Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Supermegaultrathread - It's Never Too Soon edition

[Happy Mastenator]

Also this talk of clubs moving for Sinclair on the promise of getting time as the no. 2 ruck. What club would he genuinely be a no. 2 ruck for? He's not a very good ruck, he's a forward who rucks.

 

[guero]

I'd also be surprised if we drove too hard for him given the state of our list...

Which means we're in a strong bargaining position. If Malceski decides to leave Sydney and head west I'm sure we'd be in the hunt - we probably have more cap room than the Shockers given their recent re-signings?

If Eski is definite on a move to Perth I'd be happy to sign him for a couple of years. Quality player, could see him helping with the development of Yeo, Sheppard, Bennell et al. I like the idea more than signing Higgins, which might seem strange given Malceski is 4 or 5 years older. However, with his family connection to WA it might not be such a stretch for him to make the move, and if he's settled on Perth for family reasons there's only 1 club we'd be competing against to sign him. Contrast with Higgins where competition for his signature could be strong.

Taking this in to account, my preferred list changes would be Glass, Cox and Waters to retire; delist Brennan, Hill and Butler; sign Malceski as a free agent and Waterman as F/S leaving 4 live picks in the draft. If Waters is to play on, then delist Smith or McGinnity to make room for Malceski.

 

[dajesmac]

We are no position to start drafting 29 year olds with injury histories. We aren't a challenging team, we're quite a way off it. It's a waste of a spot on the list.

Malceski is a fair bit more than just a 29 year old with an injury history.

Who would you prefer we keep on the list instead of delisting then?
Or alternatively who do you want us to pick in the PSD instead?

Malceski is a quality player, would improve us and would offer a bit off-field given the experience we're losing this year.

In any case 'waste of a spot on the list' is far from a compelling argument as to why it's a 'terrible idea'.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I was bored and had a gander on the Port board in their trade thread. Found a post from June:

Mason Shaw + Ben Newton

for

Scott Lycett + Jack Darling

A few Port fans sensibly took the piss but then a few started suggesting they wouldn't do it...

Mason Shaw + Ben Newton - who and who?

 

[dajesmac]

Which means we're in a strong bargaining position. If Malceski decides to leave Sydney and head west I'm sure we'd be in the hunt - we probably have more cap room than the Shockers given their recent re-signings?

We would presumably have less room but I doubt we'd be willing to offer what they would offer given they are a lot closer to the pointy end of the ladder.

 

[dajesmac]

Mason Shaw + Ben Newton - who and who?

Two moderately talented West Australians who can't crack a game.

 

[placebo]

Malceski is a fair bit more than just a 29 year old with an injury history.

Who would you prefer we keep on the list instead of delisting then?
Or alternatively who do you want us to pick in the PSD instead?

Malceski is a quality player, would improve us and would offer a bit off-field given the experience we're losing this year.

In any case 'waste of a spot on the list' is far from a compelling argument as to why it's a 'terrible idea'.

It's not even about who I want to keep. I'm more than happy to add to our team from the outside, but I'd rather wait and see what's going on around trade week. There could indeed be better options. Drafting people who aren't going to be apart of our next premiership run seems pretty off to me. Maybe I'm simply more pessimistic about our list, and find the notion that his experience will help us make a run for the finals to be fairytale thinking. He's a fine player but outside of his solid disposal and experience, he doesn't address our major faults.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Two moderately talented West Australians who can't crack a game.

One of whom is a key forward - something we're desperate for

 

[kane249]

Malceski has been solid last couple of years, could be AA this year.

25 disposals off the half back and 5 rebound 50's a game. Creative and attacking.

If Waters wouldnt have had all these injuries he could have had a period similar to Malceskis

His big Southern Cross tattoo doesnt excite me though......

One major difference between Malceski and Waters though, Malceski hits targets by foot.

 

[pantskyle]

Where is this contract news?

 

[MaxHunt]

How much room would we have in the cap next season?

 

[BigBirdz]

Port Adelaide FC, campaigning since 1997

EFA

 

[dajesmac]

It's not even about who I want to keep. I'm more than happy to add to our team from the outside, but I'd rather wait and see what's going on around trade week. There could indeed be better options. Drafting people who aren't going to be apart of our next premiership run seems pretty off to me. Maybe I'm simply more pessimistic about our list, and find the notion that his experience will help us make a run for the finals to be fairytale thinking. He's a fine player but outside of his solid disposal and experience, he doesn't address our major faults.

He would be best 22 meaning he would immediately outrank guys like:

Brennan
Wilson
Butler
McGinnity
Hill
Carter
Smith

Who are all delist candidates this year. In addition to losing Cox & Glass already. The reality is it's a choice between retaining one of those players & 2-3 years of quality football from Malceski. Signing him through FA and being proactive at trade week are not mutually exclusive.

Strengthening our squad by signing a best 22 player for free doesn't compromise our build for the future.

 

[dajesmac]

Where is this contract news?

It was Sinclair and Shep.

 

[pantskyle]

It was Sinclair and Shep.

 

[placebo]

Strengthening our squad is fine and dandy…but largely pointless if there's no long-term benefit, which I don't think there is. But hey, we're going in circles now.

 

[Spider Klein]

Strengthening our squad is fine and dandy…but largely pointless if there's no long-term benefit, which I don't think there is. But hey, we're going in circles now.

Its only pointless if

it costs us too much to get the player - Not an issue if we get him via free agency.

It impacts our salary cap space - Not an issue if we don't overpay him on a long contract.

It costs us a list spot that could be used for a promising youngster - Not an issue if he takes Butler, Brennan, Carter or Smiths shot in the backline as its not like more games are gonna help them.


I am yet to see an argument from you other than he is old and not going to be part of our next premiership. Which player on our list would benefit so greatly from the extra games he will get due to Malceski not playing that counteracts the benefit Malceski could provide the other younger players in direction and positioning in the backline.

 

[dajesmac]

Strengthening our squad is fine and dandy…but largely pointless if there's no long-term benefit, which I don't think there is. But hey, we're going in circles now.

I disagree. I and I'm sure the club would prefer to see us play finals over the next couple of years.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Bennell, Hurn and Malceski out of the backline would give us pace and great footskills, and would allow Yeo to move into the midfield.

It'd be nice, but not worth breaking the bank for given where we are at.

 

[Matera LeNui]

One major difference between Malceski and Waters though, Malceski hits targets by foot.

Agreed

 

[placebo]

Its only pointless if

it costs us too much to get the player - Not an issue if we get him via free agency.

It impacts our salary cap space - Not an issue if we don't overpay him on a long contract.

It costs us a list spot that could be used for a promising youngster - Not an issue if he takes Butler, Brennan, Carter or Smiths shot in the backline as its not like more games are gonna help them.


I am yet to see an argument from you other than he is old and not going to be part of our next premiership. Which player on our list would benefit so greatly from the extra games he will get due to Malceski not playing that counteracts the benefit Malceski could provide the other younger players in direction and positioning in the backline.

I don't think our back line is struggling too much with direction and positioning. Our back line isn't our flaw, and Malceski doesn't target our needs outside of ball use. I'm more intrigued to see who we draft, and what else is around at the trade table. We'd basically be paying a guy for 'experience' and the magical hope that he'll help turn us into a finals impacting team, which is unlikely if we don't actually address our areas of concern.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I one hundred percent believe we should target him via F/A. We should be aiming to play finals and he improves our list. He isn't a clogger like another 29/30 year old on our list.

 

[SloppyJoe]

Where do you think Wellingham sits at present.
He seems very much out of favour and they might be looking at moving him on if they can't find a role for him or he doesn't harden up before seasons end.

With Wellingham it seems to be an attitude problem rather than anything else. I thought he played quite well last season taking into account both his preseason and regular season were interrupted by injury, but has obviously gone backwards this season. This is disappointing because we know what he is capable of, but he would need to string together 2-3 seasons of mediocrity before delisting/trading is on the cards.

 

[bodazoka]

Can signing a player come at a cost if he makes us artificially competitive?

 

[kane249]

Can signing a player come at a cost if he makes us artificially competitive?

Yes, if that player has off field baggage

Eg Fevola to Brisbane