Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 4 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
you’re right, I’m just trying to wedge Roughead into the group of talented players that have been forced out rather than trying to work with them and get them going again. Roughead wasn’t disruptive but just lost his passion for the game and battled injury and form issues before being delisted... he then became a mainstay of Collingwood’s defence
Roughy was traded for a pick in the 70s, not delisted.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And of course Treloar is going to solve our problems..... The forward 50 entries is bad enough without him butchering the ball
 
Forced myself to read that Fox Sports Tom Morris report. FML, that is the biggest load of cadswallop I've seen in a long time. The only certifiable fact in the whole story is that Dunkley is a Bulldogs player. There is not a shred of journalism, or even basic research, in the entire story. I could get an 8yo who follows footy to write a piece with more depth and analysis.

So, a bit like Fox News?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wonder if Treloar on a wing is something the club is thinking about.

While other areas of our list need looking at as well, our lack of burst pace away from the contest minus Smith, coupled with our huge cap room and supposed desire to, y'know, like, win a damn flag, means we'd be silly not to be, I reckon. Still think Pies will ask for a bit to start off negotiations, so it'll be interesting to see where it ends up, but mail from some saying we've enquired is encouraging, especially if we pair it with some ruck assistance for English, bring in a capable small forward, get Bruce to lose a few kegs, JUH, D-Mac & Raak. Reckon the-sky-is-falling crowd will be pleasantly surprised next year. Sammy P's got this.
 
Our midfield would be instantly better balanced with Dunkley out and Treloar in.

But the age gap, the cash gap, the emotional/cultural cost make it a net loss from an asset perspective.

Treloar for Richards from a trade perspective, pending the cash being reasonable, I like, PROVIDED Dunkley is moved to get us a pick before JUH.

Dunkley and Richards for Treloar and Hollands? I’m in.
 
Our midfield would be instantly better balanced with Dunkley out and Treloar in.

But the age gap, the cash gap, the emotional/cultural cost make it a net loss from an asset perspective.

Treloar for Richards from a trade perspective, pending the cash being reasonable, I like, PROVIDED Dunkley is moved to get us a pick before JUH.

Dunkley and Richards for Treloar and Hollands? I’m in.

Very much doubt we could get up the draft now to get Hollands with Adelaide not getting pick 2. No one else is trading a top 4 pick.
 
Our midfield would be instantly better balanced with Dunkley out and Treloar in.

But the age gap, the cash gap, the emotional/cultural cost make it a net loss from an asset perspective.

Treloar for Richards from a trade perspective, pending the cash being reasonable, I like, PROVIDED Dunkley is moved to get us a pick before JUH.

Dunkley and Richards for Treloar and Hollands? I’m in.

I respect your opinion Fronk, and agree with a lot of what you say but I think losing Dunkley would be a big mistake. Ideally I’d like to move on Richards or Dale for Treloar, push Libba more forward and Dunkley more midfield with Treloar and Hunter running wings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top