List Mgmt. Trade & F.A. 2017 (if a scenario sounds wrong - read on before posting)

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

With Howe, Scharenberg and Goldsack on the list i'd be comfortable trading out Langdon. I like Langdon but I don't feel he will ever develop the kind of urgency he needs to take his game to the next level. It's not just when disposing of the ball but he gets caught out of position often and doesn't have any hustle to make it up even when he could make it if he was desperate enough.

I feel given his current numbers and form he'd appeal to a few clubs like Melbourne, Essendon, Saints and Gold Coast. I reckon we could get a second rounder for him which would be quite handy for us and assist the rebuild. We're already strong by his position and could easily draft in Sam Walker or Hore as cheap replacements. Both those guys add footskills to the equation too.

So essentially you'd like us to go backwards again? Put 50 games into a guy, have him there ready to become a player (or not) and then give him away for a pick in the late 20s early 30s? Horrible list management, especially when you consider the fragility of Scharenberg and that Goldsack is nearly done.
We will forever be rebuilding. If u like him, back him in and be confident he will make the necessary progression. That's actually what all good football clubs do with their young players.

 

[Scodog10]

So essentially you'd like us to go backwards again? Put 50 games into a guy, have him there ready to become a player (or not) and then give him away for a pick in the late 20s early 30s? Horrible list management, especially when you consider the fragility of Scharenberg and that Goldsack is nearly done.
We will forever be rebuilding. If u like him, back him in and be confident he will make the necessary progression. That's actually what all good football clubs do with their young players.

You'll go to any length to support your man, but the truth is Scharenberg has been as durable as Langdon over the past 24 months. Perhaps more so given Langdon has had knee, ankle and back injuries with Scharenberg's only concern his knee.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Bit hard this year because there really isn't one that is screaming superstar forward.

With about pick 6 or so there should be one or two, but it runs dry quite quickly

 

[Brent24]

You'll go to any length to support your man, but the truth is Scharenberg has been as durable as Langdon over the past 24 months. Perhaps more so given Langdon has had knee, ankle and back injuries with Scharenberg's only concern his knee.

His point still stands though.
You would only trade Langdon if it were to receive a player in return. An average pick would be stupid, IMO.

 

[sr36]

List wise, the one positive of this year was our Flankers. The return of Elliott, the addition of whe and development from shaz and Langdon has a previous weakness looking pretty solid. Just need development from Maynard, Kirby and Ramsay, which I expect to occur and the addition of a flashy outsider for it to be a really strong group

 

[Roverjg]

Agreed, I would like to know if he was available at pick 48 if we would have picked him over Goodyear or not

Mitch McGovern went at pick 43. The only player of note that went after our pick 50 was Harris Andrews at 61. He would be very handy for us now.

 

[Roverjg]

So essentially you'd like us to go backwards again? Put 50 games into a guy, have him there ready to become a player (or not) and then give him away for a pick in the late 20s early 30s? Horrible list management, especially when you consider the fragility of Scharenberg and that Goldsack is nearly done.
We will forever be rebuilding. If u like him, back him in and be confident he will make the necessary progression. That's actually what all good football clubs do with their young players.

I understand where Quicky is coming from. We already have Howe, Crisp, Scharenberg, Aish, Goldsack and Smith playing off the HB line. We are also supposedly trying to trade in lever for the same role. Is this good management? We are not going to trade Howe or Crisp, and Langdon may have more trade value then Aish, who has been less than stellar at two clubs thus far).

 

[Scodog10]

His point still stands though.
You would only trade Langdon if it were to receive a player in return. An average pick would be stupid, IMO.

I'm not on the trade Langdon bandwagon and didn't comment on that, but I did comment on the falsehood which is Scharenberg's durability v Langdon's.

My two cents on any prospective trade for Langdon would be that a second round pick could be sufficient depending on what we do with it. We have a plethora of mid sized defenders and Langdon is the most moveable for the reasons Quicky supplied, but the deal has to be right and value adding to the list.

 

[Quicky]

So essentially you'd like us to go backwards again?

Yeah that's what I was trying to convey with my post.

Put 50 games into a guy, have him there ready to become a player (or not) and then give him away for a pick in the late 20s early 30s? Horrible list management, especially when you consider the fragility of Scharenberg and that Goldsack is nearly done.

I've recognised where we've got an over abundance of one type of player and identified where we could get value for him. It could be players or picks, I used picks as an example. But you'd be using it to try and address other list needs like key positions.

We will forever be rebuilding. If u like him, back him in and be confident he will make the necessary progression. That's actually what all good football clubs do with their young players.

I think the player we see now is what we've got. I don't see Langdon getting more urgency. And he'll be an okay player but limited because of it.

 

[Roverjg]

I'm not on the trade Langdon bandwagon and didn't comment on that, but I did comment on the falsehood which is Scharenberg's durability v Langdon's.

My two cents on any prospective trade for Langdon would be that a second round pick could be sufficient depending on what we do with it. We have a plethora of mid sized defenders and Langdon is the most moveable for the reasons Quicky supplied, but the deal has to be right and value adding to the list.

What do you think Pendlebury would be worth?

 

[Scodog10]

What do you think Pendlebury would be worth?

Not enough to justify the move. If he were helping us bring Lynch in and we had a ready made replacement I'd accept it, but I'm not sure that justifies the move and he's too loved amongst key players.

The group is underperforming and probably needs a rocket up them as much as the coaching group, but I'm not sure Pendles is the right player.

We also need to think about the type of supporter sentiment there would have been around passing on Brown/ Daicos then double it. Overall there's too much politics there to spin it as a win no matter what we get in return. IMO, a better solution might be to change our captaincy model because I don't think he's good in the role.

 

[Quicky]

I'm not on the trade Langdon bandwagon and didn't comment on that, but I did comment on the falsehood which is Scharenberg's durability v Langdon's.

My two cents on any prospective trade for Langdon would be that a second round pick could be sufficient depending on what we do with it. We have a plethora of mid sized defenders and Langdon is the most moveable for the reasons Quicky supplied, but the deal has to be right and value adding to the list.

Exactly. I do like Langdon as a player and i'd only be open to trade him if it got something we were really keen on. That might be a pick in a range where we have a player we like. I think of some of the good value KPP like Brown and McGovern and where they were taken in the draft. There'll be others out there in future drafts.

Or if that pick can be added to a deal that will get a really good key position player over the line; and in the process address a more dire list need without affecting another area of the ground.

It's in that context i'm discussing Langdon as a trade option. I wouldn't trade him for the sake of it.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Not enough to justify the move. If he were helping us bring Lynch in and we had a ready made replacement I'd accept it, but I'm not sure that justifies the move and he's too loved amongst key players.

The group is underperforming and probably needs a rocket up them as much as the coaching group, but I'm not sure Pendles is the right player.

We also need to think about the type of supporter sentiment there would have been around passing on Brown/ Daicos then double it. Overall there's too much politics there to spin it as a win no matter what we get in return. IMO, a better solution might be to change our captaincy model because I don't think he's good in the role.

have to agree Scoo , hes not a captain , like Abletts not, doesnt physically inspire.

 

[soreplums]

Pederson is having a strong game for the Dees.

 

[soreplums]

have to agree Scoo , hes not a captain , like Abletts not, doesnt physically inspire.

I don't think we have anyone with presence who could be a strong captain. I do think he is a good leader though.

 

[Run n Spread]

Keep Pick 5/6 and use it. If you want a period of sustained success you need youngsters constantly coming through rather than having a year or 2 than and falling. Either get a KPF/B or use it for a long term pick to replace Pendlebury.

 

[Obeanie1]

If Gaff and Darling were on the table would the Pies be interested and what would be reasonable?

Its obvious the pressure is on to make finals next season and 18 yr olds take time to make an impact.

 

[Apex36]

If Gaff and Darling were on the table would the Pies be interested and what would be reasonable?

Its obvious the pressure is on to make finals next season and 18 yr olds take time to make an impact.

Don't want Gaff, but for Darling I'd say Fasolo + some form of steak knives would be appropriate (assuming Fas requests a trade home)

 

[BEEG]

Pies look like they will get pick 6, hope we take it to the draft and get a forward.

 

[Obeanie1]

Don't want Gaff, but for Darling I'd say Fasolo + some form of steak knives would be appropriate (assuming Fas requests a trade home)

I know that this is your board but with respect Fasolo with depression and inconsistent form would be the steak knives in Ny trade for Darling.

Forwards like Darling dont grow on trees and for a player who has yet to play to his full potential he has had several seasons consistantly kicking 40 plus.

Moore needs help up forward, help Fasolo hasnt provided.

 

[Apex36]

I know that this is your board but with respect Fasolo with depression and inconsistent form would be the steak knives in Ny trade for Darling.

Forwards like Darling dont grow on trees and for a player who has yet to play to his full potential he has had several seasons consistantly kicking 40 plus.

Moore needs help up forward, help Fasolo hasnt provided.

You asked, I answered. Don't come on to an opposition board asking about the trade value of one of your players then bitch when you don't get the answer you want. If you think you're going to get some sort of amazing trade for Darling I think you'll end up disappointed.

 

[Obeanie1]

You asked, I answered. Don't come on to an opposition board asking about the trade value of one of your players then bitch when you don't get the answer you want. If you think you're going to get some sort of amazing trade for Darling I think you'll end up disappointed.

Mate I said with respect.

Thats not bitching, its basically pointing out you are over valuing a player who has depression and and inconsistent form. Im not making that up am I?

Is Fasolo worth a first round pick? Because thats the starting point in any trade for a top line forward.

Happy to have an emotionally intelligent conversation if you are.

 

[OEP MKII]

If Gaff and Darling were on the table would the Pies be interested and what would be reasonable?

Its obvious the pressure is on to make finals next season and 18 yr olds take time to make an impact.

Good question and point.

Personally I'm not a fan of Gaff, but Darling would be an excellent experienced 2nd tall who'd work well with Moore.

As for fair trade value I'd think Fasolo (assuming he requests a trade to WA) and our 2nd round pick and future 3rd round pick would be fair value. Without Fasolo in the deal and assuming another player isn't used in the trade I'd say we'd have to coff up two 2nd round picks.

 

[Ketchup]

Mate I said with respect.

Thats not bitching, its basically pointing out you are over valuing a player who has depression and and inconsistent form. Im not making that up am I?

Is Fasolo worth a first round pick? Because thats the starting point in any trade for a top line forward.

Happy to have an emotionally intelligent conversation if you are.

Why would you trade a top line key forward who's only 25?

 

[whiskeytown]

Pick 6..... in a modest key position draft, either....

Trade it down for multiple high picks e.g 1 x late first and 1 x second (in the 20's) and secure two KPP's

Or better still trade it out as part of a deal for a Lever, Wright, Lynch, B Brown, Patton etc.... KPP players with some runs on the board, 2018 AFL ready bodies and proven resilience...otherwise you risk another Boyd or McCartin or Freeman (if they are stupid enough to draft another mid)

No time to £%&@ around with a top 10 pick who ends up a could-of-been or a Derek Hine project player