Trading talk thread

[stellation]

A C+ for Sydney but a B for Carlton?

[cruiser]

According to the Herald Sun, our trading efforts rated a C+

Trade week report card | Herald Sun

Really dumb ratings. Gives Brisbane an A+ for really going at it but only a C+ for Sydney even though we were also just as active? And the Dogs get an A for picking up an ageing, volatile thug? Stupid.

[Lucky Knickers]

Really dumb ratings. Gives Brisbane an A+ for really going at it but only a C+ for Sydney even though we were also just as active? And the Dogs get an A for picking up an ageing, volatile thug? Stupid.

Ridiculous isn't it! What a clown.

[Primmy]

Ridiculous isn't it! What a clown.

Exactly my thoughts. Why on earth do we take the word of fairly nonsydneycentric journalists to heart. They are obviously pretty thick. they also laughed at us for taking on Shaw. Nya Nya is my sophisticated Sydney type reply. Dumb and Dumber.

[Jewels]

Really dumb ratings. Gives Brisbane an A+ for really going at it but only a C+ for Sydney even though we were also just as active? And the Dogs get an A for picking up an ageing, volatile thug? Stupid.

I thought the A for Hawthorn was the most bizarre, I thought their trading was dreadful.

[doctor swan]

kind of riduculous the ratings , i think and yes i am biased we did the best trading over the week. all four players recruited will be in the ones next yr and mumford in 2-3 yrs will be one of the top ruckman in the comp. seaby will be serviceable if not better and the hawk recruits are gargain and will be the shaw trades of 09. they ll come back and bite the hawks ahhhh couldnt happen to a nicer club not.
i think the hawks had the poorest trade week and as for port noone wants to go there.
i say an Aplus for our trades and thanks for no fevola. let the lions worry abt him.

[annew]

Not to mention they never really rate our players until they leave Sydney.

[goswannie14]

Exactly my thoughts. Why on earth do we take the word of fairly nonsydneycentric journalists to heart. They are obviously pretty thick. they also laughed at us for taking on Shaw. Nya Nya is my sophisticated Sydney type reply. Dumb and Dumber.

I continue to wonder about that myself. Why do so many people on this site take anything that football journalists say at any time seriously?????

[573v30]

A C+ is a joke of a rating considering how active we were in the trade week this time around. Our only big loss was Jolly but we've been compensated with Seaby and Mumford, Hall stopped playing for us after Round 13 and Buchanan was a liability for most of this year (when he was in the side). We also picked up Kennedy and McGlynn from the Hawks not to mention a 1st Round draft pick (now we have 2) and we're given a C+???

[Bloods05]

I continue to wonder about that myself. Why do so many people on this site take anything that football journalists say at any time seriously?????

Especially the freaking Herald-Sun for Christ's sake. Their overall standard of journalism is abysmal, and their sports journos are the worst. Just don't read it.

[Go Swannies]

My apologies Paul Roos. I now believe that you were telling the truth when you said that you had no interest in Fev but that would only be believed come 2pm Friday. It turns out, not even then.

Somehow we're crap at trading even though we were flat out all week. Got something for Baz who we'd sacked and did the right thing by a player who wanted to leave. Picked up another first round pick and used our financial muscle to get Mumford and didn't pay too much for two players who may turn out to be great to for us. That sounds like A+ to me.

I wonder if those rating will be changed if Baz is on report after R1 and Fev is in gaol?

Personally, I don't mind discussing being a Swans supporter with non-footy people because I can say they are an admirable team and group of people. Even Baz only embarassed himself with his short fuse. If I supported a team that had the Cousins (now Chick!) episodes or had (or took on) Fev or, heaven forbid, the Milne and Montagna episode I doubt I could present my anti-NRL argument so convincingly.

I think we took on Spida because we thought we could tame him - and we did. And I think we didn't aim for Fev because we thought we couldn't. Imagine the Sydney papers today if we had, after yesterday's revelations were front page in Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne today! But somehow we failed because we said we weren't going for Fev and then didn't get him. D'oh.

[Robbo]

I think we are being slightly hypocritical. Nobody rated Seaby on this board but now we've got him he's suddenly a good player.

[goswannie14]

I think we are being slightly hypocritical. Nobody rated Seaby on this board but now we've got him he's suddenly a good player.

I neither rated him well or badly. He was just a player from another club.

[BSA5]

I think we are being slightly hypocritical. Nobody rated Seaby on this board but now we've got him he's suddenly a good player.

He's not a great player. But to get him for a downgrade of pick 22 to pick 28 is a pretty decent deal. He'll be serviceable, maybe even good, but most importantly, he has the experience and fitness to hold down first ruck. Sure, he might not be great at it, I'd suggest his ceiling is fairly low, but if he can spend 60% of each game rucking, Mumford 40%, then structurally speaking he will be very, very valuable.

Now, if we still had Jolly, Seaby would be largely redundant. But we don't, and recruiting Seaby, in the context of losing Jolly, is a great move: he's a player who will be very cheap (as he turned out to be), but can be more or less serviceable playing very good minutes as a ruckman.

[Rob-bloods]

I think we are being slightly hypocritical. Nobody rated Seaby on this board but now we've got him he's suddenly a good player.

In fairness this is not the place to come for consistent, reasoned, football commentary.

Seaby is surely very similar to Jolly in that he has always played second fiddle at his club and at his age is a good pickup. He is an ideal 'second chance' player for us.