Trade Hypotheticals *MERGED THREADS*

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Matthew Spangher

The Herald Sun today suggests that we are now in the market for Matthew Spangher.

193 cm athletic defender from West Coast, still only 22 years old - who has done some good things playing as a KPD for the Eagles.

What say ye?

... and what should we be offering?

 

[ptrsks]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Look, it all depend what we give in exchange for him. I think in this years draft it is important to keep the first and second round picks, purely because of the shallowness of the draft. We also wont get many more picks next year because of Gold Coast.
I think for David Ellards development it is probably best for i to go back home to west coast.
Chris A johnson i would be more than happy to send him back west. (where he came from)
And chuck in a 3rd round pick.

I have seen a little of him, he looks ok, still needs to develop, but a with a couple pre seasons i can see him becoming a pretty good backman. This would also let Wait go forward which is where i think he belongs.

 

[Effes]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Third rounder at best.

We already have a better third tall version in Bower.

He would not be able to play on the gorillas (not many can)

So we are going to play Jamison/Thornton/Bower/Spangher and occasionally Waite in the one backline?

Where's the run going to come from? Only need 3 tallish types at most.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: Matthew Spangher

If we are looking at him, one of our current defenders may be looking to leave OR one of them is struggling more than we think with injury OR we are looking to send one forward more permanently.

I liked what I saw from Spangher later in the season. He might even be better body on body than Bower, although Bower has more agility and ability to recover from the contest.

We are a reactive team. We get shown up for height, we spend a draft or two drafting tall midfielders to become the tallest team. We find we don't get enough crumbing goals, we get Yarran and Garlett. Our rucks are poor, we get Hampson with a priority pick, Kreuzer with our number one pick and trade for Warnock.

Just look at our deficiencies this year and expect the club to slightly over compensate for them. Our defence is fine when fit and firing. In fact it is downright quick and exciting. I would rather do without the big bodied full back that might not be as quick if we have smart and agile tall defenders who cover for each other and run the ball out in numbers. However, we were shown up with the number of injuries our defence copped, so we will no doubt be looking to build further depth in case we get more key injuries. The problem is our main 5 tall defenders are very capable but after that we don't even have some ordinary backups without playing someone out of position.

We now need more defensive depth to develop in the VFL, demand Austin step up in 2010, a protege to take over from Fev in a couple of years and a decent inside mid. It won't happen this draft, unless we make some controversial trades that could affect team unity.

 

[mediumsizered]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Great name (Spangher), great head of hair, but can he play?

 

[The Grover]

Re: Matthew Spangher

I didn't think much of this guy, but he swayed me a bit towards end of season.

He looks to have more size than Bower,Jamo,T-Bird, could take the gorilla's.

 

[Azul]

Re: Matthew Spangher

It's unfortunate that Waite, Jamison and Austin were all out but I don't think the solution is to necessarily go out and buy another key defender.

If you look at the other end of the ground, a number of players facing the axe - Hartlett, Cloke, Wiggins, Fisher and Edwards have all been trialled as forwards and are all 188cm+. So what, really, is our greater need?

Instead of targetting backmen specifically, how does having an extra tall in the side give us flexibility? i.e. we know Waite can play forward but what if recruiting someone like Spangher allowed Austin or even Bower (yes, Bower, I'm serious!) to spend some time in attack? Options make us less predictable...

I can't recall seeing much of Spangher but if he, or someone like him, can actually play and offer us 5 years of service, that's a safer option that gambling on a retiree like Barry Hall. We have enough defenders but a genuine quality tall will play both ends of the ground - ala SOS. Let's not pidgeon-hole our young 'defenders' with attacking flair such as Austin and Bower too early.

 

[M_I_G]

Re: Matthew Spangher

dont think a third round pick would do it lol, think they rate him at west coast, showed a lot towards the end of the season - good run,poise and confidence. would not mind him at all, would be great to see him and bower breaking the lines from defence. but, what do we have to give up to get him?

 

[Blueinblood]

Re: Matthew Spangher

That article was the biggest peice of fluff. NO evidence whatsoever. Is a journalist puttgin 2 and 2 together and getting 3. "Spanger might leave, he is tall, and play back, carlton didnt seem to have mnay of those on saturday night, they must get him".

The only possible way that Spangher would be traded for would be if
A) Austin wants to go back home to SA
B) Jamisons future looks cloudy trhough injury
C) Thornton is going to hawks haha
D)Austin or Thornton will play CHF.
Out of those the only viable ones both concern Austin. I wouldnt be surprised if he wanted to go back home, and he can play up forward so maybe D.

 

[Jeremias]

Re: Matthew Spangher

I'm never against getting young talented footballers to the club but I'd be very wary.

Spangher, whilst showing some signs of improvement, is no star. If he does want to return home, a bidding war may follow, and if we want him we'd more than likely have to give up too much to get him to the club. Do not want.

I would be hesitant to give up any more than a 3rd round pick. If they take it, that's good and welcome to the club. If they don't, I won't be losing any sleep about a player that probably wouldn't have made our best 22 and would only be good depth, which can be found in the draft anyway.

 

[OZBomb]

Re: Matthew Spangher

I think the decision has been made to send Waite forward permanently and have Austin as the swingman between CHF and CHB depending on the ammount of talls the other team has. With Kreuzer likely going forward as wellm, it'll give as a lot of options at both ends.

With Spangher you'd have him at CHB, Jamison at Full Back, Thornton as the third tall defender rotating with Bower as the rebounding HBF who plays on the medium forward.

 

[CUG81]

Re: Matthew Spangher

We have plenty of talls down back, and if we are injury free and austin gets his chances, i dont get why we are focussing hard on a key defender.

Waite must be our CHF next year 100%.

I'm happy with jamison, austin and bower (all hitting the gym hard) and thorntan, with armfield and russell in defence also.

 

[Juddrockz]

Re: Matthew Spangher

I just wonder (as somebody mentioned above) the injury factor of our current defenders??? This year Jamo had a few injuries that he struggled with,Waite went down at the start of the season,Austin was injured later in the season,Bower got injured 3/4(knee) through the season which left our defense quite exposed for alot of the season having to rely on Tbird.Bower struggled late in the last quarter against Brisbane in the final after getting a knock to the knee,he was on one leg pretty much after that then Bradshaw ran off him and kicked that ball busting goal from the boundary to break the camels back. We need back up in our defense it's too lean and has been for many years.Even Irish was injured late into the season,so we had a very depleted defense leading into the finals.
Jamo is the one guy that could be an awesome defender,i just hope here's not a guy that's injury prone.
Spangher would be a good get IMO

 

[Effes]

Re: Matthew Spangher

dont think a third round pick would do it lol, think they rate him at west coast, showed a lot towards the end of the season - good run,poise and confidence. would not mind him at all, would be great to see him and bower breaking the lines from defence. but, what do we have to give up to get him?

A third rounder as in he isn't a priority so let's not pay over the odds for something we already have in abundance.

I think the decision has been made to send Waite forward permanently and have Austin as the swingman between CHF and CHB depending on the ammount of talls the other team has. With Kreuzer likely going forward as wellm, it'll give as a lot of options at both ends.

With Spangher you'd have him at CHB, Jamison at Full Back, Thornton as the third tall defender rotating with Bower as the rebounding HBF who plays on the medium forward.

Still too many tallish defenders. Don't think (like almost every defender in the competition) he is good/big enough to take a J Brown. He'd be relying (like most defenders) on assistance from his midfield and someone like Thornton dropping off his opponent.

ODN's comment about us over compensating is spot on...the supporters seem to get sucked in to it, hopefully the club doesn't and we continue to add talent to our list through the draft.

 

[thylacine60]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Great name (Spangher), great head of hair, but can he play?

Good call, intelligent call, a Sunday morning call, msr.

 

[Warsaw]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Meh, I'd be furious if we let go of a 2nd round pick. Two years in a row we haven't been able to utilise a 2nd rounder.
Doubt very much that Aussie wants to leave, their a tight knit group the SA boys Gibbs, Sauce, Aussie.
Wouldn't think he'd be a walk up start in our best 22 and if we are insistent on him than surely that'd mean the end of Hartlett.

 

[Juddrockz]

Re: Matthew Spangher

A third rounder as in he isn't a priority so let's not pay over the odds for something we already have in abundance.





Still too many tallish defenders. Don't think (like almost every defender in the competition) he is good/big enough to take a J Brown. He'd be relying (like most defenders) on assistance from his midfield and someone like Thornton dropping off his opponent.

ODN's comment about us over compensating is spot on...the supporters seem to get sucked in to it, hopefully the club doesn't and we continue to add talent to our list through the draft.

Take into consideration it's a very weak draft this year though.

 

[Effes]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Take into consideration it's a very weak draft this year though.

That might be true (we don't know for sure)...however why would you trade it for something we have heaps of? He isn't a genuine CHB (there are very few around...Hawthorn won a premiership without an A grade CHB) and is no guarantee of becoming one.

 

[thylacine60]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Well thought out stuff. Grouse input, enjoying your posts today, Effes.

 

[jgb99]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Effes is spot on ... he is an honest trier but one of those guys that doesn't really fit into any role well enough for long term ... not strong enough to take the strong forwards, not quick or sharp thinking enough to take the quick forwards and not pacy / skilled enough to play as a rebounding defender or wingman (he has played his best footy in this sort of role, but I think others will overtake him even at WCE).

 

[Jeremias]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Take into consideration it's a very weak draft this year though.

Not the first time this has been said about a draft and it will not be the last.

However, in each and every draft, there are some very good players selected with later picks. The draft may not be as deep but that does not mean there isn't a possibility of very good players being selected later in the draft, it just becomes somewhat less probable.

I'm in no way opposed to trading our 3rd round pick or a pick in a later round, but I certainly wouldn't justify it with the reasoning that "it's a weak draft".

 

[Obeanie1]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Matt Spanger and Ben McKinely for Yarran

You get to keep your pick two and get two 22 yr old promising Victorian players, a 193 cm running backman who likes to attack the contest and a cleaver mid sized 188cm forward who has also been linked to a move to Carlton.

Yarran wasn't looking forward to moving away from Perth and to date doesn't seem settled.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Matt Spanger and Ben McKinely for Yarran

You get to keep your pick two and get two 22 yr old promising Victorian players, a 193 cm running backman who likes to attack the contest and a cleaver mid sized 188cm forward who has also been linked to a move to Carlton.

Yarran wasn't looking forward to moving away from Perth and to date doesn't seem settled.

Right now, you would say 'where do I sign?'

Yarran is one of those players you get a feeling about and want to be around to see what happens .... or doesn't happen as the case may be.

It would certainly bolster our forward and defensive stocks, that's for sure.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Re: Matthew Spangher

Unless he can play KP i'm not that interested. Seems like he's another 3rd tall type, which we have enough of.

 

[AlecDuncan]

Re: Matthew Spangher

The papers have to keep the readers of non-finals clubs interested, and hype like this is the tool.

There's no way we'd be trading for another tall defender this year - we have plenty, and the club knows it. You can tell this idea is purely the product of the media from that fact. They're mostly still stuck in 2007, thinking we don't have any talls down back.

What we need is another tall forward, and an inside midfielder. And genuine elite talent - not filler - in both cases.