List Mgmt. Trade & Free Agency talk Pt 8

[_RT_]

New thread

List Mgmt. - Trade & Free Agency Part 9

www.bigfooty.com

 

[THE_GUN]

* thats a sad list

Thats why i always say draft picks are not everything and people thinking about letting Baker go for pick X or bolton for 2 1st rounders

I rather the known bird in the hand

 

[Tiger_4_Life]

No Baker isn't a free agent unfortunately, he was drafted as an over-age player. He is only out of contract

Next year Balta is a free agent and we'd get a band 1 compo pick after our first pick if he was to leave

Shit!

 

[TheOptimum18]

Lukosius worth a look?

The only scenario in which I think Lukosius is a viable trade option is if we trade out Short, and the pick we get for Short is sent to the GCS for Lukosius, and whatever money that was on Short's contract was given to Lukosius (nothing more).

Also, you would be playing him in Short's role, as an oversized HB flanker or wingman, rather than a 2nd or 3rd KPD.

 

[SA_Tiger11]

If Baker leaves I’ll pi*s on myself.

 

[Mr Magic]

The only scenario in which I think Lukosius is a viable trade option is if we trade out Short, and the pick we get for Short is sent to the GCS for Lukosius, and whatever money that was on Short's contract was given to Lukosius (nothing more).

Also, you would be playing him in Short's role, as an oversized HB flanker or wingman, rather than a 2nd or 3rd KPD.

I do not know the situation obviously.

It sounds like Hardwick is not 100 percent with his game in certain areas plus Gold Coast have other options. It also sounds like Jack does not want to be back.

So if we where to get him it would have to have a forward component at least in a hybrid way. We have other forwards, so we could say to him we could use him in a few different ways including forward so he would not need to play extended periods down back.

The other thing is because we have Gibcus, Balta and some others, if we got Lukucious we could entertain playing the game a different way slightly we could enhance his profile and effect/the potency of his contribution in a team combination sense resulting in wins naturally.

It probably will not happen, but in saying that there could be pros if he did come to RFC. Age would not be a problem and a few others here would like his arrival I am sure. Some seem to go on about his defensive side but that is one component and I think some flexibility could be utilised

The other thing is we could say to Jack, we will not put you in the ruck either

The argument getting Jack and selling it to Jack is we would not be getting him just because you are what you are, rather on top of that, unlike a Gawn/Grundy scenario, his skill set and what he brings, alongside our other players we already have that other teams do not have, can enhance Jack's game and impact and enhance the RFC output more than a arrival impact would be for other team mixes. So for us and Jack his arrival would be a win win that other arrivals could not replicate arguably

Keeping it simple, vanilla and one dimensional, in terms of a selling point, RFC could say there is a lot of room for Jack to play in and around half forward at RFC amongst our existing players with great effect if he did come

 

[JR82]

Round zero: Hopper led our CP with 13. 23 touches and 2 goals. Easily our best mid.

Round 1: Hopper led our CP with 13. Had 20 at half time before he suffered an injury that has kept him out since.

I don’t know if he will ever get a decent run at it from an injury perspective… if he does he will be an excellent player for us.

Anyone who expects 4-quarter consistency from an inexperienced team missing a heap of their best players (including 4 x inside mids) hasn’t been watching footy for very long, or doesn’t understand it.

It’s frustrating I know, but why expect us to be playing great footy with half a side? Makes no sense on any level.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Agreed, the only positive is the kids will get a decent look at what the level looks like. They have to learn somehow. They'll do better when we get Hopper back (seems he may be 1st mid back) as the kids will get lesser roles & it'll ease them into it a bit better with a leader out there.

 

[THE_GUN]

Brayden George was mentioned above


Kid was compared to Petracca as a 17 year old
Pick #41 or #42 would be a really great get

Was considered a top 10 pick until he done his knee and went #26
same draft as Gibcus/Brown/Banks/Sonsie/Clarke

 

[SA_Tiger11]

Brayden George was mentioned above


Kid was compared to Petracca as a 17 year old
Pick #41 or #42 would be a really great get

Was considered a top 10 pick until he done his knee and went #26
same draft as Gibcus/Brown/Banks/Sonsie/Clarke

Has not laid a tackle this season. Red flag.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Has not laid a tackle this season. Red flag.

Hasn't had a kick either, so another red flag.

But also hasn't given away any free kicks, so green flag?

 

[SA_Tiger11]

Hasn't had a kick either, so another red flag.

But also hasn't given away any free kicks, so green flag?

VFL stats brother.

 

[Bojangles17]

The only scenario in which I think Lukosius is a viable trade option is if we trade out Short, and the pick we get for Short is sent to the GCS for Lukosius, and whatever money that was on Short's contract was given to Lukosius (nothing more).

Also, you would be playing him in Short's role, as an oversized HB flanker or wingman, rather than a 2nd or 3rd KPD.

I got a much better idea , trade out lynch for a r1 and believe me melb would offer one if we gave a bit back a d offer that for lukosous . Reckon he would be a genuine chance to leave not sure how he’d see us as an option tho,,,maybe if pumped the dollars up , saints have been snapping up players for years while shit

 

[Bojangles17]

I do not know the situation obviously.

It sounds like Hardwick is not 100 percent with his game in certain areas plus Gold Coast have other options. It also sounds like Jack does not want to be back.

So if we where to get him it would have to have a forward component at least in a hybrid way. We have other forwards, so we could say to him we could use him in a few different ways including forward so he would not need to play extended periods down back.

The other thing is because we have Gibcus, Balta and some others, if we got Lukucious we could entertain playing the game a different way slightly we could enhance his profile and effect/the potency of his contribution in a team combination sense resulting in wins naturally.

It probably will not happen, but in saying that there could be pros if he did come to RFC. Age would not be a problem and a few others here would like his arrival I am sure. Some seem to go on about his defensive side but that is one component and I think some flexibility could be utilised

The other thing is we could say to Jack, we will not put you in the ruck either

The argument getting Jack and selling it to Jack is we would not be getting him just because you are what you are, rather on top of that, unlike a Gawn/Grundy scenario, his skill set and what he brings, alongside our other players we already have that other teams do not have, can enhance Jack's game and impact and enhance the RFC output more than a arrival impact would be for other team mixes. So for us and Jack his arrival would be a win win that other arrivals could not replicate arguably

Keeping it simple, vanilla and one dimensional, in terms of a selling point, RFC could say there is a lot of room for Jack to play in and around half forward at RFC amongst our existing players with great effect if he did come

Forwards are like a grudge purchase for dimma so he has a pet hate with too many players kicking goals , his favs are already king and Walter , no one else will get a look in and now Mac Andrew is emerging as a key back , luk could be third banana

 

[Mr Magic]

Forwards are like a grudge purchase for dimma so he has a pet hate with too many players kicking goals , his favs are already king and Walter , no one else will get a look in and now Mac Andrew is emerging as a key back , luk could be third banana

luk has a few weaknesses. He has not lived up to pick 2 lets get real.

Some have been worried about efforts etc... bad for culture, this is on social media The point is could he turn it around at RFC and are RFC a better fit??

Looks like GFC have a lot of other talent still coming through to and they will not be able to fit them all in

We could not pay too much for him though and he is contracted to 2026. If we did try and get him it would have to part of a broader plan, not just a one player solely changes everything mantra

 

[TheOptimum18]

I got a much better idea , trade out lynch for a r1 and believe me melb would offer one if we gave a bit back a d offer that for lukosous . Reckon he would be a genuine chance to leave not sure how he’d see us as an option tho,,,maybe if pumped the dollars up , saints have been snapping up players for years while s**t

Lukosius is a soft player. He's what commentators will describe as“nice”。

His weapon is his kicking, and there's plenty of evidence that heisn't a contest player, let alone an aerial one.

Trading Lynch only makes sense if we have a sure thing that replaces the things that Lynch does for our team. We don't have that, and the number of players that exist like that in the competition can probably be counted on two hands with fingers left over.

Look at how important a half cooked Josh Kennedy was for WCE in the last couple of seasons before he retired, and compare that to the discussion around Darling's performances on a weekly basis. It's night and day.

To trade away a player like Tom Lynch when you don't even have a clue as to who the guarantee is as a KPF (as shown last season and this season since his injury), is plain stupidity.

 

[Mr Magic]

Lukosius is a soft player. He's what commentators will describe as“nice”。

His weapon is his kicking, and there's plenty of evidence that heisn't a contest player, let alone an aerial one.

Trading Lynch only makes sense if we have a sure thing that replaces the things that Lynch does for our team. We don't have that, and the number of players that exist like that in the competition can probably be counted on two hands with fingers left over.

Look at how important a half cooked Josh Kennedy was for WCE in the last couple of seasons before he retired, and compare that to the discussion around Darling's performances on a weekly basis. It's night and day.

To trade away a player like Tom Lynch when you don't even have a clue as to who the guarantee is as a KPF (as shown last season and this season since his injury), is plain stupidity.

Nothing against Lynch but I think you are underselling our other options and we won in 2017 without Lynch. You make the case you could not pay a fortune for Lukosius. Why would someone pay a fortune for Lukosious at the moment??

Lukosious is not Lynch and if Lynch left and Lukosious arrived that would not mean Lukosious plays a Lynch role surely. I think RFC are smarter than that

 

[Bojangles17]

Lukosius is a soft player. He's what commentators will describe as“nice”。

His weapon is his kicking, and there's plenty of evidence that heisn't a contest player, let alone an aerial one.

Trading Lynch only makes sense if we have a sure thing that replaces the things that Lynch does for our team. We don't have that, and the number of players that exist like that in the competition can probably be counted on two hands with fingers left over.

Look at how important a half cooked Josh Kennedy was for WCE in the last couple of seasons before he retired, and compare that to the discussion around Darling's performances on a weekly basis. It's night and day.

To trade away a player like Tom Lynch when you don't even have a clue as to who the guarantee is as a KPF (as shown last season and this season since his injury), is plain stupidity.

Lynch’s body can’t handle more than 10 games a year or I wouldn’t be having this convo

 

[Charlie Pannam]

The only scenario in which I think Lukosius is a viable trade option is if we trade out Short, and the pick we get for Short is sent to the GCS for Lukosius, and whatever money that was on Short's contract was given to Lukosius (nothing more).

Also, you would be playing him in Short's role, as an oversized HB flanker or wingman, rather than a 2nd or 3rd KPD.

To get a player like him, means overpaying in every sense. Carlton did it with Martin, Williams, McGovern. Luckily for them they have managed to draft some decent talent.
we are in a situation now where we need a couple of years of high end draft talent. We’ve chased and landed plenty of established players since 2016, enjoyed success, now back to the start of the rebuilding cycle. And do it before Tassie is taking all the best kids.

 

[TheOptimum18]

To get a player like him, means overpaying in every sense. Carlton did it with Martin, Williams, McGovern. Luckily for them they have managed to draft some decent talent.
we are in a situation now where we need a couple of years of high end draft talent. We’ve chased and landed plenty of established players since 2016, enjoyed success, now back to the start of the rebuilding cycle. And do it before Tassie is taking all the best kids.

Which is why the only scenario is a very specific set of circumstances.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Lynch’s body can’t handle more than 10 games a year or I wouldn’t be having this convo

So why would Melbourne use a round 1 pick (as you have said) for someone who, in your eyes, can't play more than 10 games a season?

 

[Bojangles17]

So why would Melbourne use a round 1 pick (as you have said) for someone who, in your eyes, can't play more than 10 games a season?

He’s good enough that they’d roll the dice and convince themselves that he may only play say 15 games let’s make sure that’s the business end and he may well be the diff for a genuine tilt at the flag if he plays

 

[Bojangles17]

To get a player like him, means overpaying in every sense. Carlton did it with Martin, Williams, McGovern. Luckily for them they have managed to draft some decent talent.
we are in a situation now where we need a couple of years of high end draft talent. We’ve chased and landed plenty of established players since 2016, enjoyed success, now back to the start of the rebuilding cycle. And do it before Tassie is taking all the best kids.

Yep i, only way that GC may make it a clean swap for a single r1 would be to lose the contract worth 800+ or more ….i would t want to be trading out 2 r1 pics for him

 

[JR82]

Lukosius ave 0.6 contested marks a game as a KPP. For Context Griffiths ave 1.2 across his career

 

[TheOptimum18]

He’s good enough that they’d roll the dice and convince themselves that he may only play say 15 games let’s make sure that’s the business end and he may well be the diff for a genuine tilt at the flag if he plays

If Melbourne can get 15 games into him, then why can't we? 15 games of Lynch could mean 8 or 9 wins very easily.

The biggest issue that you don't consider is this perception that Lynch's body is close to, if not already finished, because of 2 injuries, one of which isn't a soft tissue injury.

Many of his injuries since he's been at Richmond haven't been soft tissue injuries (to my memory), but more impact injuries. That isn't a body breaking down, that's just purely bad luck.

 

[prodigy]

Baker is worth a first round pick. This is coming from a person who notoriously underrates our own players worth.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Its pretty simple math, IF we have depth with injuries we are still competitive to a point. NOT in the eight competitive but thereabouts. I think my posts are being misunderstood because some are being too defensive on this matter.

Everyones blaming the injuries, I'm blaming the fact that we didn't play the kids early enough to get them up to speed.
now we suffer because the stars are gone or old, and we don't have players at the required experience level to be consistent.
Do you understand now?

IMO we have been highly competitive and ‘thereabouts’. Of course the first 45-minutes against GC was woeful, but then we outplayed them. GC look like being a finals team and will be almost unstoppable at home. We had no Nank, Lynch or Dusty among others.

R1 a close loss to Carlton having lost Prestia, Young and Gibcus in-game and being 2-down on bench for entire second half. Very competitive.

R2 were close to Port most of game - led by 15 at HT. Fell away towards end of game … I can’t recall exactly who was out injured for us that game. Port look like being top-4. Very competitive.

R3 beat Sydney missing a heap of our best.

R4 lost narrowly to Saints. By this stage injuries were cruelling us with 6-7 best-22 out. Highly competitive.

R5 lost badly to Eagles. Short’s early injury made it 9 of our best-23 not playing. Uncompetitive for 2-quarters.

I don’t care how much depth anyone has, only the very very best teams would be able to be competitive missing 8-9 of their best 23, particularly when they are starting midfielders and crucial key position players, not just flankers.

Do we seriously think Port would be top-4 if you took out : Butters, JHF, Drew, Wines, Dixon, Marshall, Allir and Houston?

We’ve been as good as could be expected given the injuries.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com