The eagles are already rebuilding...

[archiemoses]

We must be ruthless in the review of our list at season's end and some changes need to be made. Players need to be cut and traded in order to secure a few decent picks in the draft.

The number of injuries and senior players in poor form has forced the eagles to blood a number of youngsters. When was the last time from memory that the eagles introduced so many first gamers in a season??

I think the injury situation has forced the eagles hand and now they have written off this season and focused on fast tracking the development of our younger brigade.

And of course the eagles realise the value of draft picks in this ywear's draft. Agressive drafting and trading next year would be pointless as the gold coast get heavy concessions affecting the quality of the draft.

Eagles will be eyeing two high picks and will consider trading agressively to attain these. They would be silly not to. The rise of the bulldogs and geelong have had after thorough reviews and wholesale changes is for all to see.

If there was a time, the time is now. I think it needs to be done. Who knows where we could be as soon as next year??

 

[greennick]

I think we are definitely rebuilding, though we need to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I have a few points on the above. Firstly, isn't the Gold Coast coming in in 2011? That means we also have the 2009 draft. So, if we are shit next year too we get the PP. Secondly, if we want to trade a few players, would their value not be a little higher when the GC team is starting up. I don't think they will be as daft as Freo, giving us the pick we got Wirra with for a bloke who was rubbish, but you never know. Thirdly, both Geelong and the Doggies were not created by wholesale changes. Both teams got a stack of good players over 4-6 years of being shit. Geelong lucked out with a few good father/son picks which cost them nothing, a few good pick-ups over the years from their lowish picks and the picks from trading their captain. After a few years of underachieving, they came out more fired up than ever last year. There weren't really any wholesale changes though. The Doggies main revival has happened due to a few players coming back from injury (Hahn, Murphy, etc), increased bulk (longer preseason and more personal training) and a few cheap gets (Callan, Hudson, Walsh, etc).

What about us?

I think we can take a little from all of this. There are a few players we need to get rid of. Most of these are obvious, we will not win another premiership with Fletcher, Braun, Staker, etc in the team. There are probably another few players we should consider moving on because we should get above market value for them (Seaby, I am looking at you, maybe Embley too). I don't think we will do this though, because we never do. It will be nice if we can get 4 picks in the top 20 (I guess we are already on target for 3, but the issue is who would be dumb enough to take some of our rubbish players for a high pick?). Because of this, I don't think we can really count on trading, as we never do it. So, apart from trading, this is what I think we need:

• good drafting this year (we can't really go wrong with this draft though)
• new input into the coaching panel
• a LONG preseason, stacked with loads of strength and fitness
• patience (we've always got next year's draft too )

 

[swingdog]

Not sure we do have next year's draft - all the media talk I've seen is that the next two effectively go to Western Sydney and Gold Coast.

This is the last pure draft for 2 years. The players we end up with at the end of drafting and trading (and this is true for all teams) are the players that will challenge for a flag.

 

[Selgae]

Yes this is the last draft but for what its worth I think we may have a couple of extra rookie spots or something...

The point in giving the new teams all these picks is that they will trade a few of them... So if you want them you gotta give them something...

Also I have heard that the AFL will still provide lowish picks for shite teams over the next couple of years... I know GC has the top 20 QLD players but I am not sure anything else has been confirmed...

 

[sydney eagle]

So the draft AFTER this one (when Gold Coast starts getting concessions) is the time to trade any players that we might want to get rid of !

 

[greennick]

All we know the GC will be taking out of the next draft and the draft after is the kids from Qld, it is doubtful we want any of them.
If they are starting in 2011, what is going to happen with any first round picks they got in Nov 2009? Are they just going to play TAC cup for a year?

Next year will be fine in terms of the Gold Coast. However, next year (2009) they are raising the draft age to 18 at the start of the year, this will dramatically increase the talent pool available to the new club in 2010, when the GC will have picks 1-5 and a bunch of other top 40 picks. Conversely, this will have a negative impact on the draft pool in 2009, where there will only be something like 8 months worth of kids. WC should be talking to the AFL about having them do this split over 2 years, so all of the negative impact is not in one year. This also means the draft would be stronger when the new team came in in Sydney too, so it would make it more fair on the Sydney team. Fairer for all really.

 

[Scotland]

Rebuilding is such a bullshit buzzword.

No shit we are 'rebuilding' in 2008. We were rebuilding in 2007, and 2006, and 2005...

We are crap in 2008, and were good in 2007. That's the distinction. The only reason Houlihan, Davis, Schofield, McNamara, Wilkes etc. are all in the side at once is that we are travelling so badly, and have had key players both injured and horribly out of form. Oh and Judd and Cousins left.

2008 was not pencilled in as a dedicated 'development year'. If it was, where were the blooded youngsters in Rd 1? 2008 has become a 'development year' because we have been shite.

 

[Eagle Ant]

Rebuilding is such a bullshit buzzword.

No shit we are 'rebuilding' in 2008. We were rebuilding in 2007, and 2006, and 2005...

We are crap in 2008, and were good in 2007. That's the distinction. The only reason Houlihan, Davis, Schofield, McNamara, Wilkes etc. are all in the side at once is that we are travelling so badly, and have had key players both injured and horribly out of form. Oh and Judd and Cousins left.

2008 was not pencilled in as a dedicated 'development year'. If it was, where were the blooded youngsters in Rd 1? 2008 has become a 'development year' because we have been shite.

I agree with Scotland.
If we were in the 8 we wouldnt be even talking about this developement.
The fact we are shite is the reason we are blooding the youngsters.
We cant wait til the 09 draft to start trading heavey we have had a bad year and it time to let go some experianced players now!
With the 2 new teams coming in we cant be sure even if we dont win 4 games next year that we wil get a PP seeing as that has yet to be decided by the AFL.
Look lets worry about this year and the players we have now, and lets trade accodingly to that.
This team we have cant win a premiership.
#We have about 6 players over 27 years of age.(and some out of form)
#We have about 5 players under 27 that are out of form.
#We have a talented group of 2nd and 3rd year players struggling for a game.
#We have a couple of players who will want to be traded for personal reasons: going home, new start, out of favour etc.
This is what we have to way up when we trade and delist. If a player is over 27 will they be around our best 22 for our next tilt at glory? if not gone, Will the players out of form improve or are they at there best now and just not able to handle the extra work load?. If not gone.
The guys who want to leave, Trade them no point keeping player that dont want to be here.
Start playing the 1st 2nd 3rd year guys Regularly and see if they are good enough to compete at this level and maybe they might learn somthing playing on some of the guns in the competition.
the players that dont meet this criteria trade, Delist or Retire.
Next year we can be back int the 8 IMO with our core group and all we have to do is build aroud that.
CORE PLAYERS IMO
Glass, Kerr, Cox, Bones, A.Selwood, Waters, Kennedy, Lecras, Lynch, Masten, Wirrapanda and Ebert.
FRINGE PLAYERS and ROOKIES IMO
Brown, Butler, Houlihan, MacKenzie, McGinnity, McNamara, Notte, Priddis, Rosa, Schofield, S.Selwood, Thomson and Spangher.
POSSIBLE TRADES if not Keep.
Embley, *Hurn, Butler, Hunter, *Hansen, Seaby, C.Jones, *B.Mckinley, B.Staker and Stenglein
DEFINENT TRADE OR DELIST/RETIRE
Armstrong, Braun, Fletcher, Nicoski, Graham.
*Some might suprise but a few players have been rumored to have said they want to go. eg HURN, Hansen, Mckinley

FB: Waters, Glass, _______
HB: Bones, ______, _______
C: Ebert, A.Selwood, _______
HF: Lynch, Kennedy, _______
FF: Lecras, _______, Wirrapanda
RR: Cox, Kerr, Masten.
Int: _______, _______, _______, _______

Add Rookies/Fringe and Kept/Drafted players in blank spots.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Players need to be cut and traded in order to secure a few decent picks in the draft.

Well, who are we seriously going to offer during trade week?

We won't trade Cox, Glass or Kerr. Or any of our recent draftees.

I suppose people think we're going to get top 30 picks with Seaby, Staker and Fletcher?

People say, "we should trade for high picks", but probably don't want to part with the cattle required to get them.

Do you want to offer Beau Waters? That would fetch something, but that kind of suggestion would be pretty unpopular.

If people are serious about loading up on high draft picks, they need to come around to the idea of offering something they don't necessarily want to give up.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

*Some might suprise but a few players have been rumored to have said they want to go. eg HURN, Hansen, Mckinley

So why did Hansen just sign a contract extension?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

2008 was not pencilled in as a dedicated 'development year'. If it was, where were the blooded youngsters in Rd 1? 2008 has become a 'development year' because we have been shite.

Yeah - what's your point?

If we were travelling well and playing finals, we'd be fielding a different side. But we're not, so development has become the priority.

No kidding.

 

[West Coast 06]

So why did Hansen just sign a contract extension?

Hurn signed a three year contract in April as well. So two of the three he nominated as wanting out are contracted until 2011. Seems strange.

Or Eagle Ant is full of it.

 

[West Coast 06]

Rebuilding is such a bullshit buzzword.

No shit we are 'rebuilding' in 2008. We were rebuilding in 2007, and 2006, and 2005...

We are crap in 2008, and were good in 2007. That's the distinction. The only reason Houlihan, Davis, Schofield, McNamara, Wilkes etc. are all in the side at once is that we are travelling so badly, and have had key players both injured and horribly out of form. Oh and Judd and Cousins left.

2008 was not pencilled in as a dedicated 'development year'. If it was, where were the blooded youngsters in Rd 1? 2008 has become a 'development year' because we have been shite.

Doesn't help that eight players from round one have missed at least a month with injury since then. Two are gone for the season.

In fact only five players that played round one have played every game this year. Two of those are Cox and Glass who we all know are not 100%.

 

[mikben]

Rebuilding is such a bullshit buzzword.

No shit we are 'rebuilding' in 2008. We were rebuilding in 2007, and 2006, and 2005...

We are crap in 2008, and were good in 2007. That's the distinction. The only reason Houlihan, Davis, Schofield, McNamara, Wilkes etc. are all in the side at once is that we are travelling so badly, and have had key players both injured and horribly out of form. Oh and Judd and Cousins left.

2008 was not pencilled in as a dedicated 'development year'. If it was, where were the blooded youngsters in Rd 1? 2008 has become a 'development year' because we have been shite.

Wow I can't believe it, some sense at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Slipper]

offer ebert to port for pettigrew and cassisi

 

[greennick]

offer ebert to port for pettigrew and cassisi

I think we would rather Ebert. We will not be trading any of our recent draft picks out of choice.

 

[pigeon26]

I've got 1 question for you eagles supporters.

Where is Scott Selwood?
Have heard good things about him and what he has played 1 or 2 games. You would think if you are gonna give the kids ago like davis, houlihan and others why does he not get a game

 

[archiemoses]

Well, who are we seriously going to offer during trade week?

We won't trade Cox, Glass or Kerr. Or any of our recent draftees.

I suppose people think we're going to get top 30 picks with Seaby, Staker and Fletcher?

People say, "we should trade for high picks", but probably don't want to part with the cattle required to get them.

Do you want to offer Beau Waters? That would fetch something, but that kind of suggestion would be pretty unpopular.

If people are serious about loading up on high draft picks, they need to come around to the idea of offering something they don't necessarily want to give up.

Well these are the hard decisions that have to be made Gunnar. Besides Cox, Glass or Kerr, there are no other players on our list that would individually command a high draft pick.

I think maybe we should focus on packaging a few players possibly to Melbourne. They are in the market for a ruckmen and key forwards. Maybe package Seaby and McKinley for a potential pick around 10. Considering the Dees gave us pick 29 for Paul Johnson, who was a hack and the fringe of fringe players on our list, I think the Dees would definately consider it, provided they have a pick in that range.

 

[Vigour]

...
CORE PLAYERS IMO
Glass, Kerr, Cox, Bones, A.Selwood, Waters, Kennedy, Lecras, Lynch, Masten, Wirrapanda and Ebert.
FRINGE PLAYERS and ROOKIES IMO
Brown, Butler, Houlihan, MacKenzie, McGinnity, McNamara, Notte, Priddis, Rosa, Schofield, S.Selwood, Thomson and Spangher.
POSSIBLE TRADES if not Keep.
Embley, *Hurn, Butler, Hunter, *Hansen, Seaby, C.Jones, *B.Mckinley, B.Staker and Stenglein
DEFINENT TRADE OR DELIST/RETIRE
Armstrong, Braun, Fletcher, Nicoski, Graham.
.....

this is interesting but a bit of an overreaction IMO.


I don't think Hansen or Hurn are going anywhere unless an "overvalue" offer was received. assuming that other clubs are realistic re value of players (yes, insert comment re Freo here) then really the most likely players up for trade are:

• Seaby;
• Staker;
• Nicoski; &
• Graham (though I'd rather keep him on the list as he offers some versatility).

and those destined for retirement/delisting appear to be:

• Fletcher;
• Braun; &
• Armstrong. (assuming Wirra can go around another year).

If we ended up with 5 or 6 draft choices, that'd be great.

 

[Prem87]

We'll these are the hard decisions that have to be made Gunnar. Besides Cox, Glass or Kerr, There are no other players on our list that would individually command a high draft pick.

I think maybe we should focus on packaging a few players possibly to Melbourne. They are in the market for a ruckmen and key forwards. Maybe package Seaby and McKinley for a potential pick around 10. Considering the Dees gave us pick 29 for Paul Johnson, who was a hack and the fringe of fringe players on our list, I think the Dees would definately consider it, provided they have a pick in that range.

We should be trying to deal with the Saints to get their Pick 9-11. Seaby + Staker/Pick 18 or something like that. I think we could pull it off, we have a good history trading with the Saints fairly.

Pick 2 + 10 + 20 would be very nice. Rich Yarran Swift

 

[greennick]

and those destined for retirement/delisting appear to be:

• Fletcher;
• Braun; &
• Armstrong. (assuming Wirra can go around another year).

I don't think the book is closed on Armstrong just yet. Worsfold seems to like him and I think he may be given a decent run through the middle in the next few months.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah - what's your point?

If we were travelling well and playing finals, we'd be fielding a different side. But we're not, so development has become the priority.

No kidding.

That is my point.

Some people like to make out that 2008 was set aside as a 'development year', and that sitting at 2-12 is all part of a grand plan to have us shoot back up the ladder in 2009/10. It might help them feel better about themselves, but it simply isn't true.

2008 has been an abject failure - pure and simple. We finished top 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and it was clearly the aim for 2008. For a number of reasons we fell in a massive hole, and some youngsters are getting a run in place of under-performing senior and fringe players, in order to show what they've going forward.

 

[greennick]

We should be trying to deal with the Saints to get their Pick 9-11. Seaby + Staker/Pick 18 or something like that. I think we could pull it off, we have a good history trading with the Saints fairly.

Pick 2 + 10 + 20 would be very nice. Rich Yarran Swift

I don't think the Saints would be interested in that. Their main issues are around midfielders right now, not KPP. They need a few tough as nut midfielders to enact Lyon's game plan.

Unfortunately it seems that last year was the year to go for trading Seaby and Staker. This year, I think we would get a lot less love for both.

 

[Vigour]

I don't think the book is closed on Armstrong just yet. Worsfold seems to like him and I think he may be given a decent run through the middle in the next few months.

yes, fair comment - the problem with the players I nominated for delisting is that they are all smaller mids, so although Masten, Priddis, McNamara, Kerr all fulfill that role, and Lecras the small forward with Wirra occasionally doing that also, that may save Armstrong if he can perform over the next few months. If Armstrong stays, IMO Nicoski's place is precarious if they can't trade him (don't know his contract status though).

 

[greennick]

That is my point.

Some people like to make out that 2008 was set aside as a 'development year', and that sitting at 2-12 is all part of a grand plan to have us shoot back up the ladder in 2009/10. It might help them feel better about themselves, but it simply isn't true.

2008 has been an abject failure - pure and simple. We finished top 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and it was clearly the aim for 2008. For a number of reasons we fell in a massive hole, and some youngsters are getting a run in place of under-performing senior and fringe players, in order to show what they've going forward.

Scotland, I normally agree with you, however I don't think anyone was saying that this year was "set aside" as a development year. I think what people have been saying (including the OP) is that this is a development year and we are rebuilding. I think that is Gunnar's point. Obviously if we were not shit this would not be a "development year" and we would not be "rebuilding". However, we are and it is, so what is your point?