A trade for Seaby

[sprite]

He's too good to be playing reserves every week, but I would be sad to see him go. People seem to forget that he was actually ahead of Mumford at the start of 2010 and was playing exceptionally well before he broke his ankle against Brisbane in about round 5. He has been very good for us in the games he has played in 2011 aswell, and if it wasn't for the new sub rule he would still be in the side.

Clearly a better overall player than Pyke, and I would be worried if we lost Seaby and Pyke became our 2nd ruckman.

+1

[GongSwan]

Freo might be looking for a ruckman if Sandi can't get rid of his toe jam, few youngsters there to pick from

[SimonH]

For a surprise, have a look at the last couple of paras of this piece.

Ruckman Daniel Currie?s injured foot hasn?t progressed over the last week and he is unlikely to feature again in 2011.

?We?re letting him now just work on his injuries and get ready for the off-season,? Cameron said.

Implying that he's got an ongoing spot on the Swans' list? Borderline bizarre. I say that as one who would have dearly loved to see Dan Currie make it. But unless the Swans have got some inside mail on the AFL reverting to a pre-2011 interchange rule in 2012, us keeping him would be only a slightly smaller surprise than us re-drafting Heath James.

The other alternative is that it's a little in-joke, and he actually means 'the long, long off-season, AKA the rest of your life'.

[BSA5]

For a surprise, have a look at the last couple of paras of this piece.

Implying that he's got an ongoing spot on the Swans' list? Borderline bizarre. I say that as one who would have dearly loved to see Dan Currie make it. But unless the Swans have got some inside mail on the AFL reverting to a pre-2011 interchange rule in 2012, us keeping him would be only a slightly smaller surprise than us re-drafting Heath James.

The other alternative is that it's a little in-joke, and he actually means 'the long, long off-season, AKA the rest of your life'.

That or the physio just didn't want to imply Currie would probably be delisted on the club's website, since that would be a little bit rough on him.

[ugg]

or maybe the fact that the physio would have little idea about the contract status of players.

[Auntie.Gerald]

does anyone remember what pick etc that we gave West Coast for Seabs to join us ?

[Nich]

does anyone remember what pick etc that we gave West Coast for Seabs to join us ?

It was a complicated (for me anyway) trade involving Brisbane Lions and Amon Buchanan as well as Brent Staker and numerous picks from all teams involved.

At it's most simplest level we gave them Amon and Picks #22 and #118 for Seaby and picks #55 and #28. #55 was TDL and #28 was Mitch Duncan who we gave up to Geelong for the big Mummy!

Apart from the Mummy trade I still can't believe we got Benny Mac and Joey for #39, #46 and #70. Great work by the Swans.

Although I'm sure the Pies think the same with getting Jolly for Jetta and Stratton at #46 who was involved in the Hawthorn trade, and likewise with Barry for the Dogs for #47. I guess Jolly wanted to go and Barry had to go which was the difference there. Not sure from memory if Benny and Joey really wanted to leave or not?

[Kirkari]

or maybe the fact that the physio would have little idea about the contract status of players.

Or his offseason will be somewhere else and they want at least to let him go injury free.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

It's a tough one because the AFL are so unpredictable with how they go about their rules and changes. Next year they may well decide to go with 4 on the bench and a sub in which case a true second ruck may well again become fashionable.

I agree.
We grabbed Seaby because at the time 2 ruckman were seen as a necessity to win a premiership. Then the AFL changed the rule (yet again without trialling it properly: what a pack of amateurs!) and all of a sudden the demand for ruckmen declines.

I'd keep Seaby as insuarance, because . . .

1) There may be several ruckmen shopped around this trade season because of this, it may become a buyers market.

2) While the AFL would never admit that they made a mistake, or reverse a bad decision. I wouldn't trust the them not to change the interchange rules again.

3) There are too many injury concerns with Currie (shades of Stephen Doyle?) and I'm not sure about relying on Moose in the ruck.

Lastly and most importantly . . .

4) Trading with GWS is a very bad idea! Sheedy runs GWS! We must never ever do another trade with Sheedy! He will simply hypnotise our negotiators yet again. If we were lucky we would end up swapping Seaby and our first two draft choices for a sight-impaired 17 year old transexual with a limp! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

[Triple B]

If we were lucky we would end up swapping Seaby and our first two draft choices for a sight-impaired 17 year old transexual with a limp!

...who will no doubt enjoy becoming the new RWO whipping boy.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

And even if we did sell Seaby for a handfull of Mr Sheedy's magic beans. . .
I don't think we shouldn't wast a high draft pick on a young ruckman, we'd do much better to Rookie list one (that's how Jolly, Jamar, Cox, Hudson and the Mummy got into the AFL).

[Legs Akimbo]

.

4) Trading with GWS is a very bad idea! Sheedy runs GWS! We must never ever do another trade with Sheedy! He will simply hypnotise our negotiators yet again. If we were lucky we would end up swapping Seaby and our first two draft choices for a sight-impaired 17 year old transexual with a limp! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

I think you are getting confused with Will MINSON.

[Nico]

Transexual? That is a distinct possibility. It is Sydney. I don't Sheedy is silly enough to put one up with a limp though.

[Scottee]

Whatever happens, GWS are the front runners and we re probably best able to do deals that suit both sides agendas. Seaby is probably about middle of the field as first rucks go, certainly no slouch. He is able to dominate lesser ruckmen as he did against Richmond. He is also capable of getting 20+ possessions around the ground and of moving forward and kicking goals.

GWS will not want to start off by losing games by big margins because they have too many players that lack experience so an experienced ruckman who can play for a few years is important to them.
In addition, it would be attractive to Seaby because he could move clubs without moving house. The Sydney bonus payment would also apply I presume.

The same could also apply to other players who are "stiff" atm, in terms of not getting a game (Moore and Bevan). This is not a bad package for GWS, experienced players (Bevan's hardness, Moore"s on-field leadership) and minimal disruption/reduced costs.Allows the club to put up decent performances early on until the high quality young talent starts to come through.

A low first round and high second round pick would suit us nicely. We could get a quality project ruckman and a good young potential mid-sized backman to fill the gaps we will have in the next couple of years. Maybe I'm dreamin' but it sounds like a good 2 way deal to me.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Maybe I'm dreamin' but it sounds like a good 2 way deal to me.

That's the danger, Sheedy's deals always sound good but we always get the spiky end of the pineapple.