List Review

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
This is all well and good, but sometimes good players have to be sacrificed. Cousins, Gardiner and Judd are probably the only untouchables. Everyone else has a price. Fletcher's would be very high at the moment.

Agree 100% with that, Cousins, Gardiner and Judd are the only guys on our list I wouldn't trade, unless we were offeered something, majorly inflated over the value, I.e. Riewoldt plus Goddard for Gardiner or something like that, which just ain't gonna happen.

 

[ozzult]

Fletcher would be asking for a fair salary after his almost-AA selection form this year.

If Hawks are gonna trade Hay for salary cap reasons (as has been said), if Fletcher is gonna be asking for decent dollars, whats the point in the trade?

What is Hay supposed to be on per year?

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by ozzult
Fletcher would be asking for a fair salary after his almost-AA selection form this year.

If Hawks are gonna trade Hay for salary cap reasons (as has been said), if Fletcher is gonna be asking for decent dollars, whats the point in the trade?

What is Hay supposed to be on per year?

I'd say Hay is on something like 300K a year, but when his contract comes to an end after 2004, I'd be suprised if could demand much more than 200K.

Fletcher for the short term wouldn't be on much, and I don't know when his contract comes up for review, but if it was after 2004, I think he may wait till it finishes before asking for any hefty pay rise.

From how I can gather it would work, say he's on about 130K now, and after 2004, he wants to be on 250K. And he knows he could probably demand 200K after the season he has had this year.

So if at the end of this year he has two options:
a) Ask for a pay rise for the final year of contract of 200K or
b) Wait till his contract finishes than ask for 250K for 3 years.

If he takes (a) than doesn't improve further on his 2003 season he won't be able to ask for 250K and be a realistic chance of getting it for his new contract.

If he takes (b) and his 2004 form is similar to his 2003 form, he will probably be able to ask for 250K a year, and be fairly confident he'd get it.

But that is assuming his contract ends after 2004, which I think it does, but I may be wrong.

don't know if i explained that well either.....

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
PS get over it. You can come and stalk me all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have been posting crap for the last 3 years.

Not stalking, just rebutting the nonesense you continually spout. But at least I respect the fact that your allowed an opinion.
And as you have only been on these boards for two years there goes another piece of Bunsen Bollux.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Frodo
Not stalking, just rebutting the nonesense you continually spout.

You haven't pointed out anything stupid that I have said yet. You've tried about 20 times though.

And as you have only been on these boards for two years there goes another piece of Bunsen Bollux.

And I used to post on the Sportal West Coast site for about a year before that. It seems that you're really struggling to make me look stupid.

PS If you're wondering why I don't have anything to say about you - I don't need to. I said it in one paragraph a few weeks ago and that seems to be enough.

 

[Captain Random]

Originally posted by Frodo
So speaks our resident 'expert' who would trade Fletcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reality is that we need a top class ruckman, and we have Gardy, and a reasonable backup. Of course Cox is very serviceable in the ruck and very mobile, particularly filling in a hole in defence. But he may well want to be a No1 ruckman at another club. And we have two exceptional young talents in Seaby and Beeck. How do we develop these two if we don't let Cox go?

I don't understand that logic - let our present second-string ruckman go and throw away two years to develop another second-string ruckman to the same point. Excuse me, but why?

Cox has two years of AFL under his belt, and has proven himself to be a very good ruckman. He has carried the ruck for us on occasion. He's not going to be another Gardiner, but that's okay, and if he was another Gardiner we'd never keep him. If he can stay at the Eagles and get consistent game time, why would he move? And why move him on for a bloke untried at AFL level?

I have been of the view that Seaby could well be a superb bargaining chip to get Hay. But reading today's paper, maybe a key possie is the way to go.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by carneagles
I don't understand that logic - let our present second-string ruckman go and throw away two years to develop another second-string ruckman to the same point. Excuse me, but why?

Cox has two years of AFL under his belt, and has proven himself to be a very good ruckman. He has carried the ruck for us on occasion. He's not going to be another Gardiner, but that's okay, and if he was another Gardiner we'd never keep him. If he can stay at the Eagles and get consistent game time, why would he move? And why move him on for a bloke untried at AFL level?

I have been of the view that Seaby could well be a superb bargaining chip to get Hay. But reading today's paper, maybe a key possie is the way to go.

The logic is based upon Hawthorn needing a ruckman and being more likely to trade Hay for Cox than an unproven player.

I mean, if you were the Hawks coach and needed a ruckman would you trade Hay for Seaby?

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You haven't pointed out anything stupid that I have said yet. You've tried about 20 times though.

Try reading instead of looking at the pictures.

.............and suggesting trading Fletcher is not stupid eh

 

[drexel]

You have to take risks to improve the list. We have Seaby and Beeck with big wraps. Also assume Gardiner will ruck most of the time anyway. If Cox can get us Hay, then I'm sure West Coast will do that deal.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Frodo
Try reading instead of looking at the pictures.

.............and suggesting trading Fletcher is not stupid eh

It's not stupid, but it is an option. I never said he should definitely be traded - I just said that he is one of our top players who isn't untouchable.

Do you think our list is good enough to win a flag? If we were to trade for a KPP, who would you give up?

 

[Captain Random]

Originally posted by Frodo
The logic is based upon Hawthorn needing a ruckman and being more likely to trade Hay for Cox than an unproven player.

I mean, if you were the Hawks coach and needed a ruckman would you trade Hay for Seaby?

I'd trade Hay for a deal that includes Seaby. Especially given that I'd be desperate for a ruckman, and also given the fact that my salary cap is feeling more strain than Joffa's strides.

Cox is worth too much to us.

 

[Exeter]

IMO Seaby should definitely not be traded - Beeck or Lynch yes, but not Seaby. This bloke is going to be a top shelf ruck / kpp and the Eagles will look to blood him next year - has had a great year with the Cardies.

If we want Hay (which I'm unsure about) lets not throw away such a talent