Another Way to View Trades

[ugg]

Hunt is already a rookie listed player, so his departure won't count.

[Mark]

Originally posted by chammond
Absolutely right!

If the Swans are looking for a top 50 player(s), then it's no use offering fringe players like Ablett for trade. We will need to lose one of our top ten players (not counting the older ones) plus a high draft pick . . . maybe Saddington, Kennelly, Schneider, Bolton or even O'Keefe?

WHAT !! I will add this to my 'absolutely stupid' trade ideas catalogue.

Fortunately the club are just extending Boltons contract and Kennelly, Schneider and O'keefe recently re-signed.

I think Barry Hall could be trade bait to get us a beat up hack of a tall KPP to bolster our crap defence though !

Some of this cr@p is incredible

[penga]

Originally posted by robbieando
bring in one key defender from another club via a trade

again, why?

[chammond]

Originally posted by Mark
WHAT !! I will add this to my 'absolutely stupid' trade ideas catalogue.

Fortunately the club are just extending Boltons contract and Kennelly, Schneider and O'keefe recently re-signed.

I think Barry Hall could be trade bait to get us a beat up hack of a tall KPP to bolster our crap defence though !

Some of this cr@p is incredible

Oh well done . . . four sentences without one coherent idea . . . whether or not some players have signed contracts is irrelevant when trade time comes around.

Why not pretend you're a grown up and put up some of your own ideas for discussion? I promise I won't call them crap . . .

[chammond]

Originally posted by ugg
Hunt is already a rookie listed player, so his departure won't count.

We can only have a limited number of rookies, which means that if we are going to shuffle senior players onto the rookie list, we will have to make sure there is room for them.

From that perspective, delisting Hunt does matter.

[ugg]

Yes, good point. Which other rookies would you punt though (assuming Bevan gets promoted) ? Would we draft any new rookies? And we may have to watch for other teams 'poaching' these players we want to move from the senior to rookie list.

[Captain]

Originally posted by penga
again, why?

So that we don't have to play rebounding half back flankers at full back

[Mark]

Originally posted by chammond
Oh well done . . . four sentences without one coherent idea . . . whether or not some players have signed contracts is irrelevant when trade time comes around.

Why not pretend you're a grown up and put up some of your own ideas for discussion? I promise I won't call them crap . . .

Feel free to call any of the following crap, i believe that is what discussions boards are about "discussion" if crap offends you, well you should get out more

here is my idea seeing as you asked;

WE DO NOT TRADE Kennelly, Schneider and O'keefe !

Why, because the years of preparatory work is now coming to fruition and all three of them (injuries barring) look like they will be very usefull (at the least) long term AFL prospects.

Kennelly (along with Leo) is at the heart of our 'running off the backline' which is a key to our style of play.

O'Keefe (along with Hall) currently provides our first target up forward by constantly making hard leads up the ground. Does this all game and is poossibly our most improved player on the list. He also has size, motor and body shape to turn into a very useful midfield option, and i could go on

Schneider, up until his injury was considered to be one of the best "finds" in the league for a good few years. He kicked 30 odd goals in his first full season as well as contributing with clever hand skills. He consistently held the ball in the forward line, using his speed and tackling ability.

Your right, lets get rid of them in the hope of getting a decent KPP, these blokes are crap !!!!!

[ugg]

You can't hope to bunch a couple of fringe players and/or late draft picks in the hope of getting a 'gun' player. If Roosy is adamant that we need a quality defender or midfielder I'm afraid we may have to lose one of our up-and-coming stars.

[Captain]

Couldn't agree with you more Mark.

If he doesn't agree with something he thinks it's crap.

[Mark]

Originally posted by ugg
You can't hope to bunch a couple of fringe players and/or late draft picks in the hope of getting a 'gun' player. If Roosy is adamant that we need a quality defender or midfielder I'm afraid we may have to lose one of our up-and-coming stars.

You are right and i dont dispute that.

What you dont do is trade away the future of your club and that is what we would be doing if we traded Kennelly, schneider and O'Keefe. That would be stupidity plain and simple !

Fortunately, I have faith in the club and Roos to not even contemplate such a ridiculous suggestion !

I could be talking crap though !

And sorry, but the Bolton option is just laughable

[ugg]

Kennelly and Schneider I'm pretty sure are offlimits. Kennelly would probably quit the game and go back home if he was traded and Schneider being a NSW boy and a very marketable player would make him untradable. O'Keefe has been continually linked to go back hom to Melbourne, but of course we don't know how true those rumours are. It seems our main trade baits at the moment are Fosdike and Saddington IMO.

[penga]

Originally posted by Captain
So that we don't have to play rebounding half back flankers at full back

schauble has been labelled a few things in the past - but that is a new one!

[Mark]

Assume you are joking, but in case not, that is the role that Leo has effectively been playing in Schaubles absence.

So, the original comment does have merit

You may think we dont need another tall down back when Schaubs is fit and our defensive record would back you up. However, we have struggled to match up tall foward lines ala Richmond and Hawthorn in the past and Roos has consistently made mention of needing another tall.

However, i dont think some of the stupid suggestions on who to trade are worth considering !

[penga]

Originally posted by Mark
Assume you are joking, but in case not, that is the role that Leo has effectively been playing in Schaubles absence.

i do realise this, but for some stupid reason, people keep thinking that schauble has retired or something!