades/draft picks above. Even more astounded that we can use "3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round, rookie, pre season picks on reliable key defenders and young defenders". How does that work? Are those boys earmarked "to be drafted by North, do not touch"? There are 17 other clubs who just like to have a bit of a say you know.

Can't believe I am wasting my time responding to this stuff.

 

[Black Diamond]

If the right deal came along I'd be disappointed if we didn't at least consider it.

If Currie debuts and plays 6 in a row, and outperforms Goldy, then that says a fair bit about where Goldy is at. White. Flag. Waived.

I'm trying to understand this: Goldstein has been one of the best ruckmen in the game for most of a long and challenging season. Currie comes in and plays better than him over a six week period, and even though we know Goldstein is under duress we elect to trade him?

 

[dus]

I'm trying to understand this: Goldstein has been one of the best ruckmen in the game for most of a long and challenging season. Currie comes in and plays better than him over a six week period, and even though we know Goldstein is under duress we elect to trade him?

Its purely a matter of opinion if he is considered "one of the best ruckmen in the league".

If he can't play he's best footy in a 2 ruckmen setup, and is only a one man show, if we have any intention of playing 2 ruckmen then maby Goldy isn't the man for the job and would be worth more to us by trading him to fill other areas our list needs.

I know it won't happen. We should at least start by rucking him 60-70% and see if his output improves.

 

[Black Diamond]

I know it won't happen. We should at least start by rucking him 60-70% and see if his output improves.

I agree with this part. I don't know where this train of thought that Goldstein can't play forward comes from. He has gone alright to me whenever he is down there.

 

[Horace]

I'm trying to understand this: Goldstein has been one of the best ruckmen in the game for most of a long and challenging season. Currie comes in and plays better than him over a six week period, and even though we know Goldstein is under duress we elect to trade him?

Your problem, UseYourIllusion, is that 95 games (so far) of very good football, is nowhere near the basis for retaining someone ahead of another player who is yet to play his 6 games of better football. Scratch your head a bit harder, because I need to know that someone has also lost a bit (more) of hair over this concept, not just me.

By the way, has anyone raised the small matter of Currie being a somewhat injury prone footballer? Had a detrimental impact on his career at Sydney and seems to have had a few with us already. What has happened to our other (much loved by the way) injury prone ruckman, Hamish with the Cats? Yet to play a game and sadly as injury riddled as ever.

 

[verypoorboy]

And even better that you don't post too often .

The recruiting staff have carefully put together a good young list that has the potential to challenge for a top 4 spot next year and maybe a flag in 2015 and you have suggested tearing it apart in a ffrezy at this years trading period/draft. Just the Petrie trade alone wrecks any chance of us challenging for a top 4 spot next year.

In your scenario above, Daw aged 22 and Currie aged 24 with 6 games between them replace Goldstein aged 25 with 95 games experience. Boyd with no games replaces Petrie with 238 games. I can't believe that anyone can so comprehensively underestimate how important experience is in this game. If you make moves like this you effectively go into a rebuild phase, when we have just been through a rebuild of sorts and are at the stage where we are just about ready to seriously challenge.

If we extend that to our three tall forwards, Petrie, Black and Tarrant have combined games experience of 286 games versus Boyd, Black and Tarrant combined experience of 48 games. Also do you not understand how important people like Drew are in a forward structure in directing and telling other forwards where to run to and position themselves.

The sorts of changes people are talking about in this thread take us back to where the GC were (and still are to a fair extent) in their first two seasons and the GWS are in their first two seasons. On pure paper talent those two lists are the best in the competition because they have so many more high draft picks than anyone else. But on performance and games won, they have a combined 6 wins between them.

But make no mistake in 2/3/4/5/6 years. if they keep their lists together - note that keep their lists together - they will dominate the competition and the other 16 clubs can expect to share 3rd to 18th spots between them more often than not.

I am also astounded that people seem to think that we can do as we please in all of those suggested changes/trades/draft picks above. Even more astounded that we can use "3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round, rookie, pre season picks on reliable key defenders and young defenders". How does that work? Are those boys earmarked "to be drafted by North, do not touch"? There are 17 other clubs who just like to have a bit of a say you know.

Can't believe I am wasting my time responding to this stuff.

Times are changing. Adapt or Die.

 

[Horace]

Its purely a matter of opinion if he is considered "one of the best ruckmen in the league".

If he can't play he's best footy in a 2 ruckmen setup, and is only a one man show, if we have any intention of playing 2 ruckmen then maby Goldy isn't the man for the job and would be worth more to us by trading him to fill other areas our list needs.

I know it won't happen. We should at least start by rucking him 60-70% and see if his output improves.

If he isn't "the man for the job" for us, why will he be "the man for the job" for someone else?

In the eyes of many posters here, he shouldn't be our ruckman, yet he should also demand the number 1 draft pick in a trade. How does that work?

 

[Horace]

Times are changing. Adapt or Die.

Okay.

verypoorboy = very poor version of Bob Dylan

 

[dus]

If he isn't "the man for the job" for us, why will he be "the man for the job" for someone else?

In the eyes of many posters here, he shouldn't be our ruckman, yet he should also demand the number 1 draft pick in a trade. How does that work?

He won't attract the number 1 pick, far from it. Pick 8-12 would be about the mark. Goldy and our first rounder would nearly get the number 1 pick. Depends on the Luke Mc situation.

As for "not being the man for the job for somebody else" that's really not our problem.

 

[DarwinRoo]

So if he isn't worth the No 1 pick why even discuss trading him?

 

[Horace]

He won't attract the number 1 pick, far from it. Pick 8-12 would be about the mark. Goldy and our first rounder would nearly get the number 1 pick. Depends on the Luke Mc situation.

As for "not being the man for the job for somebody else" that's really not our problem.

Really? Then why is another club going to give up a high draft pick for someone who "can't do the job"?

 

[Hunters Host #3]

It's going to be a very long off-season.

Arguably, it has already started.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

It's going to be a very long off-season.

Arguably, it has already started.

Yep, welcome to the Gilette half-yearly trade period.

Oh no, I don't mean that we have two trade periods a year, don't be silly. No, if you thought trade week was great, well imagine how fantastic six months of it will be!