- Thread starter
- #1,326
It must be assessed. Yes it would be a nice name to add , but his playing style , tough inside body that can play a hard tag is more relevant.
List Mgmt. 2016 general list discussion and speculation (cont in Pt.2)
- Thread starter Turbocat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
It must be assessed. Yes it would be a nice name to add , but his playing style , tough inside body that can play a hard tag is more relevant.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 9,443
- 15,271
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Banned
- #1,327
there will be no club apart from Gold Coast (bottom dwellers) who will give up pick 10-15 for a player of Henderson's quality. He's simply not that valuable. Carlisle, Trengove, Talia, Schofield, those are defenders who would warrant such a high pick at this stage of their careers.
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
Probably. My thinking is that at this stage - their list is s**t. Flat out the worst in the league by a long way. I think they need quantity (within that top 40) of picks over quality at this stage. This is going on the assumption that I would literally cull half their list.
catempire
Premium Platinum
Setting yourself up for disappointment Bob.
And Schofield?? Not half the player Henderson is.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 9,443
- 15,271
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Banned
- #1,331
maybe I'm mistaking him for Mackenzie, the one without the long bogan beard is the one I'm referring to. Either way, I'm all for Geelong going after Henderson. We desperately need key defenders and he'd fit the bill nicely. But not for pick 10, 12 or 15.
catempire
Premium Platinum
Mackenzie is certainly the better player (won Eagles B&F last year) but Schofield has the beard.
- Thread starter
- #1,333
Bobby , entitled to your opinion.. but I think more than GC would trade for him with their best. We may..and only if we add mature talent to our midfield would I be happy about but certainly Brisbane would , Id say Syd would be other as well.
My preference would be to deal with GWS for a young KPD.. they will need picks if they want both their acc players... and who knows who we may be able to move . I think the club has changed their mo a bit. Sick setting up from scratch and drilling a dry well for years.. better to pay for a known commodity. ( Especially with talls) Simpson drafted in 2007 , 27 games and now FA ... I bet the club think that an R1 for a gun ruck is not that costly , and certainly P21 is fair for a potential gun.
The irony is Carlton would love for him to be a FA right now , be interesting to see what he would get. Have to be on par with Frawley.
Actually ...can some inform me why he is not FA? Same year , same age as Dangerfield.
Dumb : Brisbane drafted.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,335
What have I not made clear? ... The post relates to Henderson who I presume would be traded to play KPD. He is a known commodity.. is that what you mean?
Sorry I was unclear.
You talk about wanting to wanting to get a KPD from GWS, are there any names in particular you like and are gettable for a reasonable price?
The part I put in bold was what I couldn't follow.
Are you saying the club would rather trade a guy in for overs for a particular role then draft a guy and wait 8 years for him not to make it?
- Thread starter
- #1,337
IF we gain two mature mids (names known) then I can see the argument for immediate stiffening of the age in in our backline...Henderson. Id hope we could get it done with less than a R1 but i can understand paying it. We would then have a different age profile in backline and midfield.
If we are taking a more long term approach , then Id prefer to neg with GWS ... perhaps they would be willing to let go two but certainly one really good kid... the size we need and who ever the club rates.. it could be Marchbank or Corr or Plowman... all are young tallish players. Marchank would be a very good get but difficult as a player only 12 months in. Dogs got Boyd in that time period though.... and we were linked to him at times. I just look at their list and I can not see how all of the players they have at that size fit.
The last two or three years it seem apparent to me that we have changed our mindset. It coincides with FA.
They paid for Hmac and Rivers. I think they feel Rivers was a win but both players were worn out... so since then we have tried to add Frawley a younger FA , and trade for Clark and Stanley. P21 for Stanley had me angry ..and others were upset. Stanley V Goddard... yet ...Goddard would be 2 to 3 years away , we have added to our rucks with a mid 20's player , now are looking to fill the Goddard type role with another pick around the same.
Compare that to the past... Draft Simpson, Vardy, Hamling etc..... dry holes
Last edited:
Carlton is going to be relegated?
On the GWS kids, Plowman seems the most gettable, he's really under performed given the price they paid for him but I don't think Plowman is the right size, he's smaller than Kolodjashnij, On Marchbark, they won't let him go cheap, WB paid a king's ransom for Boyd in wages, player and pick. And given there depth in the role and Boyd's exposed form you wouldn't say they'd be disappointed. But I don't see a point in going for Marchbark given that he has no exposed form(which to me seems to be the whole point in poaching guys). Corr is the right size but he doesn't get a lot of the ball(though I admit this is very low on the list of important attributes) and he has had quite a few bags kicked on him(how much of this is on him vs how bad the team has been is hard to tell). He has played most of the games(6 out of 8) this year so you'd think that he'd be a first choice player in their team for the future.
On the Stanley pick up, my first reaction was of disbelief but I came around quickly (once he was Geelong player it would be wrong not to back him in) so I was optimistic before the season started. On our recent tall draftee, we've been hit hard with injuries, we took some risky picks in Brown and Hamling backing there attributes over exposed form(givne that we could afford to wait for them to come good), that being said injuries didn't help. Kolodjashnij seems a safer pick than someone like Hamling. Someone like Goddard could have been similar, there body was larger so they are more likely to be able to put on the weight necessary to play a role AFL level something Brown and Hamling never seemed to do.
It's certainly looking better than I expected.
Easy to say in hindsight, all I can remember was how devastated I was when I first heard he was leaving and then what we were getting for him made me livid and then I was in denial when I heard we were trading it for Stanley. But I don't think many would disagree with you. Last year he only played 8 games, so I guess that in the end he was surplus to needs.
A fit Christensen is the type of player we could really do with. The question is though would we have; or now will Brisbane; see Christensen become the player that we had hoped he would? I think that it is looking increasingly unlikely.
Stanley has certainly helped us become more competitive in the ruck. I'm still uncertain whether this current set up is the answer to our ruck woes of the past few years but it's an improvement. But Stanley does appear to be having his best year yet so who knows where his ceiling lies? Hopefully he can become that modern day, mobile ruck that is an exceptionally difficult match up. I'm sure that's what the MC had in mind when going after him.
Pivo
Brownlow Medallist
Heavy incoming edit.
I was a reasonably big fan of Marchbank last year but I agree with your comments about looking at him with no exposed form. Considering he'd be at the end of his first year when the discussion takes place it is highly probably that any enquires for him would be met with a "Top 10 or keep walking" type response from GWS.
They'd basically want equal compensation for what they gave up 12 months earlier but I doubt any enquiring club would be prepared to give something like that up unless they had multiple high selections (and in that scenario you'd probably look at other players with more runs on the board).
What makes the discussion interesting is the fact we still had 3 very likely tall types available when we had our pick. If we were to chase Marchbank (and there is no indication that we are, it is pure spit-balling on here) I'd almost be moved to send the club an email asking why we didn't make a move on Lever or Durdin or Goddard last year if we wanted a young, key defender.
If we are going to trade our first pick, where ever that may fall at season's end, surely we'd be going after a player that would be expected to come into the side in Round 1 2016 and be reasonably expected to make some sort of impact.
I just wanted to cherry pick this quote as I think it raises an interesting discussion point.
I was a reasonably big fan of Marchbank last year but I agree with your comments about looking at him with no exposed form. Considering he'd be at the end of his first year when the discussion takes place it is highly probably that any enquires for him would be met with a "Top 10 or keep walking" type response from GWS.
They'd basically want equal compensation for what they gave up 12 months earlier but I doubt any enquiring club would be prepared to give something like that up unless they had multiple high selections (and in that scenario you'd probably look at other players with more runs on the board).
What makes the discussion interesting is the fact we still had 3 very likely tall types available when we had our pick. If we were to chase Marchbank (and there is no indication that we are, it is pure spit-balling on here) I'd almost be moved to send the club an email asking why we didn't make a move on Lever or Durdin or Goddard last year if we wanted a young, key defender.
If we are going to trade our first pick, where ever that may fall at season's end, surely we'd be going after a player that would be expected to come into the side in Round 1 2016 and be reasonably expected to make some sort of impact.
- Thread starter
- #1,345
Can't argue with any of that.
Personal bias on the Goddard type probably means Im not as fussed missing him.. but he may well endup being a good play...Endup... its the time delay and the doubt we are trying to eliminate and pay a premium for.
There is about 6 to 8 guys on the GWS that would be good adds to list at that 192/196 size... just cost. On Marchbank , he is more the Taylor type yes and he has no exposed form say compared to a Caddy... but that could be an advantage. rel to cost. It seems to me a kid is close to his most costly at draft time... and after that its more likely than not that they lose value. Add to the fact that the GWS need early draft picks for their Acc kids ..Id say it possible(perhaps unlikely) Marchbank P6 last year... a year on and we get him for 12... and Wells liked him , I can see the advantage of that.
Plowman , Corr yes agree but I doubt they would cost R1 now.... . Their side is settling , and its young... they really only have room for so many.
- Thread starter
- #1,346
I dont see it as black or white as that... What you say may well be true ..spit bat and ball , it may well get down to what they need to do to get their two Acc kids. If we are willing to take kids in the draft , why not a kid 12 months older with our R1 ...
Pivo
Brownlow Medallist
I guess I'd just view that play as particularly reactive.
Last year there were 4 similar types available (Lever, Durdin. Goddard & Marchbank), even us mug armchair "experts" said a couple of those guys would be around with our first pick. Why, 12 months later, would we try and trade in a kid who's type we could have grabbed last year?
We could have gotten one of those guys into the club and started developing him "our" way.
In a mid heavy draft pool this year I'd be frustrated if we did something like this when we could have done it last year.
I think, as a general rule, you trade draft picks for the now, you draft for the future.
If we're looking to trade out the first pick then I'd hope we use it on a guy who can come in on day one and (hopefully) make a difference.
Marchbank (as much as I like him) isn't really that kind of player in my mind.
I did the basic maths on them getting the two academy kids and in most likelihood they won't need to trade a pick in to get them. It depends what else they want to do that trade period.
But I agree with Pivo, they won't release him for pick 12 after a single year, he's still contracted. An nor should we offer that for him.
I feel that the real bargains have already been made and were in the later picks, Melbourne got a good deal for Frost and St Kilda payed close to nothing for Bruce. Both had exposed form when they were poached.
If Lonergan went to the Bulldogs last year we probably could have gone after Frost but we couldn't get him because we couldn't offer him the opportunity.
I feel that Corr would be in their plans and wouldn't want to lose him. But if they did.
Corr probably would get a similar price to Jaksch. The difference between 19 and 7
Last edited by a moderator:
Willo_
Trust the Process
- Apr 27, 2010
- 35,237
- 62,327
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- 76ers, Melbourne Roys
You are. McKenzie is their gun full back who is out for the year.. Schofield is a tall rangy more running half back
Who I think is playing KPD this year due to the Eagles injury issues.. handy player still mind you
Willo_
Trust the Process
- Apr 27, 2010
- 35,237
- 62,327
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- 76ers, Melbourne Roys
I was confused when we went after Stanley... interestingly my mate that I go with most weeks was rapt. He really rated Stanley and was surprised the Saints would let him go.
I'd say my mindset was the more common one... it's looking a good trade but Bundy just had something special about him as well
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
