List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade Talk 2015

[Knightmare]

I assume that's due to the fact we'll never be able to get full value for him?

It's a pretty sad list when only 4 players out of 44 are in that age sweet spot (23-28) and untouchable...

Value is a factor but Reid is just too good to trade as a player I see us simply struggling without.

If we'd be talking "you wouldn't trade for value reasons" Fasolo would be the first player who would come to mind in that regard. Fasolo can be a top 10 quality player, but having missed time with injury in recent years, you're just not going to get appropriate value and as such he is a must retain for that reason and the fact that he is one of not all that many on our team who can really kick the footy - not only penetration and finishing but he has the vision and decision making ability to hit the inside 50 targets which I really value with him.

IF we get a Top 5 Pick. It would be fort someone who is a Elite Prospect/Talent.

No One would want Swan. As he be too old

We're as good as any club through the draft so naturally you're right. It would take a really good player to make us motivated to move whatever that first round pick happens to be.

On Swan. I can't think of a club league-wide that wouldn't want Swan. He isn't the top 3 player in the competition he may have been a few years ago. I'd still categorise him as a top 100 player though without question - on impact he can have today. And I expect he'll be better than the 2014 Swan, so we'd be silly to trade him. But you are right in the sense that we wouldn't get appropriate value in return for him given he is over 30.

 

[rustyg70]

Any picks that are required.

In terms of players any players not named: Pendlebury, Elliott, Sidebottom, Cloke, Grundy, Witts, Moore, De Goey, Reid, Broomhead, Scharenberg, Freeman and Swan.

Otherwise no others would be off limits, or no others should be off limits. Just some players you'd prefer not to trade/players who would be of more value to us than the next team.

Not many time that I disagree with you mate, but there are a few more on the untouchable list than that.
You can't just keep trading out players and expect improvement.
The team harmony has to come into it also.
Take Brown for example.
You don't give away a key Backman for a pick, even if it is a top 10.
That would mean we are always going to be a side full of potential.
Potential sides equal early GWS and Gold Coast.
And we all know how well they went.

 

[Knightmare]

Not many time that I disagree with you mate, but there are a few more on the untouchable list than that.
You can't just keep trading out players and expect improvement.
The team harmony has to come into it also.
Take Brown for example.
You don't give away a key Backman for a pick, even if it is a top 10.
That would mean we are always going to be a side full of potential.
Potential sides equal early GWS and Gold Coast.
And we all know how well they went.

I agree with you completely that we need to reduce list turnover - be it trading/delistings. The approx 1000 games lost pretty much every season since 2010 has I agree played a part in our reduced on field player chemistry.

In saying that if it's a trade that clearly would improve our best 22 then that's the criteria for a situation where I would trade those "others" if you'd like to term it that way. And generally as a rule not many clear best 22 players are available so you're hardly moving on the whole list.

Additionally with our list, I'm not sold on the playing personnel we have. We have terrific depth. But our best 22, or more specifically our best 10 and best 15 plainly put aren't very good. We need to upgrade and find some real players, so while I'd have a large portion of the list on the table, very few and possibly none would actually be moved on and it would be completely conditional on being the right deal that would improve us and give us more of what we need.

 

[4tone]

Just throwing one out there, and no info at all, just a stab in the dark, have a feeling they might have a go at


Vickery.. ready made like for like if keefey gets done, I don't think they will bother with a like for like for Thomas, perfect for de goey or freeman to take their chance,

 

[Anzacday]

Just throwing one out there, and no info at all, just a stab in the dark, have a feeling they might have a go at

Vickery.. ready made like for like if keefey gets done, I don't think they will bother with a like for like for Thomas, perfect for de goey or freeman to take their chance,

They'd have to give us their 2nd round pick I'd reckon

 

[Knightmare]

Just throwing one out there, and no info at all, just a stab in the dark, have a feeling they might have a go at


Vickery.. ready made like for like if keefey gets done, I don't think they will bother with a like for like for Thomas, perfect for de goey or freeman to take their chance,

Vickery is at a stage where you look at him, and given his age, you know who he is, and his play simply isn't good enough.

He has only had the one 30+ goal season and only the one 100+ mark season. Durability is a big question for him. And performance not up to scratch either.

With key forwards, it's that one position where depth guys/under-performers and so/so performers just aren't sufficient solutions.

 

[10571z]

I agree with you completely that we need to reduce list turnover - be it trading/delistings. The approx 1000 games lost pretty much every season since 2010 has I agree played a part in our reduced on field player chemistry.

In saying that if it's a trade that clearly would improve our best 22 then that's the criteria for a situation where I would trade those "others" if you'd like to term it that way. And generally as a rule not many clear best 22 players are available so you're hardly moving on the whole list.

Additionally with our list, I'm not sold on the playing personnel we have. We have terrific depth. But our best 22, or more specifically our best 10 and best 15 plainly put aren't very good. We need to upgrade and find some real players, so while I'd have a large portion of the list on the table, very few and possibly none would actually be moved on and it would be completely conditional on being the right deal that would improve us and give us more of what we need.

Terrific depth? No we have a lot of ordinary or undeveloped players who we find it hard to rank into our best 22

 

[Knightmare]

Terrific depth? No we have a lot of ordinary or undeveloped players who we find it hard to rank into our best 22

Our list is 40 deep. Pretty much anyone can play a role on any given day.

Our list is the most even in the game 7-40. You could make a case for such a wide variety of players as being best 22.

Our weakness relatively speaking is after: Pendlebury/Elliott/Sidebottom/Cloke/Reid/Swan the question is then who? All those guys can get a game on any team in the competition. After that it's a bunch of developing players and a bunch of average at best players who have been in the system for some years of which the separation in quality is open to interpretation.

So our problem isn't depth at all. Instead it's the apparent lack of quality after that best 6.

 

[4tone]

Vickery is at a stage where you look at him, and given his age, you know who he is, and his play simply isn't good enough.

He has only had the one 30+ goal season and only the one 100+ mark season. Durability is a big question for him. And performance not up to scratch either.

With key forwards, it's that one position where depth guys/under-performers and so/so performers just aren't sufficient solutions.

All points noted, however didn't stop them getting getting Lynch and White. Just have a feeling Vickery might find his way on the list given the Keefe situation. Just feel that Vickery might move on from the tigers at years end, unless he tears it up for the Tiges.

 

[rustyg70]

Just throwing one out there, and no info at all, just a stab in the dark, have a feeling they might have a go at


Vickery.. ready made like for like if keefey gets done, I don't think they will bother with a like for like for Thomas, perfect for de goey or freeman to take their chance,

No from me.
Has some qualities, but not enough to bring in unless they basically give him away..

 

[popin]

No from me.
Has some qualities, but not enough to bring in unless they basically give him away..

you would try get James Stewart before vickery hey rustyg70?

 

[TradeDraft]

No from me.
Has some qualities, but not enough to bring in unless they basically give him away..

Might get him as a De-Listed Free Agent

 

[popin]

Might get him as a De-Listed Free Agent

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/player-profile/harrison-marsh could get the marsh brothers together that way dave dont take this serious though

 

[Mame]

Our list is 40 deep. Pretty much anyone can play a role on any given day.

Our list is the most even in the game 7-40. You could make a case for such a wide variety of players as being best 22.

Our weakness relatively speaking is after: Pendlebury/Elliott/Sidebottom/Cloke/Reid/Swan the question is then who? All those guys can get a game on any team in the competition. After that it's a bunch of developing players and a bunch of average at best players who have been in the system for some years of which the separation in quality is open to interpretation.

So our problem isn't depth at all. Instead it's the apparent lack of quality after that best 6.

The word daylight springs to mind... between them and the top tier anyway.

 

[TradeDraft]

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/player-profile/harrison-marsh could get the marsh brothers together that way dave dont take this serious though

Maybe for the VFL List

 

[Knightmare]

All points noted, however didn't stop them getting getting Lynch and White. Just have a feeling Vickery might find his way on the list given the Keefe situation. Just feel that Vickery might move on from the tigers at years end, unless he tears it up for the Tiges.

Lynch was kind of an upgrade on Dawes and the best we could get at the time. And as a win now situation while less than ideal it's the type of move I'm ok with as that second option. Lynch before joining Collingwood was still a 33 goal, 113 mark forward. That's plenty as a second option, having also the season before managed an incredible impressive 157 marks. He just didn't after those first few games keep up that pace which was when we encountered our problems, given he was only good for a goal every second game for us, which needless to say isn't good enough. But based on past performance really surprising and not at all what you'd expect.

White isn't nearly good enough and unlike Lynch never even had adequate performances on the board by AFL standard.

In our situation now given we're not contending it's about adding those long term core pieces and particularly with those key posts, finding those high level long term guys we can build around. Moore from a long term perspective is one. But now it's about finding those other guys and someone who can compliment Cloke in the front half if we're insistent on using Reid back. And by compliment - I'm talking, if you can't provide a presence, mark and provide the scoreboard impact like a Tippett/Podsiadly/Mitch Clark/Josh Jenkins/Charlie Dixon or better. It's not going to work. With that the minimum standard that should be considered accepted as a second option up forward.

 

[TradeDraft]

Lynch was kind of an upgrade on Dawes and the best we could get at the time. And as a win now situation while less than ideal it's the type of move I'm ok with as that second option. Lynch before joining Collingwood was still a 33 goal, 113 mark forward. That's plenty as a second option, having also the season before managed an incredible impressive 157 marks. He just didn't after those first few games keep up that pace which was when we encountered our problems, given he was only good for a goal every second game for us, which needless to say isn't good enough. But based on past performance really surprising and not at all what you'd expect.

White isn't nearly good enough and unlike Lynch never even had adequate performances on the board by AFL standard.

In our situation now given we're not contending it's about adding those long term core pieces and particularly with those key posts, finding those high level long term guys we can build around. Moore from a long term perspective is one. But now it's about finding those other guys and someone who can compliment Cloke in the front half if we're insistent on using Reid back. And by compliment - I'm talking, if you can't provide a presence, mark and provide the scoreboard impact like a Tippett/Podsiadly/Mitch Clark/Josh Jenkins/Charlie Dixon or better. It's not going to work. With that the minimum standard that should be considered accepted as a second option up forward.

How was Lynch an Upgrade from Dawes?

Dawes was played out of Postion all that Season and Lynch Body was Finished(Had Next to Nothing Left) Dawes we could of for 5-7 more seasons and not a few more games from Lynch

 

[Knightmare]

How was Lynch an Upgrade from Dawes?

Dawes was played out of Postion all that Season and Lynch Body was Finished(Had Next to Nothing Left) Dawes we could of for 5-7 more seasons and not a few more games from Lynch

I'm talking immediate production Lynch projected for the 2013 to be better than Dawes.

Lynch in 2012 had the 113 marks and 33 goals from 21 games v Dawes in 2012 with the 110 marks and 16 goals from 23 games.
And same story looking back at 2011 with Lynch managing 157 marks and 28 goals v 81 marks and 27 goals from Dawes.

In short, Lynch going into the 2013 season looked the better player, and he looked the better player during the NAB Cup and first few rounds - looking better even than Cloke. That is until he stopped being a factor after getting a few rounds into the season.

 

[TradeDraft]

I'm talking immediate production Lynch projected for the 2013 to be better than Dawes.

Lynch in 2012 had the 113 marks and 33 goals from 21 games v Dawes in 2012 with the 110 marks and 16 goals from 23 games.
And same story looking back at 2011 with Lynch managing 157 marks and 28 goals v 81 marks and 27 goals from Dawes.

In short, Lynch going into the 2013 season looked the better player, and he looked the better player during the NAB Cup and first few rounds - looking better even than Cloke. That is until he stopped being a factor after getting a few rounds into the season.

Well, Dawes numbers was down as Bucks played him in the Ruck and he is not a Bloody Ruckman.

 

[10571z]

Our list is 40 deep. Pretty much anyone can play a role on any given day.

Our list is the most even in the game 7-40. You could make a case for such a wide variety of players as being best 22.

Our weakness relatively speaking is after: Pendlebury/Elliott/Sidebottom/Cloke/Reid/Swan the question is then who? All those guys can get a game on any team in the competition. After that it's a bunch of developing players and a bunch of average at best players who have been in the system for some years of which the separation in quality is open to interpretation.

So our problem isn't depth at all. Instead it's the apparent lack of quality after that best 6.

Even doesnt mean good depth.. WE have a bunch of guys at the same point who arent showing much

 

[jmac70]

Unless we have another player request a move to another club I can't see us being active during tradeweek.

 

[Scodog10]

Well, Dawes numbers was down as Bucks played him in the Ruck and he is not a Bloody Ruckman.

Not particularly no.

Dawes has been at Melbourne for two seasons now in a primary role and his numbers reflect what he has done throughout his career.

I'm clearly not on the Buckley bandwagon, but for mine the only error in judgement he made was to persist with Dawes in that role for so long (much the same as he's doing with Blair and Goldsack now). Past performance can only keep you going for so long and Dawes either needed some tough love 4-6 weeks before he was dropped or you cut your losses and move him into the secondary forward role then go with Wood earlier.

Unfortunately for Dawes he just never reached the ceiling that many foresaw for him post 2010.

 

[TradeDraft]

Not particularly no.

Dawes has been at Melbourne for two seasons now in a primary role and his numbers reflect what he has done throughout his career.

I'm clearly not on the Buckley bandwagon, but for mine the only error in judgement he made was to persist with Dawes in that role for so long (much the same as he's doing with Blair and Goldsack now). Past performance can only keep you going for so long and Dawes either needed some tough love 4-6 weeks before he was dropped or you cut your losses and move him into the secondary forward role then go with Wood earlier.

Unfortunately for Dawes he just never reached the ceiling that many foresaw for him post 2010.

Agree - Keeping Dawes in the Ruck when it was Obvious even to the Blind that he was a Useless Ruckman.

I rather we tried Ceglar that year in that 3rd Tall/Ruck Position

Lot of Players have not reached the Celling that the 2010/2011 Season Promised they might reach.

Plus Dawes and Bucks Relationship was not very good

 

[10571z]

Agree - Keeping Dawes in the Ruck when it was Obvious even to the Blind that he was a Useless Ruckman.

I rather we tried Ceglar that year in that 3rd Tall/Ruck Position

Lot of Players have not reached the Celling that the 2010/2011 Season Promised they might reach.

Plus Dawes and Bucks Relationship was not very good

Now look at what ceglar has become! Killing it

 

[frizzle]

Unless we have another player request a move to another club I can't see us being active during tradeweek.

I hope you're right because what we have traded for or brought to the club as a free agent in the last few years has been pretty ordinary.