Recommitted Scott Lycett and Callum Sinclair

[new breed]

Only other place Lycett would go is to a SA team .

I cannot see him leaving West Coast other then home to SA

 

[miggs]

who would the eagles rather keep? Sinclair or Lycett. Hypothetical obviously as i dont see us getting either. Leuy will be a swan next year

 

[new breed]

who would the eagles rather keep? Sinclair or Lycett. Hypothetical obviously as i dont see us getting either. Leuy will be a swan next year

They are both very handy players , Sinclair more consistent for me though .
Lycett has quality as seen against Hawthorn when Sinclair and NicNat were out of the team Round 21 .

 

[JackOutback]

Sinclair has been something of a revelation this year, pushed Lycett out of the team and kept him out. But Lycett is younger and is a true ruckman, so he would have more value.

 

[giantsully]

Sinclair has been something of a revelation this year, pushed Lycett out of the team and kept him out. But Lycett is younger and is a true ruckman, so he would have more value.

He was certainly a revelation on Saturday. The revelation that we could pluck the first big bloke off the street to have more impact than him.

 

[JackOutback]

He was certainly a revelation on Saturday. The revelation that we could pluck the first big bloke off the street to have more impact than him.

Oh well, one bad game, guess we should just give him away

We don't mind if you don't want him, we'll be keeping him.

 

[Kony Abbott]

He was certainly a revelation on Saturday. The revelation that we could pluck the first big bloke off the street to have more impact than him.

Lewis Jetta didn't exactly set the world on fire in the 2014 GF either....

 

[browncow]

I'd rather we kept both, but there is no way I would give up Lycett.
In my opinion he is in a different league to Sinclair as a pure ruck.
Granted Sinclair has had a great season and at this point in time is a better forward than Lycett, but if push came to shove, I think we could afford to lose Sinclair more than we can Lycett.

 

[Johnno22]

He was certainly a revelation on Saturday. The revelation that we could pluck the first big bloke off the street to have more impact than him.

Short memory bloke.
WC vs Sydney Round 19

Sinclair:
21 Possessions
9 marks
29 Hitouts
2 Tackles
1 Goal

Pyke and the Nano Chip (Combined)
12 Possessions
9 Marks
0 Tackles
21 Hitouts
0 Goals.

By the way Natanui also had 41 hitouts.

Want to rethink that post?

 

[Jumpoff Joey]

Richmond should be into a ruck imo. Maric is nearly done and Hampson will likely be delisted at the end of 2016.

Natanui, Lycett and Sinclair are all unlikely to play in the same side at once. What sort of deal would it take to get Sinclair or Lycett?
Who would be worth more to West Coast at the trade table?

IMO Lycett would be worth more than Sinkers to West Coast, 4 year deal, 22 years old plenty of potential, just couldnt get a game this year because of injury and Sinclair has been brilant for us.

Couldn't tell you Sinclair's worth because he is more of a 2nd ruck that plays forward - maybe 2nd round pick?

 

[TwentyNine]

What's with all the WCE fans complaining about a lack of ruck depth? You have three ruckmen who would all be comfortable as starters at AFL level. Show me a single side in the league that has better ruck depth than that.

imo asking for a trade would be Lycett's smart move. He's good enough to be a no. 1 ruckman but isn't getting that opportunity at WCE.

 

[kane249]

What's with all the WCE fans complaining about a lack of ruck depth? You have three ruckmen who would all be comfortable as starters at AFL level. Show me a single side in the league that has better ruck depth than that.

imo asking for a trade would be Lycett's smart move. He's good enough to be a no. 1 ruckman but isn't getting that opportunity at WCE.

You need depth, the best example of this was when we played the Hawks and Naitanui and Sinclair both missed. Lycett rucked solo that night and was supported by McGovern and Yeo.

We are hording talent a bit having all 3, but when they are the only 3 on the list you need to be protective of what you have.

 

[TwentyNine]

You need depth, the best example of this was when we played the Hawks and Naitanui and Sinclair both missed. Lycett rucked solo that night and was supported by McGovern and Yeo.

We are hording talent a bit having all 3, but when they are the only 3 on the list you need to be protective of what you have.

Don't get me wrong, it's great to have that depth, but Eagles fans are acting like they've got no rucking depth whatsoever when they probably have the best depth of actually startable ruckmen in the league.

You can't reasonably expect players on your list who could get a regular game in most sides in the league to stay on your list as depth.

 

[pantskyle]

Don't get me wrong, it's great to have that depth, but Eagles fans are acting like they've got no rucking depth whatsoever when they probably have the best depth of actually startable ruckmen in the league.

You can't reasonably expect players on your list who could get a regular game in most sides in the league to stay on your list as depth.

More likely down to the concern of Naitanui having past injury issues so we are reluctant to lose one.

If Naita stays fit then it isn't an issue.

 

[Apex Predators]

Don't get me wrong, it's great to have that depth, but Eagles fans are acting like they've got no rucking depth whatsoever when they probably have the best depth of actually startable ruckmen in the league.

You can't reasonably expect players on your list who could get a regular game in most sides in the league to stay on your list as depth.

Why can't we? Lycett is contracted for 3 more years and Sinclair is contracted as well. Why would we willingly give them away and expose ourselves to injury risk if we don't have to, or unless a deal too good to be true comes along? This does not seem unreasonable to me.

By your way of thinking, it would be unreasonable for clubs to hold onto anyone in the 23-30 range of a top 4 club when they could easily get a game in the bottom 4 clubs.

The only ones driving these rumours about Lycett and Sinclair at this stage are sides that are desperate for a decent ruckman. The only thing to come out of the Eagles is that Sinclair said he is not going anywhere and nothing has been said about Lycett from the Eagles camp. Three more years under contract suggests the Eagles will make the decision on Lycett, irrespective of some rabble rousing by clubs thinking their want away mids should net them a solid and ready to go ruck prospect.

 

[TwentyNine]

Why can't we? Lycett is contracted for 3 more years and Sinclair is contracted as well. Why would we willingly give them away and expose ourselves to injury risk if we don't have to, or unless a deal too good to be true comes along? This does not seem unreasonable to me.

By your way of thinking, it would be unreasonable for clubs to hold onto anyone in the 23-30 range of a top 4 club when they could easily get a game in the bottom 4 clubs.

The only ones driving these rumours about Lycett and Sinclair at this stage are sides that are desperate for a decent ruckman. The only thing to come out of the Eagles is that Sinclair said he is not going anywhere and nothing has been said about Lycett from the Eagles camp. Three more years under contract suggests the Eagles will make the decision on Lycett, irrespective of some rabble rousing by clubs thinking their want away mids should net them a solid and ready to go ruck prospect.

It would not seem unreasonable if you look at them as assets rather than people. But they are people, they have desires, to play AFL football, and if they can do that elsewhere but not where they currently are, they will eventually realise that, and ask for a trade - then the Eagles will trade them, contract or no.

If they want to stay then by all means the club has no reason to trade them but if they ask for trades - which may or may not happen - then it will happen.

Top four clubs lose fringe players to the bottom clubs all the time. Look at say Shane Savage for example.

If players have the choice between being depth at one club or a starter at another club, they will take the latter everytime - mark my words, it may not be this year, but there is no way you will retain all three of Naitanui, Sinclair and Lycett longterm.

 

[Apex Predators]

It would not seem unreasonable if you look at them as assets rather than people. But they are people, they have desires, to play AFL football, and if they can do that elsewhere but not where they currently are, they will eventually realise that, and ask for a trade - then the Eagles will trade them, contract or no.

If they want to stay then by all means the club has no reason to trade them but if they ask for trades - which may or may not happen - then it will happen.

Top four clubs lose fringe players to the bottom clubs all the time. Look at say Shane Savage for example.

If players have the choice between being depth at one club or a starter at another club, they will take the latter everytime - mark my words, it may not be this year, but there is no way you will retain all three of Naitanui, Sinclair and Lycett longterm.

And many a player has been willing to bide their time to compete for spots in good sides, playing and being around their mates, so I take your 'they will take the latter every time' comment as an over generalisation.

As for looking at them as people rather than assets, maybe you need to have a chat with Aaron Black. I am sure he can give you the rundown on how it feels to be locked into a long term contract only to see his club recruit a 33 year old to take his spot. Oh, but that's right, he is asking for a trade confirming your theory.

In the absence of Lycett asking for a trade, we have time to see how he develops and determine where he fits in the long-term. But even if he does ask for a trade, he would not be the first that we just say no to. Therefore, as I said it would be the clubs decision. As I said, Sinclair has publicly stated he is going no-where.

 

[TwentyNine]

And many a player has been willing to bide their time to compete for spots in good sides, playing and being around their mates, so I take your 'they will take the latter every time' comment as an over generalisation.

As for looking at them as people rather than assets, maybe you need to have a chat with Aaron Black. I am sure he can give you the rundown on how it feels to be locked into a long term contract only to see his club recruit a 33 year old to take his spot. Oh, but that's right, he is asking for a trade confirming your theory.

In the absence of Lycett asking for a trade, we have time to see how he develops and determine where he fits in the long-term. But even if he does ask for a trade, he would not be the first that we just say no to. Therefore, as I said it would be the clubs decision. As I said, Sinclair has publicly stated he is going no-where.

Very well, they take the latter 99% of the time.

Not that it's at all relevant to a thread about West Coast players, but if Black wants to play AFL football he should consider being better at it. If he asks for a trade I am sure we will help him find a new home, which is treating him like a person, not an asset. Choosing to play someone who is better than him over him is treating him like any other footballer on the list.

I agree Sinclair won't leave but I think Lycett is 50/50. You may well say no to that, and that does work on very rare occasions like it did with Mitch Brown. I stand by what I said though, you will lose one of the three eventually - they can't all play in the same side and they're all good enough to play AFL every week.

 

[doona]

Only other place Lycett would go is to a SA team .

I cannot see him leaving West Coast other then home to SA

I could.

If Lycett wanted to play week in, week out he would go to a club guaranteeing the no. 1 ruck spot. Kind of like Jolly who left Melbourne for Sydney, played a few years then returned to Melbourne.

I don't think you will trade either Ruckman, but there is a possibility if a club gets in his ear.

A lot of players like JK3 leave clubs were they can't get a game, to go to a club where they will play.

Something will probably give at some point, but not this year. I reckon Lycett will stay to try and out Sinclair. But in the next couple of years, chances are you will loose one.

 

[new breed]

I could.

If Lycett wanted to play week in, week out he would go to a club guaranteeing the no. 1 ruck spot. Kind of like Jolly who left Melbourne for Sydney, played a few years then returned to Melbourne.

I don't think you will trade either Ruckman, but there is a possibility if a club gets in his ear.

A lot of players like JK3 leave clubs were they can't get a game, to go to a club where they will play.

Something will probably give at some point, but not this year. I reckon Lycett will stay to try and out Sinclair. But in the next couple of years, chances are you will loose one.

Not referring to the opportunities it would give Lycett to play more games , rather his quiet nature ( Sydney , nooooo ) .

Scotty Lycett's Fostered home in Perth has influenced Scott a great deal also and I heard he has been audained in the Catholic Church alongside his Perth Fostered ( West Coast Family ) .

Dont think he would like Sydney at all and grew up in a SA & WA border town . ( Sydney noooo )

 

[doona]

Not referring to the opportunities it would give Lycett to play more games , rather his quiet nature ( Sydney , nooooo ) .

Scotty Lycett's Fostered home in Perth has influenced Scott a great deal also and I heard he has been audained in the Catholic Church alongside his Perth Fostered ( West Coast Family ) .

Dont think he would like Sydney at all and grew up in a SA & WA border town . ( Sydney noooo )

Jep JK3 had absolutely no ties to Melbourne. Don't think he ever knew anyone who played for or supported the Hawks. Don't think his family was from there either

Heaps of players leave, with strong ties to the place they are from, for the opportunity to play AFL. An AFL career is not very long.

P.s. Like I said, don't think they will trade this year, or necessarily get to the swans but in the next couple of years something could happen.

 

[pantskyle]

Sydney can be right into Lycetts ear but its not him they need to do a deal with.

Only 12 months ago we put him on a long term contract which he signed. I'm certain he'll back himself over the preseason to be best 22 and second ruck.

Any offer would have to blow him and us away.

 

[Tedeski]

Short memory bloke.
WC vs Sydney Round 19

Sinclair:
21 Possessions
9 marks
29 Hitouts
2 Tackles
1 Goal

Pyke and the Nano Chip (Combined)
12 Possessions
9 Marks
0 Tackles
21 Hitouts
0 Goals.

By the way Natanui also had 41 hitouts.

Want to rethink that post?

If we had DRex available he would have toweled them both up that day.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Jep JK3 had absolutely no ties to Melbourne. Don't think he ever knew anyone who played for or supported the Hawks. Don't think his family was from there either

Heaps of players leave, with strong ties to the place they are from, for the opportunity to play AFL. An AFL career is not very long.

P.s. Like I said, don't think they will trade this year, or necessarily get to the swans but in the next couple of years something could happen.

I expect Lycett to cement his ruck spot over Sinclair next year as long he is over his op.
But Nicnat will never play 23 round season he will always miss a few games every year
So all three will get games.
Lycett excels at boundary throw ins something nicnat isn't as strong at, so they compliment each other very nicely.

But wouldn't trade either this year.

It would have to be something heavily in favour of WCE to happen.

Something like

Jetta and pick 14 to WCE
and
Sinclair and 17 to Sydney

Otherwise Sydney will get the Selwood compo pick.

Interesting media is saying Sydney is more interested in Sinclair than Lycett.

 

[doona]

I expect Lycett to cement his ruck spot over Sinclair next year as long he is over his op.
But Nicnat will never play 23 round season he will always miss a few games every year
So all three will get games.
Lycett excels at boundary throw ins something nicnat isn't as strong at, so they compliment each other very nicely.

But wouldn't trade either this year.

It would have to be something heavily in favour of WCE to happen.

Something like

Jetta and pick 14 to WCE
and
Sinclair and 17 to Sydney

Otherwise Sydney will get the Selwood compo pick.

Interesting media is saying Sydney is more interested in Sinclair than Lycett.

To be honest, would probably do that deal. Our first is going to be used on Mills, so as long as we have enough points at the end of the trade period I'd be happy.

West coast could make out like bandits though using our next year's picks in some swapping so we can get Mills, you get upgraded picks that you can use next year.

For example, your second this year, for our second next etc... Plus more