A trade for Seaby

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Melbourne_Blood
    Senior Player
    • May 2010
    • 3312

    A trade for Seaby

    So its become pretty apparent that Seaby is not in our plans for the future,or the present for that matter. I think the games he has played for us in both 2010 and 2011 have been pretty good, some of them exceptional. Enough to suggest he would be the target of some teams looking for a number 1 ruck in the trade period.

    So assuming we do put him up for trade, what do we think we can expect to gain in a trade for him ? Just to get the ball rolling, lets say the Tigers and GWS are interested.
  • Swanner
    On the Rookie List
    • Mar 2006
    • 186

    #2
    i say keep him

    Originally posted by Melbourne_Blood
    So its become pretty apparent that Seaby is not in our plans for the future,or the present for that matter. I think the games he has played for us in both 2010 and 2011 have been pretty good, some of them exceptional. Enough to suggest he would be the target of some teams looking for a number 1 ruck in the trade period.

    So assuming we do put him up for trade, what do we think we can expect to gain in a trade for him ? Just to get the ball rolling, lets say the Tigers and GWS are interested.
    i reckon' he is on our list so we should keep him. mummy gets injured or suspended we have a great backup. Can play forward too so a real keeper.

    Having ruck depth is good ... just delist Currie who's hasn't cracked it.

    Comment

    • aardvark
      Veterans List
      • Mar 2010
      • 5685

      #3
      Originally posted by Swanner
      i reckon' he is on our list so we should keep him. mummy gets injured or suspended we have a great backup. Can play forward too so a real keeper.

      Having ruck depth is good ... just delist Currie who's hasn't cracked it.
      I agree. With Pyke 27, Seaby 27, and Currie still a maybe, our ruck stocks could become thin very quickly.

      Comment

      • Bloody Hell
        Senior Player
        • Oct 2006
        • 3085

        #4
        Originally posted by Swanner
        i reckon' he is on our list so we should keep him. mummy gets injured or suspended we have a great backup. Can play forward too so a real keeper.

        Having ruck depth is good ... just delist Currie who's hasn't cracked it.
        I'd keep him as well, but doubt he'd want to play ther rest of his career in the reserves hoping that Mumford goes down. Would slot into a number of teams.

        Was bought to the club in good faith, but the sub rule has screwed him.
        The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.

        Comment

        • swanspant12
          On the Rookie List
          • Oct 2009
          • 593

          #5
          exactly mate, having ruck depth is good. look at richmond, tiges dont have one good ruckman and trust me their crying out for a seaby! hes been great seaby, especially against richmond possible BOG and still gets dropped. gotta feel for the bloke and his confidence seriously. also if mummy goes down, without seaby who would we have to back us up?
          LRT. Lord Roberts-Thompson. He may look like the Munster, but looks can be deceiving.


          2012 Bloods Premiers.

          Comment

          • liz
            Veteran
            Site Admin
            • Jan 2003
            • 16760

            #6
            I could understand it if Seaby wanted to leave if a club whispered in his ear that they would play him as first ruck. He is too competent a ruckman to be playing in Canberra each week. From the Swans' point of view, they would be daft to trade him for the sake of trading him because he is a very good back-up to Mumford and our game style requires a decent ruckman. So I imagine that a trade might only happen if a club decides they really want him and are prepared to offer at the trade table something the Swans really want / need to improve the list in other areas.

            Comment

            • Melbourne_Blood
              Senior Player
              • May 2010
              • 3312

              #7
              I think, when fit, Pyke is viewed as the number 2 . Seaby is too good to be playing in the Reserves waiting for an injury, and I'm sure he'd appreciate an oppurtunity. So back to the original question......

              Comment

              • ernie koala
                Senior Player
                • May 2007
                • 3251

                #8
                He came to the Swans looking to be the No.1 ruckman...that obviously hasn't happened.
                I reckon he'll ask to be traded....
                ...and I would think he's a monty to end up at GWS....guaranteed No.1 ruckman and plenty of cash.
                Hopefully for a second round pick
                Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

                Comment

                • Bloody Hell
                  Senior Player
                  • Oct 2006
                  • 3085

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Melbourne_Blood
                  I think, when fit, Pyke is viewed as the number 2 . Seaby is too good to be playing in the Reserves waiting for an injury, and I'm sure he'd appreciate an oppurtunity. So back to the original question......
                  GWS would be a first round pick.

                  Richmond...the only thing I want from Richmond is Jack Reiwoldt, and would give a bit to get him.

                  The other one is Melbourne, who would have more to trade than Richmond would be willing to let go of.
                  The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.

                  Comment

                  • Melbourne_Blood
                    Senior Player
                    • May 2010
                    • 3312

                    #10
                    Melbourne have Gawn, Martin and Jamar, they wont be trading for Seaby.

                    Comment

                    • S120
                      On the Rookie List
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 166

                      #11
                      I'd be happy for Seaby to move on if we can get a good deal for him. We gave up a decent draft pick for him, his value has surely risen since he has arrived at the Swans. With numerous clubs in serious need for a strong, experienced ruckman, I'd only be giving him up for a good deal. Having Seabs and Pyke to back up Mummy is only a good thing so I'd be happy to hold onto both of them (Currie is surely gone at the end of this year) unless an exceptional deal is put in front of us.

                      Comment

                      • Bloody Hell
                        Senior Player
                        • Oct 2006
                        • 3085

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Melbourne_Blood
                        Melbourne have Gawn, Martin and Jamar, they wont be trading for Seaby.
                        I watched their last couple of games, and their rucks were a main source of their problems.

                        Haven't seen Jamar for a while - but I think he's back this week? I also heard that Port (who with the retirement of Brogan are short on rucks) were going to make a big play to bring him home to Adelaide via free agency.
                        The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.

                        Comment

                        • laughingnome
                          Amateur Statsman
                          • Jul 2006
                          • 1624

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Bloody Hell
                          GWS would be a first round pick.
                          Too right. They blooming have enough.
                          10100111001 ;-)

                          Comment

                          • wolftone57
                            Veterans List
                            • Aug 2008
                            • 5851

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Bloody Hell
                            I watched their last couple of games, and their rucks were a main source of their problems.

                            Haven't seen Jamar for a while - but I think he's back this week? I also heard that Port (who with the retirement of Brogan are short on rucks) were going to make a big play to bring him home to Adelaide via free agency.
                            Being Port Adelaide is the main source of their problem. The AFL should have known better than to invite one of the SANFL clubs to join the AFL. The other 8 clubs hate Port and that is at least 80 to 90% of the population so they only have a very small supporter base. On an South Australian football level they have a large support base something like Collingwood in a per centa basis but on an AFL level that will never cut it. No-one else in SA is going to follow them ause they are as hated if not more than Collingwood, probably more. Therefore they find it hard to get members and sponsors and therefore no money for players and players don't want to stay at a club that is broke just ask Paul Roos and Alister Lynch. He could go there as the AFL have propped them up for a couple of years but what happens after that?

                            Comment

                            • R-1
                              Senior Player
                              • Aug 2005
                              • 1042

                              #15
                              One thing Port don't need right now is more ruckmen. Lobbe Stewart and Trengove aren't brilliant, but they offer something to work with and shouldn't be Port's big priority right now.

                              As for the existential question, Port's as viable as the Kangas and the Dogs. Moreso, really.

                              They have more members than we do and their crowds used to be plenty good. Their problems are not existential. It's a combination of their current terrible onfield state (result of a few years of bad recruiting and some questionable coaching staff choices), their worst-in-the-league stadium deal, the SANFL bleeding both AFL clubs to prop up the local league, and an awful windswept ground in the middle of nowhere which nobody wants to go to any more.

                              Once they abandon Footy Park for Adelaide Oval (an infinitely superior ground in an infinitely superior location) and their form starts to improve their crowds will pick up again, certainly enough to keep them viable.
                              Last edited by R-1; 12 August 2011, 10:18 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...