Seymour, Warfe bait

**liz** · 16 October 2003, 02:45 AM

Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by Will Sangster

I was under the impression that they were contracted for another season which would make delisting impossible

You can delist contracted players but have to include their contracted salaries in the salary cap (and pay them the money, too!)

Would be surprised if they delisted Seymour - if he can get himself fit he'd probably still command a place in the best 22.

**caj23** · 16 October 2003, 02:55 AM

yeah, probably wouldn't take the herald sun as gospel anyway, especially with all of the ****e that is being spouted this week!!

**stellation** · 16 October 2003, 06:52 AM

Re: Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by lizz
You can delist contracted players but have to include their contracted salaries in the salary cap (and pay them the money, too!)

Pardon my ignorance here, but would doing that free up senior places to promote rookies? Or is that not the way seniors lists work... or if that is the way, do the two delisted players still count?

**Reggi** · 16 October 2003, 07:13 AM

The salary of contracted players counts - if you de-list them they are off the list.

To do well you need durable players - sadly for Bradley is past 5 or so have shown that is not the case - sad to see him go but that is the way it is

**TheHood** · 16 October 2003, 08:10 AM

All 3 are favourite sons of the club but I feel like the game has passed them all by.

Nicksy's first q against Port was his first glimpse of talent for a year and a half. Not enough sadly.

Seymour Butts has go the injury bug and just not fit enough for a Roos team.

Warfey? Well Warfey, great bloke but does not possess the talent, speed or endurance.

**penga** · 16 October 2003, 08:31 AM

according to that article, seymour has asked to be traded... that boggles me, i thought that he could still demand a spot when fit, and its not as though he was kept out of the team all year by lack of opportunities... im confused

**swan_song** · 16 October 2003, 08:44 AM

That surprised me too, but I take anything the HS says about "interstate" teams with a large pinch of salt...
And Bradley has just been made a life member of the swans too!!!!
I have no problem with trading all three, if it benefits the club in its search for a premiership, the trouble being that does it? Maybe, maybe not.
Bradley is a good player and surely deserves a spot on the list to overcome his injuries over summer and put in a strong preseason. I think he's still got what it takes.....the Lieutenant has had some great games, but I'm not convinced about his judgment or his penchant to give away frees in the backline...Nicksie, well, he has only shown occasional flashes for almost two seasons...for Nicksie, it may be better for him to start afresh at another club...

**footyhead** · 16 October 2003, 09:59 AM

Re: Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by lizz

Would be surprised if they delisted Seymour - if he can get himself fit he'd probably still command a place in the best 22. [/B]

Don't know how you can assume this Lizz, I mean based on what ?? His form and style of play in the 97 Swans team ?? That was a long long time ago as was the last time any of us saw a decent game from B.Seymor in the 1sts at the Swans.
Moreover the team has changed considerablly in it's attitude and style of play in the last two years and to think that Brad would make the best 22 in a very confidant and very fast young team which made the Preliminary final in 2003 is a little bit to positive a call on the part of Brad's current potential and a little to pessamistic a call on the part of the young talent waiting in the wings.
No - Seymor is a liability now , lets keep playing the kids. He has had his shot.

***NMWBloods*** · 16 October 2003, 10:27 AM

Re: Re: Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by footyhead
Don't know how you can assume this Lizz, I mean based on what ??

I think it's a fair assumption that he would be close to making the 22. After all, this year despite missing all season he slotted back into the side for rd 22 and the QF as soon as he was fit enough. Just unfortunate enough to be injured against Port.

No - Seymor is a liability now , lets keep playing the kids. He has had his shot.

Strongly disagree he is a liability. He is still a fine defender - the only question mark are his injuries, which have plagued him for a while. He'll be 28 next year, which is not exactly over the hill, and we don't have too many tough gritty back pockets like him. Not everyone in our side needs to be fast!!

**liz** · 16 October 2003, 11:15 AM

Re: Re: Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by footyhead
Don't know how you can assume this Lizz, I mean based on what ??

Not sure I made an "assumption" per se - merely a suggestion that he's probably still in our better players when fit. At the very worst he would be good back-up for the inevitable injuries (other than him).

What he would bring to the backline is a bit of "grunt". We have some very capable players down there, but both Schaubs and B2 strike me as "nice" and quite introverted in the way they play footy. Leo and Tadhg provide the flair and run but we do lack someone back there to really take it up to the opposition. I think there is a role for a Seymour type back there. Whether he's still up to it, who knows. But as NMW pointed out, Roos didn't hestitate in bringing him into the team for the finals.

**Roscoe** · 16 October 2003, 12:21 PM

Mark Powell is our future hard man in the backline

Snapper was one of my favourite players, but injuries over the past 4 years means he is taking up somebody's place on the list

at 28 it is best we trade or delist him

he has said he wants to be traded anyway

good luck for the future Brad, you deseve another chance elsewhere and a bit of luck with your injuries

**Rob-bloods** · 16 October 2003, 12:46 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Seymour, Warfe bait

Originally posted by lizz

What he would bring to the backline is a bit of "grunt". We have some very capable players down there, but both Schaubs and B2 strike me as "nice" and quite introverted in the way they play footy. Leo and Tadhg provide the flair and run but we do lack someone back there to really take it up to the opposition. I think there is a role for a Seymour type back there. Whether he's still up to it, who knows. But as NMW pointed out, Roos didn't hestitate in bringing him into the team for the finals.

We need grunt yes, but we cannot win Finals matches with most of our defenders under 190 cm, whether we add grunt or not. We need better balance in our backline quite simply, we need to add both grunt and height, not necessarily in the same body.

Look if we cannot fill particular needs, we may need to trade good players at times, all this banter regarding trading at times is utter garbage, we may well need to trade good players out at times, because thats the way football is today, we are out to win a premiership, not run 'playing coterie groups'.

**boroboy** · 16 October 2003, 01:01 PM

I was, and am to a certain extent a fan of Seymours. Putting aside injuries, I believe his lack of form can be traced back to Eades last full season in charge. He, like many others was struggling in a period where the team was managed by fear. I clearly remember a couple of games where he was dragged at the SCG after making two horrendous clangers that ended up in goals and provoked some serious booing from the crowd - he never seemed to regain his confidence after that and injuries compounded the issue. Upto that point he was solid for us and being made an example of for a couple of costly errors obviously has had a long lasting impact (seperate thread but I will never understand the mentality in dragging players).

Does he have the talent to perform as a top shelf defender - no doubt. Can he get his confidence back under Roos - unquestionably. Can he remain fit and provide a solid 20 games per season - doubtful.

It's a hard one - I'd say it's a 50/50 call.....

**BAM_BAM** · 16 October 2003, 01:39 PM

I'd like to see him stay. If he stays injury free he'd be strong in the backline.

Maybe he has asked to be traded as a result of being told he was to be delisted. Or perhaps his wife's business in Melbourne means they need to devote more time there and not here.

Yes we got by without him almost all year, but IMO with him it would be a bonus.

Seymour, Warfe bait

Seymour, Warfe bait

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment