List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread

[gringo2011]

Yeah I'm not sure we really need a other ruck. Marhall looks like he'll be a quality player and Billy is good enough to sit in the VFL and use in case of emergency.

Not too many clubs going around with 2 quality ruckmen on their list so unless someone pops up that is an improvement on Billy and costs stuff all I wouldn't be too worried about chasing another ruck.

Dal Santo works at the Saints, he said Marshall ideally goes into the forward line and rucks part time. He said we need to look at an experienced ruck to bring in. Pretty much said Longer/ Pierce aren't good enough.

 

[gringo2011]

Man, you are in for some hurt, then.

The thong I don't understand is that if we keep players and they don't improve, the club gets accused of sticking with plodder.

We can't have it both ways.

If we simply keep players to maintain harmony, and it costs us the opportunity to improve the list then we might as well fold.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. IMO

We don't have much on our list but kids and older limited players or close to retirees. We have used future picks to bring in lemons and now have the issues of wanting to remove guys like Acres who are still high potential. I'm not going to get hurt, every year I expect the worst and we usually only **** about half of it up. It is what it is. At least Trout is gone, we have one less idiot in the building.

 

[VDS66]

I can’t wait.. so many grenades..

 

[hayes]

Yeah I'm not sure we really need a other ruck. Marhall looks like he'll be a quality player and Billy is good enough to sit in the VFL and use in case of emergency.

Not too many clubs going around with 2 quality ruckmen on their list so unless someone pops up that is an improvement on Billy and costs stuff all I wouldn't be too worried about chasing another ruck.

I agree Marshall is the man but the back up can’t be Longer it’s just too much of a negative. Modern ruck replaced by the dinosaur type is a killer, if we can just find someone on the cheap who can compete once the ball hits the deck I’d be satisfied.

 

[plugger66]

Where did this idea that we have tall depth come from?

Forwards over 190cm we have Bruce (solid and reliable), Paddy (who may never play again), King (who has never played and is coming off a knee reco), and some new kid that 4 weeks ago was playing WAFL reserves. That's it!

Key backman we have Carlisle (long term back problems), Brown (north of 30), and Rowe (also north of 30 and was playing state league a month ago).

We do have plenty of mid-size backs, but Clav, Joyce, Battle, Wilkie, Marsh, Austin and Coff don't really have the height or build to play the main KPD on someone like a Kennedy / Cox / Daniher - or take a resting Ruck. Joyce maybe at a stretch, but he is a walking free kick. Clav maybe down the road, but for now he is the best part of 20kg lighter than Brown (who is often undersized anyway) and he was drafted as a 3rd tall. Austin is realistically the best option, but this coach is not going to play him.

Sure Battle and Membery can pinch hit as key talls, but no way we can rely on that week in week out if we want to challenge. Realistically there needs to be two big bodied KPP options at either end realistically available for selection, and at least another one or two depth / developing options running around in the seconds. That would be depth. Assuming Paddy and Rowe retire (and Brown too in the next year or so) that conservatively leaves us 4 KPP's light.

Ask yourself this. Next year, who plays on Daniher or Cox if Carlisle is injured? An almost 32yo Brown? A 31yo Rowe? A backman like Clav, Joyce, Battle, Marsh or Wilkie that have all played less than 20 games and much more importantly would give away at least 15cm and 15kg? They are third tall options. Second in a crisis. Maybe instead we swing Marshall back and ruck Longer full time? Ouch!

Seriously, where did this idea of tall depth come from? Look forward a year and the genuine KPP's that we can reliably count on being ready to play are Bruce and Carlisle. 3 if you include King (and that is a big if as he has only played 3 VFL games and is coming off a knee reco). That's maybe half what we need. After that you are really stretching the definition of a ready to go KPP to include anyone else. We actually have zero tall depth and that is a big part of why our seconds get flogged most weeks they play AFL aligned sides.

Bing would be a really great start, but we also have to find another one or two other genuine KPP options ASAP

We have more depth in talls than we do in mids and talls aren't as required as they once were. Wasting another first rounder on a tall is complete madness. If we had the midfiels close to the pies this year we would be just about flag favourites.

 

[CaptainRisky]

Yeah Caldwell's body is a huge concern. Just managed to get back playing recently and did a calf on the weekend. Bit of a worry doing calves at that age.

He is obviously not a kiwi

 

[Dr Spaceman]

The thong I don't understand

There's really not that much to it [emoji848]

 

[VDS66]

Not sure, although one thing I am sure about is the cap will be very tight once Coniglio signs so I expect someone to go.

The reason I brought up Bonar is that his contract will go up at the start of next year, putting more pressure on the cap and the fact he can't crack into the 22 light have him looking for opportunities.

They might be desperate to keep him though and choose to let guys like Tomlinson go.

No sure why we would want to give up a first in Bonar who is as untried as anyone in our list.

2nd at best. Firsts should only be traded for established guns, not hyped up potential IMO. Would be suicidal IMO.

As you say, rather get Tommi for no picks, just cash.

On a more general note, I'm seeing the argument put forward that we are coveted in a few positions, so we don't need this type of that.

If the last two years have taught us anything, it's that our depth isn't as good as we thought it was.

So IMO you take every opportunity to improve it. Then if you have quality surplus, you're in a great position to deal at the trade table going forward.

We have to consider that firstly, some of the existing players will make it, and secondly you're only a few injuries away from throwing away the season.

Whilst we have improved this year, we are still mid table at best and lack A grade talent.

Until we fix that, nothing changes.

 

[CaptainRisky]

There's really not that much to it [emoji848]

Fly's eyes comes to mind with that

 

[VDS66]

We don't have much on our list but kids and older limited players or close to retirees. We have used future picks to bring in lemons and now have the issues of wanting to remove guys like Acres who are still high potential. I'm not going to get hurt, every year I expect the worst and we usually only **** about half of it up. It is what it is. At least Trout is gone, we have one less idiot in the building.

Name the lemons...

 

[VDS66]

He is obviously not a kiwi

Yeah, I had to read it twice but...

You gonna shear that seep, mate?

I'm not shearing it with anyone!

 

[bird_man]

Dal Santo works at the Saints, he said Marshall ideally goes into the forward line and rucks part time. He said we need to look at an experienced ruck to bring in. Pretty much said Longer/ Pierce aren't good enough.

Well I disagree with Dal on that one. For a guy that has only rucked for 10 games Marshall has been terrific and At 23 there's still plenty of improvement left in him.

I don't know why we'd think about moving him out of the ruck and I'm not sure where he fits into the forward line when King comes in.

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

We have more depth in talls than we do in mids and talls aren't as required as they once were. Wasting another first rounder on a tall is complete madness. If we had the midfiels close to the pies this year we would be just about flag favourites.

Number of 195+ Collingwood players on their main list = 5
Number of 195+ WCE players with 2018 premiership medals = 6

 

[gringo2011]

Name the lemons...

Not only future picks, traded standing picks too, Freeman, Longer, Hickey. Sold Mc Evoy and Dal Santo compensation pick for Dunny, Acres and Savage. Sold Stanley for H Goddard. Sold the old Goddard and our to pick for Tom Lee and Hickey. The lemons are so many that it's hard to list them all. We have very few picks next year as well because we are always in debt from the previous years.

 

[gringo2011]

Well I disagree with Dal on that one. For a guy that has only rucked for 10 games Marshall has been terrific and At 23 there's still plenty of improvement left in him.

I don't know why we'd think about moving him out of the ruck and I'm not sure where he fits into the forward line when King comes in.

Dal agrees he's gun but I think what he's saying is that if you have a gun who's developed so quickly into a competitive ruck and was better as a forward before, then he's probably equally developed as a forward. You use a numpty in the middle and send your class forward and it fills a need. There is a logic seeing as we are looking like we ned a forward target.

 

[CaptainRisky]

He is obviously not a kiwi

At least two get it lol

 

[luca77]

Not only future picks, traded standing picks too, Freeman, Longer, Hickey. Sold Mc Evoy and Dal Santo compensation pick for Dunny, Acres and Savage. Sold Stanley for H Goddard. Sold the old Goddard and our to pick for Tom Lee and Hickey. The lemons are so many that it's hard to list them all. We have very few picks next year as well because we are always in debt from the previous years.

If it's hard to list them all don't waste precious moments listing Hickey twice!

 

[bird_man]

No sure why we would want to give up a first in Bonar who is as untried as anyone in our list.

2nd at best. Firsts should only be traded for established guns, not hyped up potential IMO. Would be suicidal IMO.

As you say, rather get Tommi for no picks, just cash.

On a more general note, I'm seeing the argument put forward that we are coveted in a few positions, so we don't need this type of that.

If the last two years have taught us anything, it's that our depth isn't as good as we thought it was.

So IMO you take every opportunity to improve it. Then if you have quality surplus, you're in a great position to deal at the trade table going forward.

We have to consider that firstly, some of the existing players will make it, and secondly you're only a few injuries away from throwing away the season.

Whilst we have improved this year, we are still mid table at best and lack A grade talent.

Until we fix that, nothing changes.

Our depth is looking pretty good this year when you consider how massive our injury list is.

We've added Wilkie, Kent, Parker, Marsh, Young and Hind since last year.

We need top end talent more than anything, but I'm not saying we shouldn't get good depth players if they are available at the right price.

 

[gringo2011]

If it's hard to list them all don't waste precious moments listing Hickey twice!

List all the guns we've traded and drafted for then.

 

[bird_man]

Dal agrees he's gun but I think what he's saying is that if you have a gun who's developed so quickly into a competitive ruck and was better as a forward before, then he's probably equally developed as a forward. You use a numpty in the middle and send your class forward and it fills a need. There is a logic seeing as we are looking like we ned a forward target.

He's never proven he's a gun forward though. He's proven he's a very good ruckman. Makes no sense to me.

And I don't see Collingwood throwing Grundy forward and putting a numpty in the middle.

 

[gringo2011]

He's never proven he's a gun forward though. He's proven he's a very good ruckman. Makes no sense to me.

And I don't see Collingwood throwing Grundy forward and putting a numpty in the middle.

He was an average ruck last year and an average forward. He started to gain confidence rucking and I agree in principal. He was missing sitters last year but this year from his limited chances he seems to be converting them better. It's not the worst idea. Grundy is different because he plays like a huge mid, he can win his own ball and move through traffic. I think Marshall is more high potential as a KP/ruck than Grundy. Grundy is a superstar and I think Marshall has potential to be one too regardless.

 

[BrutThough]

He was an average ruck last year and an average forward. He started to gain confidence rucking and I agree in principal. He was missing sitters last year but this year from his limited chances he seems to be converting them better. It's not the worst idea. Grundy is different because he plays like a huge mid, he can win his own ball and move through traffic. I think Marshall is more high potential as a KP/ruck than Grundy. Grundy is a superstar and I think Marshall has potential to be one too regardless.

Some of Marshall's strengths is winning his own clearances and his tackling work, making him like an extra midfielder at stoppages.
We lose that if he stick him in the forward line, where he was never that good anyway.

 

[Tommy Wigs]

I absolutely never said we don't need midfielders. I agree we do.

Rather the above was responding to your assertion that we have tall depth. I just don't see how that can be true.

It is absolutely true you don't need to ne 6'5+ to be a good defender. I think JWebb is a great defender. But I dont want to play him on Daniher / Cox / Kennedy etc or a resting ruck. To do that you do need to be 6'5+ otherwise you get murdered in the air

Its the problem being pointed out here



We have far too many of the same types. Take our backline. Not counting players over 30 we have:

HBF / BP options (10): Coff, Sav, Geary, Webb, White, Newnes, Rice, Paton, DMac, Hind
3rd tall options (6): Battle, Clav, Joyce, Marsh and I will call Robbo and Wilkie an option here too
Key defender options (2): Carlisle, Austin (maybe although plays closer to a 3rd than a genuine KPP)

Can argue one or two either way, but regardless of exact categorisations that leaves us very short on ready to play tall options (ie depth) and very heavy on flankers in the back half.

Delisting Goddard meant that without Carlisle our options as key defenders are either 30+ (Brown / Rowe), nowhere near ready to play regularly (Clav, Joyce), or are undersized and very likely to get absolutely monstered by anyone 200cm+ and 100kg+ (Marsh, Battle). Anything else is just posters saying that (insert player here who has never really played AFL) will be a long term option for us. Its closer to hopes and dreams than anything tangible.

And that's without touching our forwardline group which outside of Bruce is either likely to retire (Paddy) or been at the club a few weeks and have never played a game of AFL in their life (King / Mayo).

Hence the above comment by Mikka. We have a ridiculous amount of flankers and 3rd talls on our list.

Yes we need to draft mids, but its not an either / or when it comes to fixing our list. We are also going to have to find KPP's from somewhere, because looking forward Carlisle, Bruce and maybe King is simply not enough. That's the price we are paying for not being able to draft AND develop a single genuinely good key tall in over 15 years!

Someone like Clav may break that trend. Fingers crossed. But to just rely on the talls we have would be negligent. Who is our main tall forward if Bruce breaks his leg tomorrow?

Austbury or Tomlinson may work as FA options (replacing Brown). Roberts noted above can also work as handy depth.

Keath, Day Weideman and Wright are also OOC (and have varying levels of appeal without being superstars). But my guess is that most people will look at that list and say they don't want any of those 7 options for some reason or other (which usually ends with I would rather have Rance , Talia or some other star that is completely unattainable). But realistically that is we are going to have to find some options, as the good KPP's are all signed up long-term.

After that our options are either too old and only 1 year fixes (Henderson, Reid, Frawley), quite average (Hartley, M.Brown, Shoenmakers, Frost, Durdin) or again stretching the definition of a KPP (Marchbank, Logue, Buntine)

The best OOC tall options in the league are probably Carlisle and Marshall!

So we either overpay to get a contracted young tall from somewhere (Hence Stewart's call above to go after Bing every year between now and 2022) or if we cant do that, yes we will have to draft KPP's. People wont like it, but given we are conservatively 3 KPP's short moving forward (and talls take longer to develop) that is the reality.

I don’t think it’s nearly as dire as all that. But you’re asking for a better and more diverse and deep list - of course! No one would dispute that.

But my original point was really about Bing, whether tall depth is true or not. He’s not fixing that for some time. Anyway, good analysis. Maybe they bring you in to help smooth out the concentrations on the list (actually, didn’t Lethers claim that we had done that?).

 

[VDS66]

Not only future picks, traded standing picks too, Freeman, Longer, Hickey. Sold Mc Evoy and Dal Santo compensation pick for Dunny, Acres and Savage. Sold Stanley for H Goddard. Sold the old Goddard and our to pick for Tom Lee and Hickey. The lemons are so many that it's hard to list them all. We have very few picks next year as well because we are always in debt from the previous years.

OK...

The first three are currently best 22.

The next few we can argue compromised drafts. But so tell how many from other clubs made it.

Freeman, yes. Longer, yes. Goddard and Paddy unforeseen injuries. Not the only club there.

So who else did we sell our future for?

What about the players we got for peanuts?

Robbo, Willkie and Membrey?

Jake was a ripper trade.

Over to you...

 

[Mikka84]

Name the lemons...