One player does not make a team.Giants are in a tough spot. If Coniglio leaves, it could open the floodgates for Kelly and Whitfield to leave. If Coniglio does decide to leave, I'd try organise long-term deals for Kelly and Whitfield. If they aren't committed to the club long-term, I would off-load them as I would want my players to be fuly committed to the club. You'd get a better return now then if you were to wait until next season and have them leave in Free agency. Both would command 2 firsts and a mid level player from which ever club wants them. I know it is risky and puts you back but it gives you more assets as you want a club to have players who want to play for you. Not a club that leaks 2-3 good players each season.
No it doesn't, however, if Kelly and Whitfield are hesitant long-term, and see cogs having success at another club, I guarantee they'd both be chances to leave next season. Which is why I'd have a chat with them and see how committed to the club they are.One player does not make a team.
For the next 2-3 years can see them topping up with out of favour senior ruckman. Maybe Jacobs this year, Stef Martin 2021 etc. Then their project options - namely Flynn- should have pushed past into the number 1 role. Would expect the Giants want him to focus on rehab leading into 2021 where it becomes a O'Brien v Jacobs selection case.Ive been saying this for a couple of years: Not having a quality small forward alongside Greene has cost them a flag the last few years.
And they need a ruckman. And Davis isnt getting any younger, and rucks and KPP take a couple of years. Not sure if they have anyone at NEAFL level waiting for the chance.
How are they going to see Cogs have success at another club?No it doesn't, however, if Kelly and Whitfield are hesitant long-term, and see cogs having success at another club, I guarantee they'd both be chances to leave next season. Which is why I'd have a chat with them and see how committed to the club they are.
If we off-load them now, what success will they see Cogs achieve at another club?If they aren't committed to the club long-term, I would off-load them as I would want my players to be fuly committed to the club. You'd get a better return now then if you were to wait until next season and have them leave in Free agency.
Im not concerned in any of the ones you mentioned bar Whitfield and Kelly. Kelly especially as he has been heavily linked to North in the past. I just think you should at least talk to them to know where their head is at.Cogs leaving, while painful if it happens, won't be the end of the club.
Haynes and Greene are lifers.
Davis, Ward, Hopper, Taranto, HH, Finlayson, Taylor, Hill, Kelly all going nowhere.
Flynn and Briggs are our long term rucks. Need a Mid aged Ruck to cover till they are ready.
Our only issue this trade period really.
We are no one man club.
Me talking to them won't do much, but I'm sure the club is into them and in dialogue. Especially Whitfield with his contract ending next year.Im not concerned in any of the ones you mentioned bar Whitfield and Kelly. Kelly especially as he has been heavily linked to North in the past. I just think you should at least talk to them to know where their head is at.
Really like the way the Giants have managed their list, they have lost players which was to be expected and dealt with that professionally by trading players out and using those picks to spread the age profile. Happily helped players who weren't getting opportunities get to the club of their choice and have managed to keep most of the players they really wanted.One player does not make a team.
The Sydney recruiter made it clear before the draft on the afl.com.au draft show that they weren't going to bid for the sake of bidding and would only bid if they felt he was the best choice at their selection.All year we've been hearing about how good Tom Green is, and how he's just as good as the top two picks Matt Rowell and Noah Anderson. GWS spent a ton of draft currency just to trade their way up ahead of Sydney and Adelaide just to ensure they could select a player before a bid came through for Green.
So why did he last all the way to pick 10?
Considering the sacrifices GWS had to make just to get pick 4, there is no way they weren't going to leave tonight without Green + a top 5 pick. A simple bid from Sydney or Adelaide, who were perpetually linked to Green, would've 100% resulted in GWS matching, leaving them with a deficit next year, which would've been a first.
Yet somehow, this superstar junior who plays like Patrick Cripps drifts all the way out to 10. How exactly? It's not like Sydney, Adelaide and Fremantle wouldn't have loved a player like Green, and even if they didn't, it's a free swing that forces GWS to pile on the points debt. So it begs the question: did the AFL step in behind the scenes to provide leeway for their project again? Going into deficit would've heavily compromised GWS's offseason in 11 months time, especially after already trading their future first to Adelaide, and naturally, this wouldn't please the AFL.
I mean, Fremantle selected Caleb Serong, an inside midfield who is almost universally rated lower than Green. How can such a decision be explained outside the notion of the AFL asking them not to bid on Green, or else...
You just wait till once the Darwin academy/zone starts bearing fruit for the Suns, sooner rather than laterI don't think there's any funny business here. But the GWS talent cycle continues, another elite kid(s) gotten for a good price, sooner or later some other elite players will be forced out or ask for a trade, they will get in more first rounders and the cycle continues.
They really do have a ridiculously talented list.
I'm not a big fan of these academies for any club, don't feel it's improving anything.